Mediaboss Marketing

The debate about the shooting death of Trayvon Martin has made it clear that "stand your ground laws" are simple in theory but when used for a claim of self-defense they become complicated.

It's an old legal concept, one that has been in place in Georgia like Florida, for more than a century. But Martin's death has drawn national attention to the law that makes it OK to shoot to kill.

George Zimmerman, a self-described neighborhood watch captain, told police he was justified in shooting the 17-year-old Martin, who Zimmerman said attacked him. Martin's parents and supporters say the teen was attacked without provocation while returning to his father's home in Sanford, Fla. after walking to a convenience store for tea and candy.

The details of the case, now well-known around the country, illustrate just how muddy "stand your ground"laws can become. Twenty-five states, including Georgia and Florida, have virtually identical laws. Stand your ground laws provide immunity from prosecution if you kill someone while defending yourself.

In Georgia there have been 21 cases of justifiable homicide since 2003, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Those are homicides in which the police at the scene, prosecutors later on or a judge in an initial hearing decided no crime had been committed.

Many prosecutors, defense attorneys and gun rights advocates agree there is a need for the laws that allow deadly force in some circumstances, but there are some who disagree.

We were adamantly opposed to the shoot-first-ask-questions-later law, said Brian Malte with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Thats a recipe for tragedy.

Still, the courts have said for more than a century it's legal to "stand your ground" with deadly force when faced with a threat of death or serious injury.

Georgia's Supreme Court wrote in 1898 -- and many times since -- there is no requirement that a victim of an attack first try to escape before using deadly force to stop an aggressor. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled also in 1898 that "a true man does not fly in the face of an aggressor who seeks to do him grievous bodily harm."

"That came to be known as the true man rule' and that has evolved into the stand your ground rule," said University of Georgia law professor Ron Carlson.

It has only been in recent years that states have included those court decisions in their laws. Florida's adopted a stand your ground law in 2005 and Georgia in 2006, expanded upon the self-defense rights the courts have upheld for years. There are 23 other states with similar laws that allow for justifiable homicide with no requirement that the victim first try to escape; seven other states allow residents to defend themselves with deadly force in specific areas -- such as at home in the car or at the workplace.

Self-defense claims are made often in homicide cases, Georgia prosecutors say. But it's hard to make a legitimate claim of self-defense.

Rational, reasonable citizens who use deadly force to protect themselves... are fairly rare," said Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter.

In Dekalb County, said chief assistant district attorney Don Geary, "In half the drug murders we get, they claim it was self defense.... The problem with self-defense is if you're in the commission of a felony, you can't claim self-defense."

A key question in the Martin shooting is whether Zimmerman was the aggressor. If so, Carlson said, he was not justified to use deadly force.

"Can you say ... I triggered this thing...but then I backed off ?'" Carlson said. "When do you stop being the aggressor?"

But Martins family deny teenager attacked Zimmerman. They believe he was an innocent victim.

Often there is only one witness, the person who pulled the trigger or had the knife, and that person is claiming self-defense.

"Sometimes you ... make a judgment call based on all the evidence [and] whether the acts were reasonable," said Gwinnett prosecutor Porter. "The standard is whether or not a reasonable man would have acted the same way under the circumstances."

And even if police and prosecutors believe there was no self-defense, a jury can find otherwise.

Lona Scott shot her husband, Cliff, six times during an argument in their bedroom on March 4, 2008, after the 42-year-old trucking executive had transferred assets totaling $5 million into a bank account in the Bahamas and was divorcing her.

The police and prosecutors believed it was murder. Lona Scott said it was self defense. She was indicted 14 months later.

The Dunwoody mother of two argued at trial she had no choice, she couldn't escape so she had to stand her ground and kill her husband before he killed her.

On Feb. 2, 2010, a jury deadlocked 11-1 in favor of guilty. When she went on trial a second time, she was acquitted.

"If you're truly a victim, you don't have to wait and give the man or the woman (attacker) another chance," said Lona Scott's defense attorney, Brian Steel.

Cliff Scott's family was stunned by the verdict.

Josephine Scott said a "stand your ground" claim is appropriate sometimes but it was not in the death of her son.

"How many shots constitute self-defense?" said Josephine Scott. "The first shot severed his aorta. The next one pierced his elbow... There were two [shots] to the elbow. The fourth shot was between the eyes. Then she shot him twice in the back as he was flat on the ground. You call that self-defense?"

And sometimes it's easy to decide deadly force was justified.

Law enforcement officials said there was little question Georgia's stand your ground law applied to Georgia Tech student Lewis Moore when he shot and killed 30-year-old Yuhanna Abdulah Williams in December 2010.

Moore was getting out of his car at a Conyers grocery store when Moore grabbed him, put a knife to his throat and demand money and car keys.

Moore told police he grabbed his Taurus .357 Magnum from its a holster, turned and shot Williams in the face.

The first thing he said to a Rockdale County deputy was "this guy tried to rob me and I shot him."

Witnesses agreed.

"It was a clear-cut case of self defense," said Rockdale County Sheriff's Office investigator Michael Camp.

Moore was not charged.

Go here to see the original:
Stand your ground law' in effect in Georgia more than 100 ...

As of December 1, 2011, citizens throughout North Carolina had the legal right to defend themselves from a threat of violence without first being required to retreat. This was the date that North Carolina's Stand Your Ground law took effect.

Since the death of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012 and with the ongoing criminal case of George Zimmerman in Florida, North Carolina's own self-defense laws have been questioned. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder felony charges in the shooting death of 17-year-old Martin; he asserted that he acted in self defense and should be exempt from prosecution under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law.

Stand Your Ground laws exist in at least 25 states, including North Carolina and Florida. Sometimes called "Shoot First" laws or "Make My Day" laws, the extent to which one can legally go to defend himself or another are dictated by these rules.

North Carolina Stand Your Ground law ( N.C.G.S. 1451.3) currently reads, in part, as follows:

[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:

a) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

b) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 1451.2, generally that you are in your home, workplace or car and are in fear for yours or another's life

Subsection (b) is often referred to as the Castle Doctrine. This subsection recognizes that a home should be one's castle and that you should be allowed 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 the following people:

In addition, if the person has retreated or has stopped the threatening behavior, the use of deadly force may no longer be justified because the threat is no longer considered imminent.

Prior to enactment of stand your ground laws, and in states that don't currently have these laws; you generally have a duty to retreat before you will be justified in using force against an attacker. That means that if you can get away and avoid a confrontation, you must, or you risk criminal prosecution for assault, battery or, depending on the outcome, manslaughter or murder.

You also, generally, are limited to using reasonable force in the absence of a Stand Your Ground law similar to that in North Carolina. You cannot respond with deadly force when you have been punched with a fist, for example. Exchanging blow for blow has typically been a justifiable use of force in self defense, but using deadly force to respond to non-deadly force has not.

Stand your ground laws remove the duty to retreat and generally allow for the use of deadly force under reasonable circumstances. You do not have to try to get away before reacting to a threat with reasonable, and sometimes deadly, force.

In the wake of the Martin/Zimmerman criminal saga, the North Carolina legislature is considering eliminating the stand your ground law in this state. Entitled the "Gun Safety Act," a proposed bill in the 2013 session seeks to completely remove the right to defend yourself from another using deadly force in your home, your car, your workplace or other place in which you are legally present.

House Bill 976 would repeal North Carolina's Stand Your Ground law and revert the right of self defense in this state back to the common law, which requires an attempt to retreat before force is justified. The Castle Doctrine would be left intact, allowing the use of reasonable and even deadly force, to protect you or your family in your home.

The bill also seeks to change laws related to the storage of firearms and concealed-carry weapons permits.

If you have been charged with a crime after acting in self defense, you should seek the assistance of an experienced criminal lawyer immediately. Self defense is not a cut-and-dried legal issue. As we have seen with the Zimmerman trial, there is always more than one account of what actually happened at a crime scene.

Self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning you admit that you attacked or caused harm to another person, but that you were justified in causing that harm to protect yourself or another. To succeed on a self defense claim, you must not:

Convincing a prosecutor, judge or jury that you acted in self defense should be left in the hands of an experienced defense attorney.

North Carolina vs. M.W. Charge: Charge: Robbery with A Dangerous Weapon (4 Counts), First Degree Burglary, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery with A Dangerous Weapon Facing: 12 - 17 years in prison Result: Dismissed

An incarcerated defendant accused our client of participating in the robbery of a group of youth at a party. We were able to raise doubt as to the credibility of this individual. In the end, the prosecutor dismissed these charges, citing a lack of evidence.

Go here to read the rest:
Self Defense In North Carolina: Can You Stand Your Ground?

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

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 ...