The shooting death of Trayvon Martin brought a lot of attention to so-called “stand your ground” self-defense laws. That tragic situation caused many people to question the wisdom of stand your ground laws, and still others to demand their repeal. But what are stand your ground laws? How do they work, and what purpose do they serve? This article will answer those questions and more.
Duty to Retreat
It is impossible to discuss stand your ground laws without first explaining the concept of the duty to retreat. In its most extreme form, the duty to retreat states that a person who is under an imminent threat of personal harm must retreat from the threat as much as possible before responding with force in self-defense. These days, states that retain the duty generally incorporate a variety of the duty with somewhat less stringent requirements.
Stand Your Ground
Stand your ground laws are essentially a revocation of the duty to retreat. Stand your ground laws generally state that, under certain circumstances, individuals can use force to defend themselves without first attempting to retreat from the danger. The purpose behind these laws is to remove any confusion about when individuals can defend themselves and to eliminate prosecutions of people who legitimately used self-defense even though they had not attempted to retreat from the threat.
In many states with stand your ground laws, a claim of self-defense under a stand your ground law offers immunity from prosecution rather than an affirmative defense. This means that, rather than presenting a self-defense argument at an assault trial, for example, an individual could claim self-defense under the state’s stand your ground law and avoid trial altogether.
States with Stand Your Ground laws differ on whether the law applies to instances involving lethal force, with some states retaining the duty to retreat when lethal force is involved and others removing the duty to retreat under all circumstances.
Controversy over Stand Your Ground
Stand your ground laws are often criticized as encouraging violence. Critics claim that the laws lead to a “shoot first, ask questions later” attitude that results in more injuries and deaths than would occur without the law. Proponents of stand your ground counter that the laws allow people to protect themselves without worrying about whether they have retreated sufficiently before using force.