Mediaboss Marketing

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

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 ...

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

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?