[Since 2005, “stand your ground” laws have spread to around 30
states, transforming the legal landscape. Enacted in the context of
deep racial biases, they encourage armed citizens to use deadly force
against any perceived threat – real or imagined. ]
[[link removed]]

‘STAND YOUR GROUND’ LAWS CAN GET YOU KILLED  
[[link removed]]


 

Caroline Light
April 21, 2023
The Conversation
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Since 2005, “stand your ground” laws have spread to around 30
states, transforming the legal landscape. Enacted in the context of
deep racial biases, they encourage armed citizens to use deadly force
against any perceived threat – real or imagined. _

,

 

In one key respect, Ralph Yarl was fortunate. The wounds the
16-year-old suffered after being shot twice on April 13, 2023
[[link removed]],
by the owner of the house whose doorbell he rang, thinking it was
where he was due to pick up his two younger brothers, did not prove
fatal
[[link removed]].

Others who have made similar mistakes have died. Take Renisha McBride
[[link removed]],
who sought help after wrecking her car in a Detroit suburb in 2013, or
Carson Senfield
[[link removed]],
who entered the wrong car in Tampa – thinking it was his Uber – on
his 19th birthday. And then there is the case of 20-year-old Kaylin
Gillis
[[link removed]],
a passenger in a car that turned around in a driveway in upstate New
York on April 15, 2023. What these young people have in common is that
they were killed in accidental encounters with armed property owners.

As a scholar who has studied
[[link removed]] America’s love
affair with guns and lethal self-defense
[[link removed]], I have
explored the history of laws that selectively shield citizens from
criminal responsibility
[[link removed]] when they use
force and claim self-defense. Since 2005, these “stand your ground
[[link removed]]”
laws have spread to around 30 states
[[link removed]],
transforming the United States’ legal landscape.

While preexisting laws regarding justifiable use of force
[[link removed]]
allowed the use of lethal force for self-defense in some
circumstances, they required that people first try to retreat from a
perceived threat if it was safe to do so or to seek a nonlethal
solution to a hostile encounter. Stand your ground laws, meanwhile,
authorize defensive violence without a duty to retreat, wherever a
person may legally be. Some also expand the circumstances in which
someone could use lethal force to defend property.

Although the laws appear to apply to all law-abiding citizens,
research shows that they are not equitably enforced
[[link removed]],
and that they may be emboldening property owners to shoot first and
question their actions later, even when there is no real threat of
harm.

Certainly that seems to be the case with the shooting of Yarl. The
wounding of the Black teen, who was simply trying to pick up his
siblings, generated widespread outrage
[[link removed]],
especially when Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves suggested that
investigators would consider whether the shooter – an 84-year-old
white man – might have recourse to the state’s stand your ground
[[link removed]] law as a
defense against prosecution.

Given that the encounter took place on the shooter’s property, there
is a possibility the shooter could find legal protection in the
“castle doctrine
[[link removed]],”
which allows someone to use reasonable force – without first trying
to retreat – in self-defense in their home. But he would still have
to show reasonable cause for firing two shots at the unarmed teen
standing at his front door.

Defining ‘reasonable’ force

It seems that in the case of Yarl, state prosecutors believe that the
bar of reasonable cause was not met. Andrew D. Lester, the homeowner,
has since been charged
[[link removed]]
with two counts: assault in the first degree and armed criminal
action.

This does not preclude the defense from invoking Lester’s right to
“stand his ground” and use force in self-defense, if his lawyers
can show Lester truly believed Yarl posed a real threat.

Missouri’s stand your ground law
[[link removed]], in
place since 2016, removes the duty to retreat anywhere a person may
legally be, even beyond one’s “castle.” But you still need to
prove that force is used reasonably, that it was not carried out in
aggression or anger, and that there was a genuine fear for your life.

Indeed, the resolution of cases like the Yarl shooting turn on a
highly subjective reckoning of what counts as reasonable force, and on
which side – prosecution or defense – bears the burden of proof.

Traditional laws on the use of force place that burden on the alleged
self-defender, who must prove that their actions were reasonable. But
some other states with stand your ground laws, like Florida, remove
the burden of proof
[[link removed]]
from the defense, placing it on the prosecution.

This means that the prosecution must prove that the alleged
self-defender was truly fearful when using force. In some instances,
as in the shooting of Senfield after he tried to enter a car he
misidentified as his Uber, the stand your ground law becomes a shield
against prosecution. No charges have been filed
[[link removed]]
in that case, in large part because there were no other witnesses to
contradict the shooter’s claim that he was in fear for his life when
Senfield tried to enter his car.

Increase in gun homicides

Contrary to the claims of the framers and promoters
[[link removed]]
of stand your ground laws, there is scant empirical evidence
[[link removed]]
that the laws prevent crime. In fact, multiple studies
[[link removed]]
show just the opposite.

Research on public health and crime reveals a pernicious effect of
stand your ground laws on public safety, showing a correlation with
increased rates of gun homicide
[[link removed]]. One study, which
includes an assessment of Missouri’s law, found that the passage of
stand your ground laws correlates with an 8% to 11% increase
[[link removed]] in firearm
homicide rates.

An analysis of stand your ground cases in Florida
[[link removed]],
carried out by gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety,
addressed the way removal of the duty to retreat encourages violent
escalation; researchers suggested that over half the cases could have
been resolved without loss of life.

Further, recent scholarship shows how stand your ground laws intensify
existing racial injustices
[[link removed]]
in the U.S. criminal legal system. A study by the think tank Urban
Institute
[[link removed]]
found significant discrepancies in the rate at which homicides in
stand your ground cases were deemed justified, depending on the race
of the shooter and the race of the deceased. White shooters were
significantly more likely to to be exonerated when their victim was
Black, suggesting that – particularly in states with stand your
ground laws – white people may feel more legally empowered to use
lethal force and avoid prosecution, as long as their victims are
Black.

Encouraging armed citizenry

In the Yarl case, the possible presence of racial bias has not escaped
the attention of Kansas City prosecutors
[[link removed]].
Lester’s grandson has described his grandfather
[[link removed]]
as a QAnon devotee with “racist tendencies and beliefs” that
likely prompted his violent reaction to Yarl’s presence on his
doorstep.

Against the backdrop of historical legacies of racial bias in the
U.S., stand your ground laws intensify the risks of shooting deaths in
an increasingly gun-saturated public
[[link removed]].
With laws that encourage armed citizens to use force against any
perceived threat – real or imagined – even the most innocent
mistakes and chance encounters can turn deadly.[The Conversation]

Caroline Light
[[link removed]], Senior
Lecturer on Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, _Harvard
University
[[link removed]]_

This article is republished from The Conversation
[[link removed]] under a Creative Commons license. Read
the original article
[[link removed]].

* Stand Your Ground
[[link removed]]
* gun violence
[[link removed]]
* racial bias
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]