Mediaboss Marketing

Q: What does the Idaho stand your ground law give me the right to do, in particular in utilizing a firearm?

A: Homicide is the killing of a human being. The killing of a human being is legally justified or excused under the law when done in self-defense, or the defense of another. A person may use such degree and extent of force as would appear to be reasonably necessary to prevent the threatened harm.

People often wonder if using a firearm in self-defense is legal. People worry that by using a firearm they may end up in trouble. In Idaho, people may use a firearm in self-defense so long as it is reasonable.

For example, if someone comes up to a person while in their car, and verbally orders them to get out because they are going to steal the car, that person would likely not be justified in killing them with a gun. On the other hand, if a person is sleeping and an intruder enters their home, and while holding a knife charges them, and the person kills the intruder with a firearm; under those circumstances the person likely would be justified in using a firearm in self-defense.

Any use of force, whether with a firearm or not, beyond the reasonableness limit is against the law and is considered unjustified. Therefore, a person is not justified in using a degree of force clearly in excess of what is apparent and reasonably necessary under the existing facts and circumstances.

In Idaho there is also no legal duty to retreat. In the exercise of the right of self-defense, a person is not required to retreat, they may stand their ground to protect themselves or to protect another. Additionally, a person may continue to defend themselves until the threat or danger dissipates, so long as it is reasonable. This law applies even though the person being attacked or defended might more easily have gained safety by retreating.

Its easy to know the right thing to do after something has happened, opposed to having to make a reactionary split-second decision. Reasonableness is determined by what an ordinary person would do if they were placed in the same situation, what they were actually perceiving, what they actually saw, and what they experienced in the same way as it was happening.

The state of Idaho has a long-standing precedent of recognizing a citizens right to self-defense. This right includes the use of deadly force when necessary. The law requires the use of reasonable force in defending oneself or in the defense of another.

E. Alex Muir is a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Bonneville County. This column is provided by the 7th District Bar Association as a public service. Submit questions to "It's the Law," P.O. Box 50130, Idaho Falls, ID 83405, or by email to rfarnam@holdenlegal.com. This column is for general information. Readers with specific legal questions should consult an attorney. A lawyer referral service is provided by calling the Idaho State Bar Association in Boise at 208-334-4500.

Link:
It's the law: Know your rights to 'stand your ground' - Post Register

Alec, the rightwing network that brings conservative lawmakers together with corporate lobbyists to create model legislation that is cloned across the US, has been accused of spreading racist and white supremacist policies targeted at minority communities.

A report published on Tuesday by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and other advocacy groups charges Alec with propagating white supremacy.

In one of the sharpest criticisms yet levelled at the controversial bill mill, the authors warn that conservative and corporate interests have captured our political process to harness profit, further entrench white supremacy in the law, and target the safety, human rights and self-governance of marginalised communities.

The publication comes on the eve of the latest gathering of Alec, officially known as the American Legislative Exchange Council, which will be attended by hundreds of largely Republican state-level legislators and their big business allies.

The four-day States & Nation Policy Summit will open at a resort in Scottsdale, Arizona, on Wednesday with an agenda touching on several of Alecs core principles including election integrity, privatisation of education and support for homeschooling, and protection for pharmaceutical companies.

Watchdogs have also learned of a dinner to be held on Wednesday and jointly hosted by Alec and the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBT coalition devoted to re-criminalising homosexuality in the US in the name of Christianity.

The Alec summit will be picketed by protesters convened by organisations at the forefront of the race equality movement such as Black Lives Matter and Puente Arizona. The demonstrators will seek to highlight one of the most contentious legislative moves made by Alec: 2010 Arizona law SB1070, which heralded the most extreme crackdown on undocumented migrants then seen in the US under a model bill drafted at an Alec conference the previous year.

The report, produced by CCR with Dream Defenders, Palestine Legal, the Red Nation and the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, calls Alec a highly effective incubator and platform for spreading a broad swath of corporate and conservative policies.

The network, it says, amounts to a shadow state apparatus in which private industry seizes control of the authority of the state, writing legislation and public policy for the general public behind the closed doors of a CEO suite.

To support its contention that Alec is responsible for strengthening white supremacy, the joint report cites four of the networks most hotly disputed policy interventions.

The first are the Stand Your Ground laws that became notorious after the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager who was shot by George Zimmerman in a gated community in Florida.

In 2005, Florida had passed a Castle Doctrine law, SB 436, that extended the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force to anyone in any public place who reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.

The law was picked up by Alec and turned into a model bill that, as the report points out, has now been adopted in some form in 27 states.

Alec insists it has never backed legislation allowing gun owners to attack people who pose no imminent threat and that it no longer lends its name to any stand your ground law.

The joint report argues the damage has already been done.

It cites studies that show that states that have adopted such laws are much more likely to rule homicides justifiable in cases of white-on-black killings than states that have not adopted such laws.

The second example used in the report is voter ID bills that require proof of identity in order to vote. CCR and its co-authors locate these efforts as part of the long history in the US of attempts to disenfranchise people of colour.

In 2009 Alec approved a voter ID act produced by one of its task forces that devise new model legislation. The provision required voters to show certain forms of personal identification before being allowed to cast their ballot.

Some 35 states now have voter ID laws. Numerous studies have found that non-white voters are much more likely than whites to lack photographic identification, and therefore face discrimination where ID is made a condition of voting.

Alec has distanced itself publicly from voter suppression efforts and says it now has no policy on voter ID.

Bill Meierling, Alecs head of external relations, told the Guardian: Alec members advance individual liberty and free enterprise across the states, creating opportunity for a better life for all Americans.

He added: Alec is routinely targeted because its member legislators are nearly 300% as effective as any other group of elected officials. In fact, this year, USA Today reported that of 10,000 bills analyzed in state legislatures from 2010-2018, 2,900 were based on Alec model policy and more than 600 became law.

The other examples of measures allegedly supporting white supremacy cited in the joint report are critical infrastructure bills that originated with a 2017 law introduced in Oklahoma to clamp down on indigenous and other protesters against the Dakota Access pipeline.

Alec turned the Oklahoma template into a model bill that has spread through the US, threatening indigenous protesters with fines and jail time.

The final Alec intervention cited by the authors concerns moves to combat the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to pressure Israel to abide by international human rights laws.

As the Guardian reported last month, Alec has hosted discussions on banning criticism of Israel on US campuses.

Read more here:
Rightwing bill mill accused of sowing racist and white supremacist policies - The Guardian

Friends and attorneys of both Yousef Hafza and Clarence Howard voiced their thoughts on Monday's stand your ground hearing Tyler Vazquez, FLORIDA TODAY

Former Brevard County deputy Yousef Hafza made his case Monday for stand-your-groundin the Father's Day2016 shooting of an unarmed man during an alleged road rage incident.

Hafza took the stand at the Viera courthouse on the second day of testimony to tell Judge Jeffrey Mahl why he believes he was justified in shooting and killing Clarence Howard on St. John's Heritage Parkway while off duty. The first day of testimony was held in March.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

After a Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation into the shooting, Hafza was charged with second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder after the altercation with Howard and Jose Montanez.

He and his attorneys filed a motion to have the charges dismissed based on Floridas stand your ground law. Under the law, a person does not have a duty to retreat if faced with an imminent threat.

Judge Mahl did not issue a decision Monday and it could take several months.

Both parties agreed on certain events leading up to the shooting: Hafza and the two men nearly collided on Emerson Drive. Montanez and Howard then began following Hafza for four miles.

Hafza got out of his car on St. John's Heritage Parkway where he said he saw another vehicle in the areaand hoped a potential witness would defuse the situation. At that point the men began yelling at each other, and Hafza fired at Howard and killed him.

Hafza then left the scene before calling 911 from his ex-wife's house nearby, letting dispatchers know what had happened and who he was.

What's in dispute are the exact details of the case.

Prosecutors said Hafza got out of the car and immediately began shooting at the men from about 50 feet and that Montanez and Howard's arms were in the air to surrenderat the time.

Defense attorneys allege Howard was charging at Hafzawith body language that indicated a fighting pose.

They also dispute the distance, saying that the gun would have ejected the empty casings backward behind Hafza and that FDLE agents measured the distance between the casings and Howard without taking into account their trajectory or possible bouncing.

Among the witnesses to take the stand Monday was Lt. Alex Herrera, a training and hiring officer with Brevard County Sheriff's Office.

Hesaid the level of force used by a deputy dependson a totality of factors. He also couldn't say whether Hafza should reasonably have been expected to stay at the scene and call for help or if he thought Montanez also posed a possiblethreat, prompting him to leave.

"I can't answer that without taking everything into account" because it was an ongoing event and people react differently, Herrera said.

"I understand why he left. You can't look at the shooting as a 10 second event without looking at everything leading up to it," Herrera said."It wouldn't be unreasonable for him to stay maybe, but I don't know Hafza's perception of the situation."

Defense attorney Eric Barker brought up a Palm Bay police officer, who testified that a nearby church had a security camera. The footage from the camera was never collected by FDLE.

Assistant state attorney Stewart Stoneasked a Brevard County crime scene investigator if she found Hafza's badge in his vehicle. He suggested to the court that Hafza could have shown the men the badge to deescalate the situation.

During his testimony Monday, Hafza maintained that he only acted in self-defense.

During the four-mile pursuit, Hafza said the men repeatedly attempted to run him off the road as well as dangerously passing other cars across double-yellow lines to catch up to him.

Stone said Hafza could have kept driving and not stopped on St. John's Heritage Parkway. Hafza said he thought he could get out and defuse the situation.

"Dude, I'm good, chill out. I'm good," Hafza recalled telling the men."I thought it would be over at that point."

"At that point, I was terrified because they tried to stop me twice and now he was running at my vehicle," he told the court."He was running straight at me, he sort of turns his body as he was reaching toward his waistband."

"I believed at that moment he was reaching for a weapon," Hafza added. "For over four miles they pursued me, trying to block my car, screaming at me. Both of them were bigger than me, Howard was a lot bigger than me."

Hafza then fired several shots at Howard until hestopped coming, according to his testimony.

He said afterward Montanez was bobbing up and down behind the car and Hafzabelieved he might shoot at him, which is why he drove off instead of sticking around to check on Howard.

He disputed the prosecution's assertion that Montanez stuck his hands in the air to give up.

"Never did anyone put their hands up to surrender. That never happened," Hafza said.

Stone pressed Hafza, asking whether it would have been reasonable to first identify himself as a police officer, display his weapon, or call police before the situation escalated.

Hafza replied there wasn't time to do any of the above because the events happened so quickly.

In closing statements, Stone focused on the distance between the two men, which the parties dispute.

"The distance is the biggest thing. We're talking somewhere around 50 feet. We're talking about deadly force here," Stone said."It's demonstrated by the evidence that he did not need to do that."

Barker reminded Judge Mahl that "the state has the burden to prove to provide clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did not have reason to fear for their life."

"Someone who's speeding away is not the aggressor," Barker said. "It's illogical to think Hafza would call the police on himself and tell them where he was going."

"Mr. Hafza need not be correct that they were absolutely going to kill him," Barker told the judge. Maybe they chased him for four miles and got out of the car to shake his hand and wish him a Happy Fathers Day."

Contact Vazquez at tvazquez@floridatoday.com, 321-917-7491 or on Twitter @Tyler_vazquez.

Read or Share this story: https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/crime/2019/11/25/hafza-testifies-stand-your-ground-hearing-shooting-death-unarmed-man/4295544002/

Read more:
Hafza testifies in stand-your-ground hearing in shooting death of unarmed man - Florida Today

A Stand Your Ground Law is a law that allows citizens to protect themselves if they feel their lives are in danger, regardless of whether they could have safely exited the situation. For example, Stand Your Ground law states that no one should feel forced to leave a premises they have every right to be in.

Therefore, the law allows him to use lethal force against a person if he feels that person is an imminent threat to his safety. To explore this concept, consider the following Stand Your Ground Law definition.

Noun

Origin

1600s English Law

The meaning of Stand Your Ground Law is rooted in home defense. For this reason, another name for it is the Castle Doctrine, because the law allows people to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect themselves and their home, or castle. This includes the use of deadly force.

For example, Stand Your Ground Law protects those who use a gun or knife to defend themselves, even if that attempt results in a fatal injury. For this reason, some refer to this concept as the shoot first law. While some states require individuals to flee a dangerous situation before resorting to deadly violence, states that uphold Stand Your Ground do not. These laws protect those who choose to defend themselves and their property, even when there is a legitimate opportunity for a safe escape.

The effects of Stand Your Ground Laws are spotty at best, and researchers are still studying them. For instance, it appears that one of the effects of Stand Your Ground Laws is that they may moderately increase the rates of homicide in states that enforce these laws.

In the same vein, however, researchers have not determined there to be any effects of Stand Your Ground Laws on other kinds of violent crimes in those states. There is also inconclusive evidence regarding the rates of suicide and defensive gun use in Stand Your Ground states.

Stand Your Ground states in the U.S. include states mostly in the South and Midwest. For instance, Stand Your Ground states in the South include Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Midwest Stand Your Ground states include Missouri, Indiana, and Kansas. Some states are not Stand Your Ground states per se, though they do adopt the ideas in practice. These states are mostly in the Western U.S. and include California, Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon, to name a few.

Some states limit stand your ground practices to when a person is in their vehicle, like in Ohio, North Dakota, or Wisconsin. Other states follow the castle doctrine, which is the idea that people can use deadly force in their home, car, etc. but if they are in public where others might be hurt they must retreat. These states include New York, Maryland, Connecticut, and Maine. Of all fifty states, only two Vermont and Washington, D.C. require citizens to exit the situation, rather than attempt to defend themselves even if they are in their own homes.

Perhaps one of the most prominent Stand Your Ground Law examples in Americans minds is the Trayvon Martin case (more on that later). In 2012, in response to the Martin case, the Tampa Bay Times created a report detailing cases involving Stand Your Ground Laws. The Times also created a database of Stand Your Ground Law examples wherein those charged attempted to invoke the law as a defense.

Interestingly, what the Times discovered was that no racial disparity existed in the state of Florida. Police were charging, and juries were convicting, whites at the same rate as blacks, and mixed-race cases were about the same for black-on-white and white-on-black crime. Two things the Times did discover were:

Per the Urban Institute, juries deciding white-on-black homicides in Stand Your Ground states are over 350% more likely to side with the defense than in cases of white-on-black homicides. And a study conducted in 2015 found that Stand Your Ground Law examples involving victims who were white were doubly likely to result in convictions than were cases involving victims who were black.

Perhaps the most well-known example of Stand Your Ground Law invoked as a defense in a case involving a homicide is the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin. In February of 2012, George Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. At the time, Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch coordinator for the gated community where Martins relatives lived. Martin was in town visiting his relatives.

On the night of the shooting, Zimmerman noticed Martin as Martin returned from a nearby convenience store, on foot, to the Twin Lakes housing community. Zimmerman was passing through the neighborhood in his car while running an errand. Zimmerman called the police, suspicious of Martin, who he said he believed to be up to no good. Zimmerman told the dispatcher Martin started to run, and he then followed him, despite the dispatcher telling Zimmerman that wasnt necessary.

When Zimmerman caught up to Martin, they engaged in a violent encounter which resulted in Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin 70 yards from the door of the house Martin was staying at. Martin did not have a weapon on him, yet Zimmerman, who suffered minor injuries to his face and head, claimed to have shot him in self-defense. The police arrested Zimmerman. However, due to Floridas Stand Your Ground Law, coupled with the fact that there was no evidence to refute Zimmermans self-defense claim, police had no choice but to let him go.

As word of the case spread to the point of national coverage, thousands of protestors called for a full investigation into the case and for the police to arrest Zimmerman and hold him accountable for Martins death. In April of 2012, police arrested Zimmerman again and charged him with second-degree murder.

The criminal trial began on June 10, 2013, and a little over a month later, the jury found Zimmerman not guilty. While some wanted Zimmerman charged with a federal hate crime, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in February of 2015 that there simply was not enough evidence for a prosecution on this charge.

Many believed that Zimmermans actions betrayed racial motivations. After the trial, Zimmermans family came to his defense, arguing that Zimmerman was not racist, as he had black relatives. Zimmermans father said his sons actions could not be racially motivated, as Zimmerman himself was Hispanic, grew up in a multiracial family, and, as such, would be the last person to discriminate against anyone. No one, from Zimmermans neighbors to his co-workers, had a bad thing to say about him.

Notably, in the years prior to and following the Martin case, Zimmerman had had several other run-ins with the law. In 2005, police arrested him for shoving an undercover officer, and his fiance got a restraining order against him, claiming domestic violence. In the years following the case, police responded to several calls involving Zimmerman, including one in November of 2013, when his girlfriend claimed he pointed a shotgun at her. In 2016, Zimmerman allegedly yelled at a waitress and, according to the deputy who responded to the call, referred to her as a ner lover.

See the original post:
Stand Your Ground Law - legaldictionary.net

sansara/iStock/GettyImages

April 17, 2018

By: Teo Spengler

Standing your ground when faced with an aggressor sounds like the better half of fight or flight to some people. But the stand-your-ground laws are quite controversial and have resulted in what many people consider unnecessary deaths. The details of the laws differ among states, but they basically provide that a person who is in a place where he has a right to be can use deadly force to repel an unlawful intruder, without trying to retreat first, if he perceives the intruder as a threat.

A stand-your-ground law gives people the right to use deadly force if they feel threatened in a place they have a right to be.

Under the common law, a person has a duty to retreat from aggression if possible before using deadly force. Stand-your-ground laws create a broad exception to this. The common law "castle" doctrine allowed people to use deadly force against an intruder who enters their home or office. Stand-your-ground laws, enacted in many states, take this one step further, extending that right to any place, including a public place, where a person has a right to be. These laws provide authority to use any level of force, including deadly force, against an immediate threat of serious bodily harm.

Many states have enacted explicit stand-your-ground laws. These include, in alphabetical order: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

A few other states, like California, have not adapted specific stand-your-ground laws, but allow the doctrine as part of their self-defense law. In these states, it is the courts that have interpreted self-defense statutes to include the right to defend yourself in a public place.

Self defense is a legal justification for aggressive actions. Every state has laws authorizing people who are under attack to use reasonable force to defend themselves or other people around them. If proven, self-defense is a defense to criminal charges that stem from use of force, like homicide, assault and battery.

Generally, in order to have a valid claim of self-defense in a criminal case, an accused must prove that self-defense was justified. The rule is that you can use only reasonable force, and only when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an injury. When you use force in self-defense, it should be only as much force as is required to stop the threat. Normally, deadly force cannot be used to repel non-deadly force.

Several stand-your-ground law cases have proved extremely controversial. One such case occurred in 1984, when three young black men approached Bernhard Goetz, a white tech worker, on a subway train in New York. Goetz, a white computer technician, had been mugged some two years earlier.

One of the young men asked Goetz to give him five dollars, and Goetz stood up and shot four times at the youths, hitting two of them in the back. He then walked up to another of the young men named Darryl Cabey and fired again into his spinal cord, leaving him paralyzed from the chest down. Goetz was charged with attempted murder, assault, criminal possession of a weapon and reckless endangerment. He claimed that he had acted in self-defense, and the jury convicted him only of illegal gun possession. However, Cabey sued him and won a verdict of $43 million.

A second, well-known stand-your-ground case involved the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida by an armed neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman. Martin was an unarmed, black, 17-year-old high school student walking through Zimmerman's neighborhood. Zimmerman was white and armed and he shot and killed Martin. Zimmerman was ultimately acquitted on claims of self-defense. Although he did not rely on the stand-your-ground doctrine, the case brought it into the public eye, raising issues in many people's minds about the wisdom of these laws.

Teo Spengler earned a J.D. from U.C. Berkeley's Boalt Hall. As an Assistant Attorney General in Juneau, she practiced before the Alaska Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court before opening a plaintiff's personal injury practice in San Francisco. She holds both an M.A. and an M.F.A in creative writing and enjoys writing legal blogs and articles. Her work has appeared in numerous online publications including USA Today, Legal Zoom, eHow Business, Livestrong, SF Gate, Go Banking Rates, Arizona Central, Houston Chronicle, Navy Federal Credit Union, Pearson, Quicken.com, TurboTax.com, and numerous attorney websites. Spengler splits her time between the French Basque Country and Northern California.

Go here to see the original:
What Is the Stand Your Ground Law? | Legal Beagle