WSDC MATTERBRIEF

by Jazmin Jabines

Stand Your Ground Law/Castle Doctrine

I. Possible Motions/Issues

THW abolish the Stand Your Ground law

In States that do not have Stand Your Ground, THBT the state should be
made liable for ensuring the safety of every family
THBT states that have Stand Your Ground should abolish concealed carry
permits
THW mandate the police to wear body cameras

Big question: Is the Stand Your Ground law a license to kill or a protective
measure?

When is the use of violence justified?

What is the obligation of an assailed individual?
Does the law legitimize race-based violence?
Is Stand Your Ground a legitimate extension of the right to self-defense?
Does the blanket policy of the Stand Your Ground law uphold due process?
To what extent should the “burden of proof” of an assailed individual be?

II. Basic Information

Self-defense is a universally accepted principle that a person may protect

himself from harm under the appropriate circumstances, even when that behavior would
normally constitute a crime. This means that a person has the right of self-defense, yet
the application of that right raises many questions considering that the justness of a
retaliatory act is largely hinged on the circumstances surrounding each attack. These
are questions such as: are victims obligated to retreat from violence? What is the
sufficient level of force when defending oneself? If the assailed individual is carrying a
concealed weapon, is he permitted to use it to defend himself? What happens when
victims reasonably perceive a threat even if the threat doesn’t actually exist? What
about when the victim’s apprehension is subjectively genuine, but objectively
unreasonable? To deal with the complexity of self-defense, States have developed laws
to determine the instances when self-defense can or cannot be permissible. One of
these laws is the Stand Your Ground.
WSDC MATTERBRIEF
by Jazmin Jabines

The basis for Stand Your Ground laws is that individuals should be able to
use deadly force when they believe that they have encountered a perceived, imminent,
and reasonable threat without first attempting to avoid the conflict at all costs (i.e. duty
to retreat). A defense of ‘justifiable homicide’, which is defined as a killing without
criminal intent, can be applicable in situations when the Stand Your Ground law is
invoked.

The Stand Your Ground laws are essentially a revocation of an individual’s

duty to retreat which states that individuals physically confronted with a clear and
present danger have the obligation to remove themselves from harm’s way (by running
away, for example), thereby avoiding the use of deadly force. If avoiding the risk is not
possible (say a person is pinned down), only then can a person retaliate to defend
himself. However, the principle of duty to retreat has created confusion about when
individuals can legally defend themselves and fails to eliminate prosecutions of people
who legitimately used self-defense even though they could not retreat from the danger.

Stand Your Ground laws also expand on the ‘Castle Doctrine’ which states
that a person is legally protected to use deadly force in self-defense when his legally
occupied place such as his home (or personal vehicles in Missouri and Ohio) is
invaded. The key difference is that Stand Your Ground is not limited to a person’s
property.

In many U.S. states with Stand Your Ground laws, a claim of self-defense
grants immunity permitting the assailed individual to avoid trial and criminal prosecution
altogether. 38 States in the U.S. have passed Stand Your Ground laws, with Florida
being the first State to do so when it implemented the law in 2005. The specific nuances
of the law among States vary, with some states retaining the duty to retreat when lethal
force is involved and others removing the duty to retreat under all circumstances.

George Zimmerman & Trayvon Martin

The Stand Your Ground policy rose to controversy after the fatal shooting of
17-year-old Trayvon Martin in February 2012. The shooter, George Zimmerman,
acknowledged shooting Martin but claimed it was in self-defense. On July 13, 2013, a
six-person jury accepted Zimmerman’s argument and found him not-guilty. Mass waves
of protests that were largely peaceful ensued since enraged protesters believed that the
killing was racially motivated.
WSDC MATTERBRIEF
by Jazmin Jabines
Facts:

Trayvon Benjamin Martin, born February 5, 1995, was a 17-year-old African-American

high school student who lived in Miami Gardens, Florida with his mother Sybrina Fulton.
In February 2012, Martin was visting his father Tracy Martin in Sanford, Florida after
receiving a ten-day suspension from Krop Senior High School. The suspension
stemmed from the discovery of drug residue in Martin's book bag.

George Michael Zimmerman, born October 5, 1983, was a part-time student at

Seminole State College and a neighborhood watch captain at the Retreat at Twin Lakes
gated community in Sanford at the time of the shooting. He has a history of domestic
violence and assault, yet was permitted to carry a concealed gun which he used to
shoot Martin.

February 26, 2012 - George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford,

Florida, calls 911 to report "a suspicious person" in the neighborhood. He is instructed
not to get out of his SUV or approach the person. Zimmerman disregards the
instructions. Moments later, neighbors report hearing gunfire. Zimmerman
acknowledges that he shot an unarmed Martin, claiming it was in self-defense. In a
police report, Officer Timothy Smith writes that Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose
and back of the head.

March 8, 2012 - Investigators receive a fax from the Altamonte Family Practice
containing the medical records identifying the injuries sustained by Zimmerman on the
night of the shooting: Open wound of scalp, without mention of complication; nasal
bones, closed fracture; assault by other specified means.

April 30, 2013 - George Zimmerman waives his right to a "stand your ground" pretrial
immunity hearing. Zimmerman's attorneys decide they will instead try this as a self-
defense case because according to them, Zimmerman did not have the ability to retreat
because he was on the ground, “therefore the Stand Your Ground ‘benefit’ given by the
statute simply does not apply to the facts of George’s case: it is traditional self-defense”.
If Zimmerman had had a pretrial immunity hearing, a judge would have ruled whether
his actions were protected under the "stand your ground" law. If the judge had ruled in
favor of Zimmerman, it would have meant that no criminal or civil trial could proceed.

July 13, 2013 - The six woman jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty. They had three
choices: to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder; to find him guilty of the
WSDC MATTERBRIEF
by Jazmin Jabines
lesser charge of manslaughter; or to find him not guilty. The jurors deliberated for more
than 16 hours total, including 13 on Saturday alone.

Summary: Since the beginning, Zimmerman insisted that he was a victim: Martin
attacked him, forced and strangled him to the ground, so Zimmerman allegedly had no
choice but to shoot Martin. Zimmerman had an opportunity, under Florida's Stand Your
Ground law, to have a pre-trial hearing wherein the judge would rule whether the Stand
Your Ground law should prevent his case from going to trial. Zimmerman's defense did
not ask for a Stand Your Ground hearing, so the case went to trial and he was acquitted
based on simple self-defense.

III. Arguments & Clash Points

FOR

Stance: The Stand Your Ground law is a legitimate extension of a person’s right to self-
defense, and the law is a necessary protective measure for individuals in harm’s way
since the state cannot always fulfill its duty of protecting its citizens.

1. The ‘duty to retreat’ is an unjust imposition placed on victims of crime.

The principle of the duty to retreat was created so that an individual, when under
attack, could avoid confrontation as much as possible. Even when violence against the
perpetrator would be more effective at securing the victim’s safety (by threatening the
perpetrator with a gun, for example), individuals are expected to exert 100% of their
effort to looking for a method to escape. The problem is that often it is too late for the
victim when he has realized that it is impossible for him to safely retreat from the
conflict. Hence, it cannot be incumbent upon that individual to take extraordinary
measures to avoid the conflict that he or she did not initiate. Retreating from the conflict
could unjustly give additional power and control to the assailant, which would be unfair
to the victim.

Without stand your ground, what then is the reasonable expectation of a person
whose house has been invaded? To flee the only place he feels safe in? To wait until
gunpoint (which is often too late) to fight back? Assailed individuals must be able to
protect themselves by fighting back without fear of legal prosecution. Without Stand
Your Ground law, individuals who legitimately used violence as a means to self-defense
are prosecuted by the state, and are unfairly burdened by the state to place their lives at
even further risk by avoiding violence during the conflict.
WSDC MATTERBRIEF
by Jazmin Jabines
Conclusion: Victims should not be overburdened when protecting themselves since it is
their life at stake, therefore they should be permitted to use whatever means they deem
necessary to defend themselves. Unfortunately, the duty to retreat is an unfair burden.

2. State failure to protect citizens merits this policy.

To protect the general well-being of its citizens, the state deploys various
institutions, notably the police and the criminal justice system. They are tasked with
enforcing the law and limiting civil disorder to promote harmonious coexistence in
society, yet often these institutions fall short at performing their duties. In certain
communities, there is an incompetent police force, lax protective policies, and often the
police itself as an institution is the perpetrator of abuse: policemen can racially profile
members of the community and use military-grade equipment to police citizens into
submission.

In an ideal world, there wouldn’t be a need for citizens to protect themselves

because the state would do it for them. States that have low levels of crime and
unemployment don’t often push its citizens into desperation to commit crime, and would
be capable of ensuring the safety of its citizens with sensible enforcement of the law.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the case in reality. Citizens must take the initiative to protect
themselves, and in instances when their homes are invaded or they are threatened at
gunpoint on the street, the inability of citizens to protect themselves using whatever
means they deem necessary further ensnares them into state ineptitude. The Stand
Your Ground Policy fills this gap, and makes threatened individuals liable for their
situation, granting them the license to fulfill what should be the state’s responsibility.

Conclusion: Citizens must be able to empower themselves even through the use of
force, instead of being obliged to retreat, since it is the state’s failure for allowing them
to be in harm’s way.

AGAINST

Clash points: The right to self-defense, exercised through Stand Your Ground, is not
absolute since the law undermines due process and creates space for excessive and
unnecessary violence. Violence should always be a last resort; hence the duty to retreat
should be the primordial obligation of an assailed individual.
WSDC MATTERBRIEF
by Jazmin Jabines
1. Stand Your Ground normalizes the use of violence, and the court must
always place the burden of proof on the individual to prove that violence (if
engaged in) was a last-resort.

Premise: The use of violence is inherently harmful.

The use of violence as a means of self-defense must be an exception and not

the rule. With Stand Your Ground, assailed individuals are encouraged and given the
license to retaliate with as much force as they deem necessary.  In that case estimation
of reasonable fear rests largely on the shooter's judgment, which obviously can be used
to cover the shooter's own aggressive behavior. As a result, the law has created a
“shoot first” mentality which has led to a rise in homicides. According to Kagel (2014),
“’stand your ground’ policies experienced an 8% increase in homicides compared with
states without the law, which confirmed another study from researchers that analyzed
FBI data from 2000 to 2010 and found an 8% surge in fatalities in states with SYG laws,
which is 600 more homicides a year.”

However, violence must always be avoided as it creates high risk such as

debilitating physical injury and unnecessary deaths for both parties. Although it is true
that the option of retreat is often burdensome and not obvious during the attack, it is
necessary for retreat to be the primordial obligation of an individual under attack so that
unnecessary risk can be avoided. Therefore, the burden of proof of an assailed
individual should be that violence, when done, was a last resort.

Conclusion: The state must always err on the side of caution and a balance of
rights among individuals; hence the duty to retreat is a just imposition placed on
individuals (since the criminal will be punished anyway).

2. The blanket policy created by Stand Your Ground undermines due process.

Premise: The Stand Your Ground law gives space for individuals to subjectively
decide for themselves what an “imminent” danger constitutes of. A “perceived” threat to
an individual relies on an individual’s preconceived judgment which may be formed by a
predisposition to violence or racial prejudice.

a) The law is a legal paradox that unfairly protects citizens who may
have unreasonable exercised violence. In Florida, the statute states that a person who
uses deadly force in self-defense is “immune from criminal prosecution” which means
WSDC MATTERBRIEF
by Jazmin Jabines
that he cannot be tried. The question of whether he acted in self-defense is fact-
intensive (i.e. how he was threatened, how did he react), so how can the court make the
proper determination of whether he did act in self-defense if it cannot avail itself of the
forum to make the necessary determination?

As a result, the police who arrive at the crime scene after the conflict has ensued
cannot arrest the assailed individual unless there is probable cause that he did not act
out of self-defense, but often the defendant is the only living witness to the alleged
crime so the police often assume innocence, rendering the entire judicial process
useless.

b) Even in cases when a person who claims to have acted in self-

defense is charged with second-degree murder, as is the case with George Zimmerman
who fatally shot Trayvon Martin purportedly in an act of self-defense, the Stand Your
Ground Law provides an overwhelming, weighted defense that unfairly tips the balance
for individuals who may have excessively reacted violently to crime. This is because the
Stand Your Ground law lowers the burden of proof of a citizen when he invokes his right
to self-defense as justification for homicide.

The Stand Your Ground law has allowed countless, dangerous individuals to literally
“get away with murder” by claiming “self-defense” in situations where deadly force easily
could have been avoided.

Conclusion: Stand Your Ground is inherently flawed as it harms due process by

granting individuals the power to become judge, jury, and executioner.

3. Stand Your Ground disenfranchises minorities.

(Same) Premise: The Stand Your Ground law gives space for individuals to
subjectively decide for themselves what an “imminent” danger constitutes of. A
“perceived” threat to an individual relies on an individual’s preconceived judgment which
may be formed by a predisposition to violence or racial prejudice.

a) In the United States, there is a prevailing stereotype of black men

being inherently dangerous as opposed to white men. As a result, young black men are
21x more likely than their white peers to be killed by the police. This is not a statistical
outlier or a social anomaly.
WSDC MATTERBRIEF
by Jazmin Jabines
By giving assailed individuals the power to decide for themselves what constitutes as a
threat, the likelihood to engage in violence is much higher when they confront their
biases. This has a massive potential to increase violence and wrongful deaths based on
misunderstanding, miscommunication, misconceptions, and racial/ethnic prejudices.

b) The policy makes it easier for discrimination to be permissible

because citizens could kill members of minorities and just claim that they were threats.
Stand Your Ground legitimizes racial profiling and is used to perpetuate racial
intolerance by policing members of the minority into further disenfranchisement.

Conclusion: The law entrenches racial disparities and greatly impacts members
of the minorities far worse than how other groups are treated.

IV. Other Important Information

 The Castle Doctrine is also implemented in States outside the United

States. In countries including but not limited to Australia, Canada, England, Wales,
Germany, Ireland, Israel, and Italy, there are laws that permit individuals to use lethal
force against an invasion of their legally owned property, but the burden of proof in court
varies and the interpretation of the law is not as wide as it is inside the U.S..

 .Concealed carry laws in the U.S. permit citizens to carry weapons (such
as a handgun) in the public in a concealed manner. There is no federal law regarding
the issuance of concealed carry permits, but all 50 states allow qualified citizens to carry
certain concealed weapons in public. States with CCW laws already restrict where
weapons may be carried; schools, government buildings, and taverns are examples of
where permit holders may not bring their guns. The CCW law in different States varies
in terms of the qualifications of a weapon and a citizen who wishes to obtain a permit.
According to Florida's Concealed Carry Weapon law, applicants for a license may be
ineligible if they have had multiple arrests — not convictions — involving controlled
substances. Arrests for violence or a history of domestic abuse are not disqualifiers:
only convictions count. This is why George Zimmerman was allowed to carry a
concealed weapon even though he has a history of domestic violence and assault. In
July 2005, he was arrested for “resisting officer with violence.” The neighborhood watch
volunteer got into an altercation with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged
underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an
alcohol education program. In August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiancé sought a
restraining order against him because of domestic violence.
WSDC MATTERBRIEF
by Jazmin Jabines

V. Sources & Additional Readings

More case studies: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-17693084

Statistics: http://mic.com/articles/96190/a-disturbing-new-report-is-the-best-case-
against-stand-your-ground-laws-we-ve-seen-yet
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/18/1239759/-Report-on-Stand-Your-Ground-
Laws-Highlights-Racial-Disparities#
More analysis and facts about Zimmerman-Martin case:
http://mic.com/articles/55027/george-zimmerman-is-free-so-let-s-talk-about-gun-
violence
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts/

Sources:
http://kcurtis92.wix.com/kira-curtis-writing#!blank/c16qg
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/opinion/blow-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-
martin.html?_r=1
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-stand-your-ground-laws-a-good-idea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/15/everything-you-need-to-
know-about-stand-your-ground-laws/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/17/1224515/-5-Myths-about-Stand-Your-
Ground-Debunked
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/stand-your-ground-laws.html