Mediaboss Marketing

Stand your ground laws have taken the spotlight in the news lately, in part due to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial in Florida. As a result, some Carolina residents have begun to question the status of North Carolinas stand your ground law.

As of December 1, 2011, citizens of North Carolina had the legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, vehicles and workplace without the duty to retreat. Stand your ground laws exist in at least 25 states in addition to Florida and North Carolina.

These laws, sometimes called Make My Day laws or Shoot First, Ask Questions Later laws cover the extent to which a person can legally go to defend himself or others and the exceptions that apply.

North Carolina stand your ground law is addressed in NCGS 14-51.2 and 14-51.3 and are summarized below:

A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:

The second scenario is sometimes referred as the Castle Doctrine, recognizing that ones home is ones Castle and that you should be able to legally defend yourself and your family when an intruder or trespasser poses a threat.

There are exceptions to the use of deadly force in self-defense against law enforcement officers and bondsmen. However, both must be acting in the lawful performance of their official duties and must identify themselves to you unless you reasonably should know their identity.

Before the enactment of Stand Your Ground statutes, and in states that dont currently have these laws, a person generally has a duty to retreat before being justified in using deadly force against an attacker. Without such statute, if you can avoid confrontation or get away, you must or you will risk criminal prosecution for assault, or depending on the outcome, manslaughter or murder.

A person is also limited to using reasonable force in the absence of a Stand Your Ground law. This means that a person cannot respond with deadly force when faced with non-deadly force such as a punch with a fist.

Until the enactment of these new statutes, the only justifiable use of force in self-defense was the return of the same level of force used against them; for example, a punch for a punch.

North Carolinas Stand Your Ground law removes the duty to retreat and generally allows the use of deadly force when in ones home, car or workplace, under reasonable circumstances. The law presumes that such an invasion gives the occupant the requisite fear required to use deadly force in defense of themselves or their family.

Should you find yourself in a situation in which you are being accused of a crime when you were acting in self-defense, it is important to consult an attorney about your legal options. I am experienced in this area of law and our Raleigh law firm can assist you in protecting your rights. Call 919-615-2473

Protecting your Privacy ~ Your privacy is our primary concern. At Kirk, Kirk, Howell, Cutler & Thomas, LLP., we understand the importance of protecting your privacy and will never share your contact information with a 3rd party. Contacting our law firm does not imply any form of attorney-client relationship.

Continue reading here:
Can You Stand Your Ground in North Carolina? - Kirk Kirk Law

We should be able to protect ourself from any dangers, period. Imagine if a criminal broke into your house with a gun, he aims it at you. While your wife/husband is afraid to take out the madman because she/he could get in trouble, for defending you! I believe it should only be legal if the defender is being threatend ONLY, not tresspassing or stealing, of course this would lead up to killings with an 'innocent' trespasser. But the defense of a family should always come first.

The Second Amendment ensures Americans have the right to defend themselves. "Stand Your Ground" laws, or "castle doctrine" is necessary when authorities and police can't get to your home on time. However, there are limits. Vigilante justice can't be doled out. Protecting property should be defined as someone trespassing on property or threatening someone in a car. Going out and tracking someone down away from your own property is an extreme example of such laws gone horribly wrong.

The stand your ground law is an effective law that when backed up into a corner, you have the right to defend. Given this ability after all chance of avoidance from being pursued has been taken, i believe it should be legal for a man/woman to take matters into his/her own hands and defend their person purely for the matters of survival of their own being and, if able to, stop the pursuer enough to get away from harms way.

My argument is based on law abiding citizens. Anyone who is not a convicted felon has the right to defend themselves in the United States read the Constitution if you don't believe me I am tired of all these liberals saying that guns are the problem no guns in the wrong hands are the problems so maybe you should look at the gun dealers sellers instead of looking at responsible gun owners

If someone were to come up to you on a side walk at night and said they wanted you to give them your money, or something to that affect, would you trust them to leave you alone once you get robbed? Or would you see the threat of potentially being murdered? If the robber is armed, are you going to just take the abuse? The simple, most logical answer is no. You wouldn't just take it. The laws are in place so people can defend themselves when there is no one there to aid them. On average, it takes 10-15 minutes for police to respond to a call. The robber would have been able to take your money, kill you, and disappear never to be seen again. Now, if you were being robbed and pulled out a gun and defended yourself, whether you shot him/her or killed them, you prevented yourself from being harmed. It is a matter of self-defense in a potential life-or-death scenario.

In America we have a right to be in public places and we should not be forced elsewhere by anyone, whether it be a "bad guy", government, etc. Stand Your Ground laws don't enforce a right to kill. They enforce a right to be at a particular place in our free country. Someone who threatens your life should not be able to force you to move elsewhere or even retreat. That's not much different than kidnapping when you think about it. However, there should be more common rules to enforce these laws. For example, you must be justifiably in fear for life or limb for yourself or others. These laws are also coupled with typical state like-force type laws, so people shouldn't be able to shoot someone over a verbal threat. And with regard to racial issues, the law itself is impartial. The law is against criminals and for the rights of the common person to be where they are. It doesn't matter what color the criminal is or the defender. However, in reality it may be used more often by one race than another. This is a matter of education; not law. Teach people that they have a right to be in a certain place and that they have the ability to defend that right, and it doesn't matter what color they are. But take away that right due to lack of education or due to statistical characteristics of use of the law, and we break the foundation of freedom our country was built upon. Stand your ground laws should stand.

Are rights to stand ground not only gives us the freedom to protect are selves but to have a secure comfort where ever we go. We should be able to feel safe in our Homeland. Due to the fact of increasing threats the use of personal defence can prove to be a vital and more amiable way.

Home is the one place where we feel safe and can escape temporarily from the problems of this world. When a stranger whose intent is unknown invades our safe haven, of course we should have the right to protect ourselves if the intruder has a weapon and we end up finding ourselves in danger in the one place we are supposed to feel safe.

If a person intends to harm my family or myself I should have the right to defend myself. Defending oneself is not vigilante justice. Since when is justice only right after a person is harmed of killed. Since when is it justifiable to allow a person to commit a crime while a law abiding person could have prevented the action. Self defense, stand your ground each imply that you are not willing to be a victim to the criminal act of another person.

All the people who thinks someone could kill anyone and just say "I was scared" and get off are wrong. Cops can look into the situation and figure out what really happened. Maybe a few cases a guilty person got away but most of the time they get it right. Look at OJ should we change laws cause he got away with it?

Originally posted here:
Are 'Stand Your Ground' laws a bad idea? | Debate.org

In 2004, the National Rifle Association honored Republican Florida state legislator Dennis Baxley with a plum endorsement: Its Defender of Freedom award.

The following year, Baxley, a state representative, worked closely with the NRA to push through Floridas unprecedented stand your ground law, which allows citizens to use deadly force if they reasonably believe their safety is threatened in a public setting, like a park or a street.

People would no longer be restrained by a duty to retreat from a threat while out in public, and would be free from prosecution or civil liability if they acted in self-defense.

Floridas law is now under a cloud as a result of the controversial February shooting of Trayvon Martin, 17, in Sanford, Fla. The 28-year-old shooter, George Zimmerman, who was licensed to carry a gun and once had a brush with police claims he acted in self-defense after a confrontation with Martin, and some legal experts say Floridas law could protect Zimmerman, who has not been charged. The case has inflamed passions nationwide in part because Zimmerman is Hispanic and Martin was African-American. Baxley, whose state party has benefited from large NRA donations, contends his law shouldnt shield Zimmerman at all because he pursued Martin.

The NRA has been curiously quiet on the matter since the shooting as the nation takes stock in light of the Martin case and other similar examples of whether stand-your-ground laws are more dangerous than useful to enhance public safety. The gun-rights organization did not respond to requests for comment. But the groups silence contrasts sharply with its history of unabashed activism on stand-your-ground legislation. Since the Florida measure passed, the NRA has flexed its considerable muscle and played a crucial role in the passage of more than 20 similar laws nationwide.

The Florida law is rooted in the centuries-old English common law concept known as the Castle Doctrine, which holds that the right of self-defense is accepted in ones home. But the Florida law and others like it expand that established right to venues beyond a home.

Since Florida adopted its law in 2005, the NRA has aggressively pursued adoption of stand-your-ground laws elsewhere as part of a broader agenda to increase gun-carrying rights it believes are rightly due citizens under the 2nd Amendment.

To gain attention and clout at the state level, the NRA has ponied up money and offers endorsements to legislators from both parties. The NRA and the NRA Political Victory Fund, its political action committee, have donated about $2.6 million to state-level political campaigns, committees and individual politicians since 2003, according to records compiled by the National Institute on Money and State Politics.

And ambitious politicians take note that the NRA is heavily invested and involved in congressional races.

The organization showered the Florida Republican Party Committee with a total of $125,000 in donations between 2004 and 2010. That sum tops the list of all NRA donations to state party committees between 2003 and 2012, according to National Institute on Money in State Politics records. The Senate Republican Campaign Committee of New York was next with $119,700.

The NRA energetically monitors state elections, from governors races down to the most obscure special election for a state legislative seat if the seat is considered crucial and, as its legislative action website shows, it regularly mobilizes constituents to flood lawmakers with calls and e-mails.

Following the Florida victory, the Stand Your Ground movement accelerated. In July 2006, the NRA posted celebratory news on its website, noting that legislators in eight more states Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota had already followed Floridas lead.

This train keeps a rollin Castle Doctrine Sweeps America, the NRAs 2006 message said. The campaign, the group said, is turning focus from criminals rights to those of the law-abiding who are forced to protect themselves.

Since then, a host of other states have passed various laws expanding the Castle Doctrine. Among them: Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee Texas, Utah, Washington and West Virginia.

To spread the word, the NRA said in an Aug. 12, 2005 website posting, it approached the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, which drafts legislation for like-minded state lawmakers. ALEC, as it is known, adopted model stand-your-ground legislative language in 2005 after Floridas top NRA representative made a presentation.

And along the way key lawmakers benefited from NRA support. In Indiana, for instance, GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels, who took office in 2005, received $12,400 in NRA donations between 2004 and 2008. Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue got $7,500 from the group between 2004 and 2006. Mark Shurtleff, Utahs attorney general, received $22,500 between 2004 and 2008.

But it hasnt been smooth sailing quite everywhere. An emotional debate in Minnesota this year resulted in passage of a proposal in both houses, which are GOP-controlled, but a veto just this month from Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton. A couple of GOP lawmakers changed their votes from no to yes in the course of the legislative process, state records show.

We had a few people tell us apologetically and privately that they were afraid of the NRA, said Joan Peterson, a Minnesota activist with the Northland chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Proponents didnt get enough votes to override Daytons veto.

Heather Martens, executive director of Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, which opposed the proposal, said that a newly elected Democratic legislator who reluctantly voted yes had faced a tough special election campaign in 2011. At the center of the campaign were accusations that she would be anti-gun.

Take your best shot, a Minnesota Republican Party-sponsored mailer against Democrat Carly Melin said back then, urging voters to protect their gun rights from St. Paul liberals.

The Minnesota bills Republican sponsors, state Rep. Tony Cornish and state Sen. Gretchen Hoffman who is now running for Congress against a Democrat who's had NRA support did not respond to requests to discuss their proposal.

Opposition to the laws has gone beyond gun-control activists. Some of the staunchest critics the NRA has faced while promoting stand your ground laws have been state police chiefs and sheriffs associations and district attorneys groups.

In 2007, the Virginia-based National District Attorneys Association issued a report, Expansions to the Castle Doctrine, warning that the phenomenon could have significant implications for public safety and the justice systems ability to hold people accountable for violent acts.

Scott Burns, the associations executive director, said legislators decisions to buck law-enforcement officials on this issue can only be explained by the volatile issue of guns rights and the 2nd Amendment. He said many of these laws, in his opinion, have nothing to do with the true intent of the Castle Doctrine.

How can the Castle Doctrine apply, he said, seven miles from your home, at a shopping mall?

In Florida, the Tampa Bay Times reported that justifiable homicides in Florida spiked after the 2005 law, from an average of 34 yearly to more than 100 in 2007.

Prosecutors said the law permitted gang-related assailants from being prosecuted after a 2008 shoot-out in Tallahassee that killed a 15-year-old boy, the paper reported. A judge dismissed charges based on the stand your ground defense.

In 2010, Trevor Dooley, upset about a skateboarder on a Valrico, Fla., basketball court, marched into a park with a handgun, for which he was licensed and legally able to take into the park. Dooley ended up in a confrontation with David James, who was in the park with his young daughter. Dooley and James scuffled and Dooley shot James dead. In a case that is still pending, he was arrested for manslaughter but also claims he is protected by the stand your ground law.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence, accuses the NRA of feeding on fear and paranoia to expand concepts such as the Castle Doctrine. His groups research, he said, shows that politicians can survive an NRA stamp of disapproval more than they think, and that his priority is to convince more politicians the group is a paper tiger.

We are behind closed doors with politicians all the time, Gross said, who say they want to do the right thing, but that the gun lobby will ruin them.

Back in Florida, the soul-searching about the law has now extended to the legislature. Baxley, the sponsor, told CBS News that sometimes the application or interpretation of its use is the problem. He defended the law as important to law-abiding citizens, but suggested, according to other reports, that perhaps legislators should look at limiting crime-watch volunteers ability to pursue people and confront them.

Nothing, he said, is ever finished in the legislature.

Excerpt from:
NRA pushed 'stand your ground' laws across the nation ...

The acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin has cast a renewed spotlight on Florida's "stand your ground" law. While Zimmerman's attorneys did not mount a "stand your ground" defense in his case, the law has become the subject of national attention, and was discussed during the trial.

So, what is the law, when did it pass, and where else can you find similar laws on the books? Here's a rundown of everything you need to know.

What is Florida's stand your ground law?

It's a law that allows people to, well, stand their ground -- pretty much anywhere -- instead of retreating if they reasonably believe doing so is necessary to "prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."In short, after the law was passed, people could defend themselves even outside of their homes -- with deadly force if necessary -- if they believed someone was trying to kill them or seriously harm them.

Here's an NPR report with more detail on the law.

When was the law passed?

It was passed in 200539-0 in the state Senate and 94-20 in the state House, and then-Gov. Jeb Bush (R) signed it.

Who was advocating for it? And who opposed it?

The National Rifle Association lobbied hard for the measure, while law enforcement officials like Miami's police chief opposed it. Defenders of the law often cited the 2004 case of James Workman, a retiree asleep in his RV who shot an intruder and had to wait months before prosecutors decided he engaged is self-defense. Opponents worried the law would encourage the use of deadly force.

After Saturday's verdict in the Martin case, Florida's state Senate Democratic leader called for a second look at all self-defense laws. But given the GOP-tilt of the Florida legislature, it's unlikely the stand your ground law will undergo major changes.

What has the impact been?

In the five years after the law was passed, the rate of justifiable homicides in Florida tripled. Defenders of the law cite a drop in the state's violent crime rate.

Which other states have similar laws on the books?

Since Florida became the first state to pass an explicit stand your ground law, more than 30 others have passed some version of it, with the help of agroup called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a organization that promotes conservative bills. Here's a 2012 map of stand your ground laws nationwide

What's next?

In the wake of the Florida case, we can expect an increase in calls to repeal or at least revisit the laws across the country."I think that's up tothestate. I thinkthey should revisit that," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)said Sundayon NBC's "Meet The Press."

An effort to repeal a stand your ground law in New Hampshire recentlyfell short,and repealing or changing legislation is generally difficult, so opponents of the laws will face uphill climbs in seeking the changes they want to see happen. Expect to hear a lot from opponents of the stand your ground law about a Texas A&M University study that found states with such laws have more homicides than states without them.

Updated at 10:48 a.m.

Sean Sullivan has covered national politics for The Washington Post since 2012.

Go here to see the original:
Everything you need to know about stand your ground laws ...

When a Florida jury deadlocked on the first degree murder charge against software developer Michael Dunn, the state's controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" was once again hoisted into the media spotlight.

Dunn was convicted on four other charges in the case, in which he fired 10 times at an SUV after an argument with the teens inside about how loud their music was, and will likely be sentenced to a minimum of 60 years behind bars.

Michael Dunn Trial: Mistrial Declared on Murder Charge in Loud Music Killing Case

As in the case of George Zimmerman, acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin, the public outrage was often directed or misdirected, at the Florida law.

Many, including legal commentators who should know better, repeatedly citing the statute as a crucial issue in both cases.

And yet neither defendant invoked the controversial aspects of Florida's law. In fact, both defendants argued basic self defense law that would have been similar in just about every state in the nation.

The relevant portion of the law of self defense in Florida reads: "A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself"

The controversial section of that law relates to the fact that there is no "duty to retreat," meaning that in non-stand your ground states one must, in most cases, first attempt to get away if he or she can.

In Florida, however, there is no such requirement and the shooter may "stand his or her ground" when firing in self defense.

But the duty to retreat was not an issue in either Dunn or Zimmerman. In both cases the defendants argued that deadly force was used because they "reasonably" believed that it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury. That, is at its core, no different than the law in almost every other state.

Why George Zimmerman Might Have Been Found Guilty in Ohio

Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin was pummeling him and Dunn that he had a shotgun pointed at him by a young man saying "I'm going to kill you." If Dunn's account were true -- and it was contradicted by other witnesses -- then retreat hardly seems like an option.

Regardless of what one thinks of the defenses (and because of Zimmerman's injuries and the testimony of eyewitnesses, his defense was far stronger legally than Dunn's claim, which was only supported by his own testimony) the controversial aspect of the law was hardly the issue.

The other major and controverted change in Florida's law was that one who claims he or she was justified in using deadly force may seek to avoid any liability, criminal or civil, by proving at a pre-trial hearing that the shooting was justified.

So a Florida judge can rule that someone who has shot and killed doesn't even have to go to trial and that he or she should be immune from civil lawsuits as well. Yet neither Dunn nor Zimmerman sought that sort of immunity.

Others have focused on the fact that Dunn need only "reasonably" believe that there was an imminent threat, even if there was no actual threat at all. For example The New York Times reported Sunday:

"The trial, which lasted six days before deliberations began on Wednesday, was the latest courtroom test for Florida's expansive self-defense statutes, including the so-called Stand Your Ground provision. Under the law, Mr. Dunn needed only to have been convinced that he saw a shotgun, whether or not one was present.

Yet that is no way unique to Florida or stand your ground laws. The most common example is when someone is confronted with what turns out to be a toy gun, he or she still has the right to use deadly force in any state if he or she "reasonably" believed the weapon was real, even if turns out there was no actual threat.

Others mistakenly claim these are "stand your ground" cases because the entire self defense statute is read to Florida jurors with the stand your ground language included. But, of course, reading jury instructions with some language that is inapplicable to the case at hand is common in all types of cases and says nothing about whether the controversial aspects of the law are at issue.

Yet others note that certain jurors in the Zimmerman case, for example, cited the stand your ground law to explain their verdict. The inexact language of jurors doesn't change the reality that the law would have been the same in any other state and that none of the controversial parts of the law were relevant.

The only state with a significantly different law when it comes to classic self defense is Ohio where rather than the prosecution having the burden of proof, a defendant who claims self-defense adopts the burden to prove the case. There is no question that placing the burden on the defendant can make a conviction far easier.

Is it possible that gun owners in Florida feel more emboldened to use their weapons because of the expansive protections embedded in the law? Sure, but that does not change the legal analysis.

Is it possible that Dunn not having a duty to retreat made his defense slightly stronger? It's theoretically possible, but based on the facts presented it becomes just that, theoretical.

I am no fan of stand your ground laws but I am a fan of accuracy when it comes to sensitive and potentially explosive trials and verdicts.

Dan Abrams is ABC News' Chief Legal Correspondent and Anchor of "Nightline."

Visit link:
Florida's Stand Your Ground Law Did Not Determine Either ...