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 ...

Trayvon Martin rapidly became a household name after he was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer in a gated Florida community. The police did not to arrest the shooter at the time nor charge him with a felony in the shooting death of Martin, based at least in part on the self defense protections of Florida's Stand Your Ground Law.

North Carolina also has a Stand Your Ground law. It is relatively new - lawmakers added it on to the Castle Doctrine just last year and it just became effective in December. Under the Stand Your Ground statute, there is no longer a duty to retreat from a place that you have a legal right to be before using deadly force to protect yourself.

Self defense is considered an affirmative defense - meaning, that what is being accused or charged did happen, but there is a reason why you should not be criminally punished. North Carolina's Stand Your Ground law allows you to defend:

To a certain extent, the law also allows you to defend others who are unrelated to you as well as other property not listed above. If you've been charged with a crime, your Raleigh criminal defense attorney can help determine whether the Stand Your Ground law is a usable defense in your case.

For many throughout North Carolina, Stand Your Ground was a welcome change in protecting would-be victims of crime. But, based on the recent Florida shooting, some North Carolina lawmakers are considering changing the self defense statute again. Whether the Stand Your Ground law is being applied correctly in the Trayvon Martin case remains to be seen.

Source: ABC 11 Eyewitness News, "Lawmakers consider changes to 'Stand Your Ground'," Joel Brown, March 27, 2012

See the original post here:
Self Defense And North Carolina's Stand Your Ground Law ...

Self defense or defense of another often comes up when violence erupts between two people. For example, suppose a person is charged with assault or battery but the other party struck the first blow, was attacking someone else, or made frightening and credible threats. The defendant is entitled to present evidence that he was only acting in self defense or in defense of the victim. Traditionally, a successful self-defense claim involved showing that the defendant had no other choicehe couldnt diffuse the situation by using less force, or safely walk away from the aggressor. A limited exception to these requirements applied when the confrontation occurred within the defendants home, explained more fully below.

A new wrinkle on self-defense, known as the stand your ground doctrine, has arisen recently in many states. In a nutshell, the new stand your ground statutes do not require the person being attacked to retreat. Some of these laws, such as Floridas, specifically state that a person being attacked or threatened, even in a public place, has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force. This defense played a part in the 2013 Florida prosecution of George Zimmerman, accused of second-degree murder of the unarmed teenager Travon Martin, though it was not relied upon at trial, as explained below.

This expanded version of self-defense is controversial, sparking debate about the proper response from non-law enforcement people who are faced with an aggressive attacker or a perceived threat of violence in their homes or in public. As many as 32 states have adopted some version of the stand your ground defense, while other states have retained traditional self defense statutes that strictly limit the right of self defense or defense of another to certain actions in certain circumstances.

The law governing self defense has never been as simple as excusing any violent act just because another person struck the first blow. Traditionally, self defense laws have required someone being attacked or defending another to act reasonably and

The requirement that one use only the force reasonably necessary to stop an aggressor means that a person defending himself cannot use more force than the aggressor. For example, if an aggressor raises a fist or strikes a person with his hand, that person cannot shoot the aggressor. If a person uses deadly force to fend off an attack, he must have been in fear for his own life and that fear must have been reasonable. In other words, there must have been a reasonable basis for him to fear for his life, such as dealing with an aggressor who was pointing a gun, wielding another deadly weapon, or acting in a way that could cause death or serious bodily harm.

Members of law enforcement do not have the same duty to retreat as civilians. Because they are professionally trained to deal with violent aggressors and volatile situations, they may do what is reasonably necessary to defuse a situation. However, law enforcement personnel are required to follow certain protocol and any use of force by a member of law enforcement is subject to review by superiors and by a local public review board or other office.

Even within the traditional rule, an exception known as the castle doctrine developed, which allowed non-law enforcement people who are in their homes more freedom to use violence against aggressors or intruders. This doctrine, based on the age-old notion that a mans home is his castle, permits a person to use even deadly force against someone who has entered his home without permission and who poses an imminent threat of serious injury. The defense does not involve any consideration of whether retreat was safely possible. In some states, the resident can use violence even if the intruder wasn't using or threatening serious force.

States that have adopted stand your ground laws have extended the castle doctrine to confrontations outside a persons home, thus expanding an individuals right to act in a threatening situation and protecting him against criminal prosecution and civil liability.

The stand your ground defense may apply, depending on state law, in the following situations:

Once the defendant raises self defense, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self defense.

Stand your ground supporters argue that a person defending against aggression from another should be free to act in a stressful situation and not have to worry about his actions being scrutinized by a judge or jury after the fact. Opponents express grave concern that this type of law gives citizens unlimited power without sufficient constraints, and point out that use of force by trained law enforcement personnel is subject to greater scrutiny than acts by citizens under such stand your ground laws.

For an indication of the limits to the castle doctrine and stand-your-ground law, and a discussion of a mentality the concepts may foster, seeMichigan Porch Shooting Verdict: The Law and Message.

Floridas stand your ground law allows defendants to raise self-defense in a pre-trial hearing, which is essentially a mini-trial at which the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense. If the defendant wins, a trial cannot proceed, and the defendant has immunity from civil suits as well. If the defendant loses, he can still raise the issue at trial.

The Zimmerman second-degree murder trial brought Florida's stand your ground law to public attention, and it appeared to play a significant role in the prosecution's initial decision not to file charges (the police and the prosecutor apparently believed that the defense would be raised, and that the prosecution would not be able to overcome it). But from that point on, the defense did not invoke it -- they did not ask for a pre-trial hearing, nor did they ask the jury to consider it. Rather, the defense relied on being able to convince the jury that the victim was the agressor and had pinned the defendant to the ground, where he was pummeling him, when the defendant shot him. In this version of events, the option of escape was not a factor, so invoking the stand your ground defense wasn't necessary (remember, the hallmark of the stand your ground defense is that a defendant need not retreat even when a safe avenue of retreat is apparent). Instead, the defense relied on the classic definition of self defense: A reasonable response to life-threatening behavior by someone else. (You can read more about the Zimmerman case in The George Zimmerman Verdict.)

If you are charged with a crime of violence against another person, such as assault or battery, and you believe you were defending yourself or another person, you should consult with an experienced attorney who is familiar with the criminal law in your state. Even a misdemeanor charge of assault or battery can significantly impact your life. You could be sentenced to time in jail or prison and placed on probation or parole. A conviction for this type of crime also becomes part of your permanent record. Employers and landlords now regularly run background checks on potential employees and tenants; a conviction for a violent crime could cause an employer to reject you or a landlord to decline to rent to you. An attorney can investigate and analyze your case and determine whether the facts support a claim of self-defense according to your states laws.

Read more:
"Stand Your Ground": New Trends in Self-Defense Law