Stand Your Ground or Duty to Retreat

[spin]

24. I disagree with your comment that ...

thus......no way that "stand-your-ground" makes any sense.None. A silly argument and ...BANG.....somebody's on the autopsy table.

I believe that we both are similar in the sense that neither one of us wants to find ourselves in a "silly argument" that could lead to violence.

If I ever find myself in a situation where I am having a discussion with another individual and he appears to be getting angry, I will simply break off the conversation before any violence occurs. It's not that hard to simply say to another person, "We have different views and I feel that you have made some good points that I will have to consider." You never will convince anyone to change his views by yelling or shouting at him and often even rational and polite discussions prove fruitless. Why waste your time especially if a fight might occur?

The "Stand Your Ground" law should never permit you to start an argument, allow it to escalate and then claim that you were in fear and therefore had reason to use lethal force. Many legal experts have said that Zimmerman had no reason to claim that he was standing his ground in the Martin shooting based on the available evidence. Still Zimmerman deserves his day in court and I'm glad to see that all the media attention resulted in his arrest.

Of course, there may be times when walking away from an argument may make you look like a coward. If you have self confidence then the opinions of others are irrelevant. A truly brave individual should have no reason to prove his courage to others especially if he is carrying a lethal weapon.

I found an interview on MSNBC with the co-sponsor of the "Stand Your Ground" law, Dennis Baxley, to be informative and worth watching.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/46811800

If you find yourself attacked by an individual who intends to put you in the hospital for an extended time or six feet under and has the capacity to do it, you should be able to stand your ground and use a reasonable level of force to stop his attack. Retreating may also be a viable option in many situations but may be a poor tactic in others. None of the "tricks" that I learned in martial arts involved first retreating and I have found that it is extremely difficult to shoot accurately with a firearm while stumbling backward. Requiring the duty to retreat may offer a tremendous advantage to your attacker.

The question that should be considered by the legal authorities should not be if you first retreated if possible, but if a reasonable man standing in your shoes would have decided to use the same level of force as you did.


Let's look at some legal history...

Self-defense (United States)

In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force in his or her own defense or the defense of others (see the theoretical background for why this is allowed)

While the definitions vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force. A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury, however a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. Some states also include a duty to retreat (exceptions include Louisiana and Florida), when deadly force may only be used if the person is unable to safely retreat. A person is generally not obligated to retreat if in one's own home in what has been called the castle exception (from the expression "A man's home is his castle&quot .

Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52, is one of the earliest cases to strongly support and establish in U.S. law an individual's right to initiate self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an aggressor.

In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."emphasis added

Notice that this early decision supported "stand your ground" law.

The biggest problem with any case where a person is killed by another individual and self defense is claimed by the survivor is when there are no witnesses. It would be unfair to automatically assume that the person who used lethal force is guilty of manslaughter or murder and in some cases where there is little or no evidence it is impossible for the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A careful review of such cases should be required by a higher level than the local authorities.

I suspect that the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida will be reworded to better clarify how questionable situations are handled. I don't expect the law to be repealed.