N.R.A.’s Influence Seen in Expansion of Self-Defense Laws

[iverglas]

5. the distinction between "castle" and "stand your ground" is important

The media almost never get either of them, but expecially the "castle law" trash, right.

They are entirely different. One refers to actions in a person's residence (or vehicle, in some cases); the other refers to actions in a public place or otherwise outside a residence.

They are both the product of right-wingery and racism, and "castle law" legislation, at least, is legal garbage. I've posted the opinions to that effect of authoritative voices over and over, in the last 6 or 7 years at DU.

Here's a handy summary/intro to the concepts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=476524&mesg_id=476578

I confused the two things myself, in my subject line, when I wrote the definitive post on Florida's "castle law" legislation back in 2006:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237

It really is worth reading that post, although it is not a walk in the park to understand everything I quoted there.


Here are the relevant bits of Florida's law, which the others are modeled on, with my emphases:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html
(stand your ground)

776.012?Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)?He or she 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)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
(castle law)

776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)?The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

You can see the difference. In the first, there must be a reasonable fear. In the second, the reasonable fear is PRESUMED.

If a person meets the criteria in the legislation -- knew or had reason to believe that someone who was in their residence had unlawfully or forcibly entered it -- they need not offer the least shred of explanation or evidence to justify killing that person, i.e. to show thay they had any fear at all of death or harm. They are PRESUMED to have had such a fear, and no prosecutor may even attempt to prove that they did not have such a fear.

The law grants IMPUNITY to anyone who uses force against someone who is unlawfully in their home. You really, really can kill the neighbour kid who broke in the basement window and drank the whisky and fell asleep. (And I don't give a crap how many gun militants might show up bleating that this is not true. On the plain language of the statute, it is.)


On "stand your ground", the former "duty to retreat" was really just one aspect of the requirement that people only use force if there is no reasonable alternative. Particularly in public, it makes hugely more sense to require that people remove themselves from a potentially violent situation, where they can reasonably believe that is possible, then simply give them carte blanche to start shooting. Not just because civilized societies do value the lives of all human beings over the wounded pride of someone required to "retreat", but because public safety is also an issue of concern to reasonable people.