Florida has become “ground” zero for the stand-your-ground self-defense law.
In homicide cases, black defendants in Florida appear to successfully invoke the stand-your-ground law at a slightly higher rate than whites, according to statistics compiled by the Tampa Bay Times . About one-third of successful stand-your-ground claims involving fatalities in the state are apparently made by black defendants.
The controversial law that has come under a lot of attention recently states that a person is justified in using force in self-defense if he or she has a reasonable belief of an unlawful threat. Although the George Zimmerman defense team did not rely on the law during the criminal trial in Seminole County, Fla., it was the stand-your-ground law that at least in part convinced police to initially dismiss Zimmerman as a murder suspect.
In the Times compilation, which was reported by The Daily Caller , in 44 fatal confrontations (which includes nine pending cases in which no ruling has yet been made), African-American defendants were deemed justified in 24 instances for about a 55 percent success rate. In 76 cases involving fatalities (which also includes 11 pending, undecided, cases), white suspects were considered justified 40 times (about 53 percent). George Zimmerman is listed as one of 10 Hispanic persons using deadly force, although as noted above this defense was not put forth at his recently concluded second degree murder trial. Of those 10, seven are listed as justified killings.
These justified-vs.-convicted results about the use of deadly force in Florida may or may not be statistically significant, and perhaps a larger sample size is required
Reviewing the data, The Atlantic claims that killings of victims of color are more likely to be considered justified under the stand-your-ground law than that of whites.
You can review the Times material at the link above and draw your own conclusions.
Andrew F. Branca, the author of The Law of Self Defense, has noted that Florida is not necessarily unique in enacting a stand-your-ground law; similar measures are on the books in about 30 states. Attorney Branca explained the stand-your-ground law as follows:
“Traditionally, it was required that you take advantage of a safe avenue of retreat, if such was reasonably available to you, before using deadly force in self-defense. This was what is referred to as a generalized duty to retreat. It always had exceptions, such as the Castle Doctrine which lifts the duty when you are in your home.
“The ‘stand-your-ground’ law expands the scope of the Castle Doctrine beyond your home to every place you have a right to be. So, even if there were a safe avenue of retreat reasonably available to you, you no longer have a legal duty to attempt to make use of it before using deadly force in self-defense.
“The duty to retreat itself, however, only applies where safe retreat is possible. If there is no safe avenue of retreat, there is no duty. If there is no duty, the ‘stand-your-ground’ statute that relieves you of that duty is irrelevant.”
Do you think the stand-your-ground law should be repealed or modified as some of its critics want?
[Image via Shutterstock ]