Mediaboss Marketing

After the tragic events that lead to the death of Trayvon Martin last month in Sanford, Fla., the Internet is abuzz with questions on Stand Your Ground laws and Castle Laws.

Indeed, it was the Stand Your Ground Law in Florida that appears to have allowed the alleged killer, George Zimmerman, to walk free after shooting the seventeen-year old. You see, it seems Zimmerman thought that a black man with a hoodie was reasonable cause for suspicion. So, he called 911 and reported the guy.

As far as reports now indicate, he thenfollowed and confronted Martin, eventually shooting him.

Zimmerman claimed that he acted in self-defense. After all, he was in fear of his life. But Trayvon Martin was armed with nothing more than a bag of Skittles and a bottle of ice tea.

Stanford police have not yet arrested Zimmerman, saying that under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, he was within his rights to confront a stranger on the streets and use deadly force, if he believed himself or others to be in imminent danger.

In Florida's version of the law, you can shoot anyone, anywhere, if you fear for your life. Well, anywhere you have the legal right to be.

Now, what if this scenario played out in Los Angeles? Would a Los Angeles criminal lawyer be able to assert a California Stand Your Ground law to protect a Zimmerman-wannabe?

California has a slightly different take on this law. Under California Penal Code sec. 198.5 , if someone enters your home, you can presume that your life is in imminent danger and you can use deadly force against the intruder. In your own home, you would have no duty to retreat in California. Also in this state, you have no duty to retreat if you're stopping someone from committing a felony.

But as for attacking a Skittles-wielding 17-year-old on the street, a Los Angeles defendant would not have much success in invoking the Stand Your Ground laws in California, as California adopts the more tailored version of that law, known as the Castle doctrine. As described above, those claiming self defense have more leeway in their homes (your home is your castle) than in a public area.

Related Resources:

Read more:
What is the 'Stand Your Ground' Law in California? - The Los ...

How Do Stand Your Ground Laws Change Existing Law?

ALECs model Stand Your Ground law and the Florida law on which it was based contain seven key components that distinguish them from traditional self-defense doctrine. Some states have adopted all seven elements, while others have adopted varying combinations of them. For the purposes of this report, a state is only considered a Stand Your Ground state if its statute allows a person to use deadly force e.g., shoot someone anywhere the shooter has a right to be, even when there is a clear and safe opportunity to avoid a dangerous situation.

Allowing People to Stand Their Ground in Public

Stand Your Ground states give shooters the right to use deadly force even when there is a safe opportunity to retreat, as long as they are in any place they have a right to be. An additional three states which are not classified as Stand Your Ground states for the purposes of this report expand the Castle Doctrine only to the shooters vehicle,Missouri: 2007 Mo. SB 62; Ohio: 2007 Ohio SB 184; Wisconsin: 2011 Wis. ALS 94. allowing a driver to shoot someone when threatened in his or her car instead of simply driving away.

Permitting Deadly Force in Defense of Property

At least nine Stand Your Ground statesAlabama: Code of Ala. 13A-3-23(a)(3); Arizona: A.R.S. 13-411(A); Florida: Fla. Stat 776.031, 776.08; Georgia: O.C.G.A. 16-3-23(3); Kansas: K.S.A. 21-3212, 21-3213; Kentucky: KRS 503.080(2)(b); Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 200.120(1); Oklahoma: 21 Okl. St. 643(3); Texas: Tex. Penal Code 9.42. have statutes that allow a shooter to kill a person to defend property, even if no one is in physical danger and, in at least one state, even if the perpetrator is fleeing.Texas: Tex. Penal Code 9.42(2)(B)

The statutes that allow deadly force to be used to defend property fall into two broad categories. Four states allow deadly force to be used to protect personal property, such as money, cell phones, and cameras.Kansas: K.S.A. 21-3212, 21-3213; Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. 200.120(1); Oklahoma: 21 Okl. St. 643(3); Texas: Tex. Penal Code 9.42 This can result in the legally justified killing of people even when the compromised property is of very little value.For example, in June 2012, Benito Pantoja stole $20.29 from the tip jar of a taco truck in Houston, Texas. The owner of the business chased Pantoja and shot him in the back, killing him. Pantojas death was ruled a justifiable homicide. See Yang Wang and Dane Schiller, Texas Justifiable Homicides Rise with Castle Doctrine, Houston Chronicle, July 2, 2012, http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Killings-deemed-justified-are-on-therise-in-Texas-3676412.php#page-1. Six states permit the use of deadly force to prevent the burglary of an unoccupied building, even if the shooter does not own or control the building, and even if the shooter knows that no one is inside or otherwise in danger.Alabama: Code of Ala. 13A-3-23(a)(3); Arizona: A.R.S. 13-411(A); Florida: Fla. Stat 776.031, 776.08; Georgia: O.C.G.A. 16-3-23(3); Kentucky: KRS 503.080(2)(b)

Though proponents of these laws claim that they deter criminals, the evidence indicates otherwise. A recent study by Texas A&M University economists found that rates of burglary and robbery are unaffected by the passage of Stand Your Ground laws.C. Cheng and M. Hoekstra, Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Castle Doctrine, Texas A&M Department of Economics, 29 May 2012, available at http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf. Meanwhile, as this report explains, states that have passed these laws have experienced increased homicide rates.

Creating Presumptions that Shootings are Lawful

Beyond expanding the Castle Doctrine to apply outside the home, the Stand Your Ground laws in 14 states also alter traditional doctrine by creating a legal presumption that shooters in certain locations, such as their home or vehicle, are justified in their use of deadly force.Alabama: Code of Ala. 13A-3-23(a)(4); Arizona: A.R.S. 13-411(C); Florida: Fla. Stat. 776.013; Kansas: K.S.A. 21-3212a; Kentucky: KRS 503.055; Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14:19(B); Michigan: MCLS 780.951; Mississippi: Miss. Code. Ann. 97-3-15(3); North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-51.2(b); Oklahoma: 21 Okla. Stat. 1289.25(B); Pennsylvania: 18 Pa.C.S.A. 505(b)(2.1); South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. 16-11-440; Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-611(c); Texas: Tex. Penal Code 9.31. In two states Arizona and Texas these presumptions apply everywhere.

Under traditional American legal principles, a defendant is presumed innocent and the governments prosecutors are required to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question.

Layered on top of this exacting beyond a reasonable doubt standard, Stand Your Ground presumptions are often effectively irrefutable. If the victim is dead, and there are no other witnesses to contradict the shooters claims, the presumption forces authorities to take the shooter at his or her word, regardless of how unlikely and unsubstantiated the shooters version of events may be. Additional evidence may be impossible to obtain if the victim was killed and there were no eyewitnesses to or video recordings of the shooting.

Criminal Immunity, Part 1: Preventing the Arrest of Shooters

Typically, police can arrest a person if they have probable cause essentially, a reasonable belief that he or she has committed a crime, such as shooting another person.See, e.g., F. Andrew Hessick III & Reshma Saujani, Plea Bargaining and Convicting the Innocent: the Role of the Prosecutor, the Defense Counsel, and the Judge, 16 BYU J. Pub. L. 189, 200 (2002); Elise Bjorkan Clare et. al., Twenty-Fifth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: I. Investigation and Police Practices. 84 Geo. L.J. 717, 759-760 (1996). However, Stand Your Ground laws in six states forbid police from arresting a shooter who claims self-defense unless they find evidence to disprove the shooters claim.Alabama: Code of Ala. 13A-3-23(d); Florida: Fla. Stat. 776.032(2); Kansas: K.S.A. 21-5231(a); Kentucky: KRS 503.085(1); Oklahoma: 21 Okl. St. 1289.25(G); South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. 16-11-450(B). This heightened standard for making an arrest and, in three states, for even detaining a suspectFlorida: Fla. Stat. 776.032(2); Kansas: K.S.A. 21-5231(a); Kentucky: KRS 503.085(1). puts a significant roadblock in front of law enforcement because police often start accumulating evidence by interviewing the shooter, and a shooter who is presumed to have acted lawfully has little incentive to cooperate with an investigation. If the victim is dead and there are no other witnesses, it may be impossible for the police to proceed with the investigation.

Stand Your Ground laws provide law enforcement with little guidance for how to evaluate the validity of a suspects self-defense claim,Reagan v. Mallory, 429 Fed. Appx. 918 (11th Cir. 2011) (Under Florida law, law enforcement officers have a duty to assess the validity of this defense, but they are provided minimal, if any, guidance on how to make this assessment.). and instead expose officers to the prospect of a wrongful arrest lawsuit for improperly detaining a suspect who has claimed self-defense.See, e.g., Reagan v. Mallory, 429 Fed. Appx. 918 (11th Cir. 2011). Additionally, as a recent Tampa Bay Times study demonstrated, courts have difficulty determining when arrests and prosecutions are proper, leading to confusion and inconsistent decisions.Floridas Stand Your Ground Law, Tampa Bay Times at http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/. This uncertainty creates a chilling effect, making police less likely to arrest, and prosecutors less likely to prosecute, shooters who claim self-defense.

Criminal Immunity, Part 2: Immunity Hearings

Stand Your Ground laws in eight states shield a shooter from criminal prosecution even after an arrest is made.Alabama: Code of Ala. 13A-3-23(e); Florida: Fla. Stat. 776.032(1); Georgia: O.C.G.A. 16-3-24.2, Kansas: K.S.A. 21-5231(a); Kentucky: KRS 503.085(1); North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-51.3(b); Oklahoma: 21 Okl. St. 1289.25(F); South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. 16-11-450(A). State courts have interpreted these criminal immunity provisions to entitle a shooter to a pretrial immunity hearing a procedure during which each party presents evidence to a judge who determines if the shooter acted in self-defense. If the judge finds it more likely than not that the defendant acted in self-defense, the case is dismissed. Otherwise, the case proceeds to trial.See, e.g. Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010); Bunn v. State, 667 S.E.2d 605 (Ga. 2008); Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 285 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2009); State v. Duncan, 392 S.C. 404 (S.C. 2011). Such immunity hearings alter traditional criminal procedure by requiring a judge to make factual determinations usually left to a panel of jurors.

The distinction between judge and jury can be significant. The jury with its breadth and diversity of opinions, experiences, and backgrounds generally determines what evidence to believe and disbelieve. Self-defense cases, in particular, often turn on only a few crucial facts.Jean K. Gilles Phillips & Elizabeth Cateforis, Self-Defense: Whats a Jury Got to Do with It?, 57 Kan. L. Rev. 1143 , 1168-1174 (2009). In most states, a jury must decide those facts. The immunity provisions found in Stand Your Ground laws effectively overturn this rule in self-defense cases by requiring factual disputes to be decided by a judge instead of by the people a jury of ones peers.In doing so, Stand Your Ground laws grant a unique status to claims of self-defense. There are many defenses e.g., necessity, entrapment, insanity that a defendant can raise at trial that would relieve him or her of criminal responsibility for actions that would otherwise constitute a crime. Until the advent of Stand Your Ground laws, self defense ranked among them, but these provisions single out self-defense and create a new type of procedural mechanism to determine whether self-defense applies.

The purpose of granting criminal immunity, according to Representative Dennis Baxley, who sponsored Floridas Stand Your Ground law in the Florida House of Representatives, was to protect law-abiding citizens from uncertainty while they wait for the government to decide whether to prosecute them for shootings they claimed were in self-defense.See, e.g., Ann ONeill, NRAs Marion Hammer stands her ground, CNN, April 15, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/15/us/marion-hammer-profile/index.html. In practice, however, immunity provisions do not accomplish this goal. Shooters continue to wait sometimes years for a decision.For example, in one Florida case, Dennis Sosa Palma, who had fatally stabbed his brother during a 2010 brawl, waited more than two years for a favorable determination on immunity. David Ovalle, Miami-Dade judge tosses murder charge based on self-defense, The Miami Herald, August 17, 2012 at http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/17/2956670/miami-dade-judge-tosses-murder.html. In fact, if the shooter is prosecuted, the case may take even longer to resolve than under the traditional regime: If the judge decides the shooter is not entitled to criminal immunity, the case then proceeds to a jury trial, effectively lengthening the process and giving the shooter two trials instead of one. The difference is often not in the time spent awaiting a decision, but in whether the case is decided by a judge or a jury.

Civil Immunity: Prohibiting Civil Lawsuits

Our civil justice system provides avenues for injured parties to seek redress for harms they have suffered. Shooting victims and their families traditionally have the ability to file a civil lawsuit for monetary damages to compensate for injuries like lost wages, medical costs, and pain and suffering. To prevail, the injured party must generally show by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., that it is more likely than not) that the defendants actions violated the law and caused harm. This standard of proof is much easier to meet than the exacting beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal cases and provides some measure of justice where the proof of guilt was substantial, but not strong enough to satisfy the criminal standard. Of the 22 Stand Your Ground states examined in this report, 19 effectively bar civil lawsuits against shooters protected by Stand Your Ground laws.

These so-called civil immunity laws take different forms. Eleven states have statutes that create immunity from all civil suits arising from the lawful use of force.Alabama: Code of Ala. 13A-3-23(d); Arizona: A.R.S. 13-413; Florida: Fla. Stat. 776.032; Kansas: K.S.A. 21-3219; Kentucky: KRS 503.085; Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:2800.19; Mississippi: Miss. Code. Ann. 97-3-15(5); North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-51.2(b), 14-51.3(b); Oklahoma: 21 Okla. Stat. 1289.25(F); South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. 16-11-450(A); Texas: V.T.C.A. 83.001. Often referred to as blanket immunity, these provisions prevent all suits against the shooter, including suits brought by innocent bystanders who may have been injured. Eight states have more limited civil immunity provisions that shield the shooter only from suits brought by the intended victim and his or her survivors, implicitly allowing innocent bystanders to sue.Alaska: Alaska Stat. 09.65.330; Georgia: O.C.G.A. 51-11-9; Michigan: Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2922b; Montana: Mont. Code. Ann. 27-1-722; New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 627:1-a; Pennsylvania: 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8340.2(a); Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-622; West Virginia: W. Va. Code 55-7-22(d).

In addition, 12 states award attorneys fees and litigation costs to a shooter who prevails in a civil suit, creating a strong disincentive for a shooting victim to pursue justice in the civil system.Alaska: Alaska Stat. 09.65.330(b); Florida: Fla. Stat. 776.032 (3); Kentucky: KRS 503.085; Louisiana: La. R.S. 9:2800.19; Michigan: Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2922c; Mississippi: Miss. Code. Ann. 97-3-15(5); Montana: Mont. Code. Ann. 27-1-722(4); New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 627:1-a; Oklahoma: 21 Okla. Stat. 1289.25(H); Pennsylvania: 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8340.2(b); South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. 16-11-450(C); Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-622(b). These cost-shifting provisions only work in one direction: They award attorneys fees if the shooter prevails, but not if the injured party prevails.

Read the original post:
How Stand Your Ground laws affect ... - EverytownResearch.org

DEADLY FORCE, SELF-DEFENSE, AND PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY

The following article discusses the history and present scope of Floridas Stand Your Ground law in cases involving the use of deadly force. It further addresses the procedural steps for obtaining prosecutorial immunity.For additional information, view theFlorida Stand Your Ground Statuteor an exampleMotion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal.

In a highly publicized move, the Florida Legislature enacted in 2005 what has been popularly known as the Stand Your Ground law. This law, as codified in Sections 776.012, and 776.013, Florida Statutes, provides that a person is justified in the use of deadly force and has no duty to retreat if either:

(1) the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) the person acts under and according to the circumstances set forth in Section 776.013 (pertaining to the use of force in the context of a home or vehicle invasion).

Floridas Stand Your Ground law does not create a new type of affirmative defense. The principle that a person may use deadly force in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm has been the law in Florida for well over a century. See Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142, 163-164 (Fla. 1892). Rather than creating a new defense, Stand Your Ground broadens the scope of a self-defense claim by establishing a general no duty to retreat rule.

Prior to the enactment of the statute, a person could not use deadly force in self-defense without first using every reasonable means within his or her power to avoid the danger, including retreat. See Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999); State v. Bobbitt, 415 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1982). As stated in earlier appellate court decisions, a combatant had to retreat to the wall before using deadly force. See Hunter v. State, 687 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). This former duty to retreat derived from the common law, rather than from statute.

If abolishing the common law duty of retreat for cases involving the use of deadly force was not enough, Stand Your Ground goes one step further in cases involving home or vehicle invasions. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, provides that, when an intruder unlawfully enters, attempts to enter, or refuses to leave a dwelling, residence, or vehicle owned or lawfully occupied by another person, the owner or occupant is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm so as to justify the use of deadly force. The intruder is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

The presumptions employed in the context of a home or vehicle invasion mark yet another statutory departure from the common law. Although, prior to 2005, Florida case decisions had long recognized the Castle Doctrine (which provides that where one is not the aggressor and is violently assaulted in ones home, there is no obligation to retreat), the doctrine nonetheless required the owner or occupant of the home to reasonably believe that force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm. See Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4, 13 (Fla. 1907). Under the current statute, the reasonableness of the occupants belief is presumed so long as he or she acts within a dwelling, residence, or vehicle, as defined in Section 776.013, Florida Statutes.

Contrary to recent assertions made in the New York Times by UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, there are multiple statutory provisions limiting the scope of Floridas Stand Your Ground law.

Under Section 776.013(3), the no duty of retreat rule will not apply to a person who is engaged in an unlawful activity or is in a place where he or she has no right to be. Other provisions preclude a defendant from raising a self-defense claim altogether. Under Section 776.041, the justifications for the use of force do not apply if the accused is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. See Section 776.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes.

Floridas Stand Your Ground law provides potential immunity from prosecution for an accused who can establish (by appropriate legal procedures) that his or her actions fell within the purview of the statute. To understand how Stand Your Ground immunity works, one has to understand the nature of a self-defense claim and how such a claim is typically raised in a criminal proceeding.

Self-defense is a type of affirmative defense that operates to avoid (or cancel) the legal effect of a violent act (such as a homicide), which would ordinarily subject the accused to criminal liability. In a self-defense claim, the defendant admits the truth of the essential act (i.e. that he or she committed a homicide or other violence against a person), but justifies the act by claiming that it was necessary to save him- or herself from death, great bodily harm, or other unlawful uses of force. In the context of a homicide, a defendant claiming self-defense essentially says: Yes, I killed. But I did not murder (commit an unlawful killing) because, under the facts and circumstances, my acts were legally justifiable. Under common law and in most criminal cases today, the question of justifiable self-defense is a factual question for the jury to resolve at trial. The jury is the fact-finder. They decide whether the act was sufficiently justified so as to insulate the accused from criminal liability and punishment.

Here again, Stand Your Ground makes another significant change from the common law. Under Section 776.032, Florida Statutes, a person who uses force as permitted in Section 776.012 or Section 776.013 is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force (with certain limited exceptions). Note the word immune. This means that, if the accused can factually establish pre-trial that his or her use of deadly force occurred under the circumstances outlined in Section 776.012 or Section 776.013, the State of Florida is legally and procedurally barred from further prosecution in the matter. In the event that a civil action is brought against the person who used qualifying deadly force, a court must award reasonable attorneys fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred in the defense of the case.

The procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under the Stand Your Ground law are outlined in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), a Florida First District Court of Appeal decision. The Petersen decision definitively established that Section 776.032 was created by the Florida Legislature to establish a true immunity and not merely an affirmative defense. The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches. Unlike a motion to dismiss, the trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.

NOTE: In Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, 460 (Fla. 2010), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the First District decision in Petersen, resolving a previous conflict that existed between the First and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. Petersen is now binding law on all Florida courts.

Thus, under the procedures outlined in Petersen, prosecutorial immunity does not attach under Floridas Stand Your Ground law by way of mere factual assertion. The issue is raised pre-trial through the filing of a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and/or Dismissal. To obtain such a declaration by the trial court, a hearing is held where the defendant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence his or her qualifications for immunity. This essentially reverses the burden of proof traditionally at play in a criminal case. The defense presents the evidence, shows that the statutory prerequisites have been met, and requests that the court grant the motion and appropriate relief. If the Motion is granted, the defense then files a Motion to Dismiss, as there is no longer a legal basis to proceed with the prosecution. The Motions for immunity and dismissal are frequently consolidated into a single filing.

With regard to the Trayvon Martin case, the notion that Stand Your Ground prohibited the prosecution of George Zimmerman is fundamentally false. Stand Your Ground in no way prevents a prosecution from being initiated against an accused. State Attorneys routinely file charges against defendants even where there is a clear Stand Your Ground defense. In those cases, the prosecutor will file charges, and, at an appropriate stage, defense counsel may file a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal. The matter is then heard at an evidentiary hearing, where the defense must show its entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. If successful, immunity is granted and the case is dismissed. If unsuccessful, the prosecution is resumed and the case resolves by way of plea or trial.

The rest is here:
Florida Stand Your Ground Law | Use of Deadly Force in Self ...

The shooting death of Trayvon Martin has drawn national attention to Florida's "stand your ground" law, which says there's no duty to retreat -- anywhere -- before using force in self-defense. But Florida is not alone.

In many states, a legal doctrine called the "castle doctrine" allows the use force in self-defense, without retreating, if a person is at home. It's derived from the old adage that "a person's home is his castle." But critics worry about the unintended consequences of "castle" laws, and especially Florida's "stand your ground" law.

"I think there is vigilante justice happening and I think people are getting shot," one Florida lawmaker told USA Today. Here's how Florida's stand your ground law compares to some key examples of similar statutes in other states:

Florida -- Under Florida's law, a person who is attacked in a place "where he or she has a right to be" (indoors or outdoors) has no duty to retreat. A person can "stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force" if it's "necessary" to prevent death, serious bodily harm, or "the commission of a forcible felony."

New York -- New York's self-defense law states that a person cannot use deadly force if the person can safely retreat. But there is no duty to retreat if a person is at home and did not start the altercation, or if the other party is committing a kidnapping, rape, robbery, burglary, or arson.

Texas -- Texas' stand your ground law explicitly states "there is no duty to retreat" before using deadly force, if the use of deadly force is justified. Valid reasons include stopping an armed kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, or robbery, along with self-defense. But self-defense cannot be claimed if a person provoked the other party.

California -- California's castle law allows a home's occupant to use deadly force, without retreating, if an intruder creates a "reasonable fear of imminent peril or death or great bodily injury." But a simple burglary that doesn't create fear of great bodily harm isn't enough to justify deadly force.

Colorado -- Under Colorado's version of the castle law, a home's occupant can use deadly force, without retreating, against any intruder who intends to commit a crime, or who uses "any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant."

Colorado's castle law was also called a "Make My Day Law" -- a reference to a famous Clint Eastwood movie line -- when it was enacted in 1985.

Related Resources:

Follow this link:
'Stand Your Ground' Laws: State by State - FindLaw Blotter

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 ...