DOCSLIB.ORG

Castle Doctrine Legislation: Unintended Effects for Gun Ownership?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Castle Doctrine Legislation: Unintended Effects for Gun Ownership? Castle Doctrine Legislation: Unintended Effects for Gun Ownership? Lacey N. Wallace1 Justice Policy Journal Volume 11, Number 2 (Fall) © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2014 www.cjcj.org/jpj Abstract Between 2000 and 2010, more than 20 states passed new or revised legislation referred to as the Castle Doctrine. These statutes provide citizens protection from criminal prosecution and civil liability in cases where an individual uses physical force to protect self or home. Advocated by the National Rifle Association, these statutes were intended to protect citizens using firearms as self-defense. Little research to date has examined their effects. This paper tests whether Castle Doctrine legislation affected gun ownership and acquisition, as approximated by the number of Federal background checks and the proportion of suicides attributable to firearms. Analyses treat both outcomes as time series spanning 2000-2010 with states as panels. Results indicate that Castle Doctrine legislation is associated with a long-term increase in the number of Federal background checks. Results for the proportion of suicides attributable to firearms are limited. Implications of these results and avenues for future research are discussed. service. It would find compassion, instead of antipathy, for its beleaguered veterans. Following that, the nation would provide the resources necessary to meet the demands of a moral society that is committed to aiding its beleaguered veterans in reclaiming their civilian lives. 1 Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Pennsylvania State University Castle Doctrine and Gun Ownership 1 Wallace Justice Policy Journal, Fall 2014 Introduction On the night of February 26th, 2012, 28-year-old George Zimmerman fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in the gated Florida community where Zimmerman served as neighborhood watch coordinator (Kennedy, 2013). Zimmerman testified that he shot Martin in self-defense as the two were having a physical altercation (Kennedy, 2013). He was eventually acquitted after a highly publicized trial. Over a year later, in November 2013, Theodore Wafer fatally shot 19-year-old Renisha McBride through the front door of his home in Dearborn Heights, Michigan (Guarino, 2014). Wafer told police that he believed McBride was attempting to break into his home. Wafer was found guilty of second-degree murder and other charges in August 2014 (Goodman, 2014). Although unrelated incidents, both cases have a key factor in common: each defendant claimed to be protected by the “Castle Doctrine.” The term Castle Doctrine refers to legal statutes that explicitly protect an individual’s right to use force to protect his/ her home (i.e. “a man’s home is his castle”) and person without necessarily having to retreat from the situation (Levin, 2010). Individuals whose circumstances meet certain requirements under these laws may be exempt from criminal prosecution, civil litigation, or both (Levin, 2010). Although laws like these have existed for centuries, many states have chosen to revise or expand legislation since 2005. Little is known about the effects of these legal changes for violent crime, citizen perceptions of victimization risk or other related factors. A number of these unknowns came to the forefront of public debate as a result of the Trayvon Martin shooting noted above. In that particular case George Zimmerman called 911 to report a suspicious person walking in his neighborhood (CNN Library, 2014). That person was Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African American male walking home from a convenience store. Although instructed not to leave his vehicle, Zimmerman did so anyway, confronted Martin and fatally shot Martin in an altercation that followed (CNN Library, 2014). Zimmerman was not initially arrested or charged for the crime. Under Florida’s Castle Doctrine statute Zimmerman had no duty to retreat before using deadly force to defend himself. Further, police were not permitted to arrest Zimmerman without probable cause to refute his claims of self-defense (Flock, 2012). Zimmerman was not charged for the crime until six weeks later (CNN Library, 2014). These events spurred lengthy public debate concerning racial profiling and shooting victims, legal immunity for aggressors, as well as gun carrying. In spite of this debate, many of the alleged effects of the statutes are unknown or unclear. In particular, it remains unknown how Castle Doctrine legislation may affect gun ownership, especially since these statutes were backed by the National Rifle Association as legal protection for owners of firearms. Past research has shown that demand for and ownership of firearms can be sensitive to social and political context. McDowall and Loftin (1983), for instance, showed demand for handguns in Detroit was sensitive to a sense of collective security; demand increased when citizens felt that crime was a problem or when the number of police decreased. Past research also showed that fear of crime was predictive of protective ownership of firearms (Cao, Cullen, & Link, 1997; Lizotte, Bordua, & White, 1981; Young, 1985). Research by Holbert and colleagues (2004) has shown an association between handgun ownership and viewing crime-related content on television. Although Blair and Hyatt (1995) found that gun advertisements did not affect attitudes towards guns, it is unknown how Castle Doctrine legislation and its surrounding publicity might affect gun ownership or acquisition. Unlike television ads or series, state legislation carries with it the authority of government. By providing criminal and civil protections for use of force, Castle Doctrine legislation may make gun ownership more appealing as a form of self-defense. This may be the case particularly if guns are perceived as a deterrent to victimization. Addressing this research question is imperative since gun ownership may have effects for violence. Some studies, for instance, found a positive association between rates of gun ownership and homicide rates (Philip J. Cook & Ludwig, 2006; Matthew Miller, Azrael, & Hemenway, 2002; Siegel, Ross, & King, 2013). Positive associations have also been found between gun ownership and suicide, so much so that the proportion of suicides attributable to firearms is a commonly used proxy for gun ownership (Kleck, 2004; M. Miller, Azrael, Hepburn, Hemenway, & Lippmann, 2006). Other research, however, found that using a gun for protection decreased the likelihood of certain violent crimes being completed or resulting in victim injury (Kleck & Gertz, 1995). Given these associations, it is important to assess how the recent wave of Castle Doctrine legislation has affected gun ownership and acquisition across U.S. states. In addition to testing the impact of Castle Doctrine legislation on gun ownership, this paper makes several other contributions to existing literature. First, as there is no national gun ownership registry, many authors (Kleck, 2004) have attempted to measure ownership and acquisition through alternative measures. I use two such measures: the proportion of suicides committed by firearm and the number of FBI firearm background checks. Replication of analyses across these two constructs lends credence to results. Second, I assess effects of Caste Doctrine statutes nationwide rather than limiting myself to a single state or small collection of states. Castle Doctrine and Gun Ownership 3 Wallace Justice Policy Journal, Fall 2014 This helps to avoid some threats to internal validity, such as selection or history, by analyzing states of widely varying characteristics passing legislation at different time points. Lastly, I include the legal characteristics of Castle Doctrine statutes as predictors in my models to determine whether effects vary by type of legislation. As I detail shortly, some states have passed fairly weak versions of the Castle Doctrine while others have passed versions that extend far beyond those observed in early law. History & Development of Castle Doctrine Legislation Today’s modern Castle Doctrine statutes have their origins in medieval English common law. At that time, English common law made a distinction between self- defense and defense of one’s home (Catalfamo, 2006). Law recognized that an individual had the right to protect his or her home from attack and unlawful entry. For self-defense law dictated that a person must make some attempt to retreat or withdraw from the situation before using force (Catalfamo, 2006). This was not the case for defense of residence. Law granted homeowners the right to defend their place of residence without retreat and gave homeowners the right to use force to defend their homes even if the intruder did not him/herself present a physical threat (Catalfamo, 2006). The term “Castle Doctrine” itself is attributed to Sir Edward Coke, the Attorney General of England in 1604 who stated in Semayne’s Case (1604) that “the house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose” (Coke, 1604). This saying is often written as “a man’s home is his castle” and referred to as the Castle Doctrine. As with many aspects of English common law, this notion of a Castle Doctrine took hold in the early United States and gained favor through the 1800’s (Boots, Bihari, & Elliott, 2009; Levin, 2010). In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a person’s right to use force in defense of one’s home without a duty to retreat in Beard v United States (1895) (Justia, 2014). In 1921, the United States
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stand Your Ground” Law
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NSU Works Nova Law Review Volume 30, Issue 1 2005 Article 6 Up in Arms over Florida’s New “Stand Your Ground” Law Michelle Jaffe∗ ∗ Copyright c 2005 by the authors. Nova Law Review is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/nlr Jaffe: Up in Arms over Florida's New "Stand Your Ground" Law UP IN ARMS OVER FLORIDA'S NEW "STAND YOUR GROUND" LAW MICHELLE JAFFE* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 155 II. JUSTIFIED H OM ICIDE ...................................................................... 157 A . The Theory ........................................................................ 157 B. The Development of the Doctrine of Self-Defense ............ 158 III. THE ENGLISH RETREAT TO THE WALL WHILE THE AMERICANS STAND THEIR GROUND .................................................................. 160 A. The American Aversion to Retreating............................... 160 B. Some States Still Demand Retreat..................................... 163 C. The Position of the United States Supreme Court............. 164 D. The "Castle Doctrine" Exception ..................................... 168 IV . FLO RIDA ......................................................................................... 170 A . The Old Law: Retreat....................................................... 170 B. The New Law: Stand Your Ground.................................. 175 V .
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony by Kelsey Rogers Brady
    Brady 840 First St. NE Ste. 400 Washington, DC 20002 Testimony of Kelsey Rogers, Senior Manager, State Policy, Brady Opposition to H.B. 381, the Ohio Stand Your Ground Act Before the Ohio House of Representatives Criminal Justice Committee June 9th, 2020 Chairman Lang and Members of the Ohio House of Representatives Criminal Justice Committee, Founded in 1974, Brady works across Congress, courts, and communities, uniting gun owners and non- gun owners alike, to take action, not sides, and end America’s gun violence epidemic. Our organization today carries the name of Jim Brady, who was shot and severely injured in the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. Jim and his wife, Sarah, led the fight to pass federal legislation requiring background checks for gun sales. Brady continues to uphold Jim and Sarah’s legacy by uniting Americans from coast to coast, red and blue, young and old, liberal and conservative, to combat the epidemic of gun violence. There are evidence-based policy solutions that we know will address the gun violence epidemic in the state of Ohio. In the past five years alone, 8,565 Ohioans have been killed by gun violence,1 and that number will continue to climb. The answer to the violent epidemic of gun violence is not the enactment of another law that would endanger public safety. We strongly urge the committee to oppose H.B. 381 because it is an ineffective and dangerous law that threatens the lives of all Ohioans and perpetuates racial inequalities in the gun violence epidemic. What Would H.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Castle Doctrine
    ASSEMBLY, No. 159 STATE OF NEW JERSEY 213th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2008 SESSION Sponsored by: Assemblyman RICHARD A. MERKT District 25 (Morris) Assemblywoman ALISON LITTELL MCHOSE District 24 (Sussex, Hunterdon and Morris) Assemblyman ANTHONY CHIAPPONE District 31 (Hudson) Co-Sponsored by: Assemblyman Chiusano SYNOPSIS The "New Jersey Self-Defense Law." CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT Introduced Pending Technical Review by Legislative Counsel (Sponsorship Updated As Of: 5/6/2008) A159 MERKT, MCHOSE 2 1 AN ACT concerning the protection of persons and property, 2 amending N.J.S.2C:3-4 and N.J.S.2C:3-6, and supplementing 3 chapter 3 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes. 4 5 BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State 6 of New Jersey: 7 8 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "New Jersey 9 Self-Defense Law." 10 11 2. The Legislature finds and declares that: 12 a. It is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their 13 families and others from intruders and attackers without fear of 14 prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of their own well 15 being and the well being of others. 16 b. The "Castle Doctrine" is a long-standing American legal 17 concept arising from English Common Law that provides that one's 18 abode is a special area in which one enjoys certain protections and 19 immunities, that one is not obligated to retreat before defending 20 oneself against attack, and that one may do so without fear of 21 prosecution.
    [Show full text]
  • Stand Your Ground and Self Defense Laws
    LRO A policy brief from the Legislative Research Office Stand your Ground and Self Defense Laws By LaMont Rainey, Legal Counsel Opponents call such laws “shoot first” laws and believe that avoiding confrontation when possible actually protects lives. Additionally, opponents note that stand-your-ground In 2005, Florida became the first state to enact a laws are a solution in search of a problem because existing controversial type of law known as a stand-your-ground self-defense laws offer adequate protections. A 2018 Rand law. Since that time, 26 other states have passed some Corporation report notes that moderate evidence exists to version of a stand-your-ground law.1 Additionally, at least show that stand-your-ground laws may actually increase seven states have adopted stand-your-ground policies via homicide rates.3 case law, jury instructions, or other means. Nebraska’s Self-Defense Laws What is a Stand-Your-Ground law? Nebraska has not enacted a stand-your-ground law. As its name implies, generally a stand-your-ground law Nebraska’s self-defense laws are codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. provides legal justification for the use of force, including secs. 28-1406 to 28-1416. deadly force, when a person: (1) is attacked in any place where he or she is lawfully present; (2) reasonably believes A key self-defense statute is Neb. Rev. Stat. sec. 28-1409, that force is needed to protect himself, herself, or others which includes: from imminent death or serious bodily injury; and (3) is • A justification for the use of force when not engaged in unlawful activity at the time of the event.
    [Show full text]
  • Stand Your Ground, Battered Women's Syndrome, and Violence As Male Privilege
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 68 Number 4 Volume 68 Number 4 (Summer 2014) Eleventh Circuit Issue: "Stand Your Ground" Article 7 Laws 7-1-2014 Real Men Advance, Real Women Retreat: Stand Your Ground, Battered Women's Syndrome, and Violence as Male Privilege Mary Anne Franks University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Part of the Law and Gender Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Mary Anne Franks, Real Men Advance, Real Women Retreat: Stand Your Ground, Battered Women's Syndrome, and Violence as Male Privilege, 68 U. Miami L. Rev. 1099 (2014) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol68/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Real Men Advance, Real Women Retreat: Stand Your Ground, Battered Women's Syndrome, and Violence as Male Privilege MARY ANNE FRANKS* Proponents of Stand Your Ground laws cynically exploit the image of vulnerable women to defend expansions of self-defense doctrine, despite the fact that such laws actually reinforce and exacerbate existing gender divides in self-defense law that disproportionately harm women. The appropriationof women's right to self-defense by Stand Your Ground supporters masks the law's hostility toward women's use of force and obscures the real achievement of such legislation: the normalizationand promotion of (often white) male violence in an ever-expanding variety of scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Tribes Exercise Their Sovereign Rights to Enact Gun Bans Or Stand-Your-Ground Laws?
    TWEEDY 3/11/2015 10:59 AM INDIAN TRIBES AND GUN REGULATION: SHOULD TRIBES EXERCISE THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS TO ENACT GUN BANS OR STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAWS? Ann Tweedy* I. INTRODUCTION In light of the Second Amendment’s inapplicability to Indian tribes, tribes appear to have the greatest freedom to experiment with gun laws of any sovereign in the United States.1 What have they done with that freedom and what sorts of regulations should they pursue? This article attempts to answer both questions. As to the first, as discussed in more detail below, tribes have enacted an array of generally fairly modest firearm regulations including permit requirements, limits on concealed weapons, restrictions on having guns in certain places, and regulations as to gun type and barrel length. As to the second question, this article explores two fairly extreme types of possible tribal firearm regulations: gun bans and stand-your-ground laws. Although each may have appeal to some of the nation’s 566 federally recognized Indian tribes for different reasons, this article argues that, because of the current limitations on tribal civil and criminal jurisdiction under federal law and related issues, a tribe’s enforcement of either would likely be fraught with problems. Thus, despite their unparalleled discretion in the area of firearm regulation, tribes’ ability to effectively regulate on this crucial issue is hampered by the arcane framework of tribal civil and criminal jurisdiction under federal law. Moreover, this incongruity contradicts Congress’ * Tribal Attorney, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Associate Professor, Hamline University School of Law. J.D., University of California, Berkeley School of Law, 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Tranquility: the Goals of Home Protection
    DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY: THE GOALS OF HOME PROTECTION Burke Bindbeutel* I. INTRODUCTION: LAW AND THE PRIVATE HOME There exists a kind of “domestic exceptionalism” in many areas of the American legal tradition. American officials have demonstrated great restraint in not extending prevailing norms and policies into private homes. Homes get special tax treatment, robust protection from criminal investigations, and in many municipalities, residential commerce does not adhere to principles of contract law.1 The militaristic adage that “a man’s home is his castle”2 has been widely ratified into law. On the other hand, much is not permitted within the home’s ramparts. It is unlikely that James Otis and any contemporary invokers of the “Castle Doctrine” mean that each citizen may retreat to a fortified enclave, free from the jurisdiction of God and man. Few scholars would go as far as Justice Foster in the fictional case of the Speluncean Explorers.3 Foster argued that the experience of the cannibals trapped in a cave was so markedly different from that of everyday people that the law had ceased to have jurisdiction over them.4 “Whatever particular objects may be sought by the various branches of our law,” Foster wrote, “it is apparent on reflection that all of them are * Burke Bindbeutel is a claimant’s representative with Integrated Benefits, Inc. He is based in Columbia, Missouri. He served as an Illinois JusticeCorps Fellow at the Daley Center in Chicago from 2013–14. Mr. Bindbeutel would like to thank Prof. William Fisch and Greg Goodwin, as well as the staff of the Southern Illinois University Law Journal, for the valuable feedback during the writing of this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground/Self Defense Statutes Self –Defense Laws Are Not Black and White
    Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground/Self Defense Statutes Self –Defense laws are not black and white. There is a huge difference from one state to the next on the wording and how the law is applied. I have seen places where they state some states have Stand your ground in practice while others say they don’t. We have seen others state differently on a states Castle Doctrine Laws. We want to give you a start in your research on these types of laws so we have assembled these pages. Case law in these instances would also be very important. This is a work in progress and we would appreciate any feedback you could give us. [email protected] Last Updated: 7/22/2020 Each states name is a link to that state page at Handgunlaw.us. Each states page has a section Titled “Deadly Force Laws” with links to that states deadly force laws if you want more information. State Name - Has Stand Your Ground Statute.. State Name - Has Castle Doctrine. Only Applies to Dwelling State Name - Castle Doctrine Applies to Dwelling and Vehicle or more if noted. State Name - No Castle Doctrine Statute. Alabama - § 13A-3-23 Use of Force In Defense of a Person. Alaska - § 11.81.335 Justification: Use of Deadly Force In Defense of Self. Arizona - § 13-405 Justification; Use of Deadly Physical Force Arkansas - Title 5, Subtitle 1, Chpt. 2, Subchpt. 6, § 5-2-607 Use of Deadly Physical Force In Defense of a Person : (Castle Doctrine) Title 5, Subtitle 1, Chpt. 2, Subchpt.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime Or Escalate Violence?
    Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Castle Doctrine Cheng Cheng Mark Hoekstra Texas A&M University Texas A&M University and NBER June 25, 2012 Abstract From 2000 to 2010, more than 20 states passed laws that make it easier to use lethal force in self-defense. Elements of these laws include removing the duty to retreat in places RXWVLGHRIRQH¶VKRPHadding a presumption of reasonable belief of imminent harm, and removing civil liability for those acting under the law. This paper examines whether aiding self-defense in this way deters crime or, alternatively, increases homicide. To do so, we apply a difference-in-differences research design by exploiting the within-state variation in law adoption. We find no evidence of deterrence; burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault are unaffected by the laws. On the other hand, we find that homicides are increased by around 8 percent, and that these homicides are largely classified by police as murder. This suggests that a primary consequence of strengthened self-defense law is a net increase in homicide. Finally, we present back-of-the-envelope calculations using evidence on the relative increase in reported justifiable homicide, along with assumptions about the degree and nature of underreporting, to assess whether the entire increase was legally justified. _________________ Cheng Cheng: Texas A&M University, Department of Economics, 3050 Allen Building, 4228 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 (email: [email protected]). Mark Hoekstra: Texas A&M University, Department of Economics, 3087 Allen Building, 4228 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 (email: [email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Legal Issues in Law Enforcement May 2010
    Law Enforcement Executive FORUM Critical Legal Issues in Law Enforcement May 2010 Law Enforcement Executive Forum Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board Executive Institute Western Illinois University 1 University Circle Macomb, IL 61455-1390 www.ILETSBEI.com Senior Editor Thomas J. Jurkanin, PhD Editors Vladimir A. Sergevnin, PhD, and Susan C. Nichols Associate Editors Jennifer M. Allen, PhD Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice, North Georgia College and State University Barry Anderson, JD School of Law Enforcement and Justice Administration, Western Illinois University Tony Barringer, EdD Division of Justice Studies, Florida Gulf Coast University Michael Bolton, PhD Chair, Department of Criminal Justice and Sociology, Marymount University Becky K. da Cruz Criminal Justice and Law and Society, Armstrong Atlantic State University Jose de Arimateia da Cruz Political Science and Comparative Politics, Armstrong Atlantic State University Larry Hoover, PhD Director, Police Research Center, Sam Houston State University William Lewinski, PhD Director, Force Science Research Center, Minnesota State University William McCamey, PhD School of Law Enforcement and Justice Administration, Western Illinois University Stephen A. Morreale, DPA School of Public Policy and Administration/Criminal Justice, Walden University Gregory Boyce Morrison Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Ball State University Deborah W. Newman, JD, EdD Professor and Chair, Department of Criminal Justice, Middle Tennessee State University Michael J. Palmiotto Professor, Criminal Justice, Wichita State University Gene L. Scaramella, PhD Dean of Graduate Studies, Ellis College of New York Institute of Technology Wayne Schmidt, LL.M., JD Director, Americans for Effective Law Enforcement Aaron Thompson, PhD Department of Sociology, Eastern Kentucky University Brian N.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Your Ground in Tennessee: Explaining the Expansion of a National Self-Defense Trend in Tennessee Law
    STANDING YOUR GROUND IN TENNESSEE: EXPLAINING THE EXPANSION OF A NATIONAL SELF-DEFENSE TREND IN TENNESSEE LAW by Daniel D. Harrington A thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Criminal Justice Administration Middle Tennessee State University 2013 Thesis Committee: Dr. Lance Selva, Chair Dr. Michael Montgomery William Shulman ABSTRACT In the last two decades a legal trend known as “Stand Your Ground” has emerged, serving to expand on an English common law rule known as the “Castle doctrine.” Stand Your Ground laws negate the Castle doctrine’s central concept of a “duty to retreat” before the use of lethal force to protect oneself. This thesis will compare national laws, court cases, and trends to Tennessee and examine if “Stand Your Ground” laws have been found to affect violent crime and homicides. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO “STAND YOUR GROUND”...……..…...………..1 CHAPTER II: THE DUTY TO RETREAT..……………………………………………..6 Revoking the Duty to Retreat……………………...…..…...….………………………9 Standing Your Ground in Court………………...……....……….……………………10 CHAPTER III: CONCEALED CARRY AND STANDING YOUR GROUND.….……17 Shall Issue and Stand Your Ground…...…………………...……...………………….18 The Meaning of Reciprocity……..……………...……………...…………………….21 CHAPTER IV: STANDING YOUR GROUND IN THE UNITED STATES..…………24 The Florida Difference……………………………..………………...……………….25 Changes in Illinois……………….………..……………………………...…………..27 Standing Your Ground in Tennessee………………………………………...……….29 CHAPTER V: THE EFFECTS OF STAND
    [Show full text]
  • Why American Law Should Jettison “Stand Your Ground” and Adopt the English Approach to Retreat Franklin Stockdale Boston College Law School, [email protected]
    Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Volume 39 | Issue 2 Article 8 8-11-2016 Withdrawing a License to Kill: Why American Law Should Jettison “Stand Your Ground” and Adopt the English Approach to Retreat Franklin Stockdale Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Franklin Stockdale, Withdrawing a License to Kill: Why American Law Should Jettison “Stand Your Ground” and Adopt the English Approach to Retreat, 39 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 453 (2016), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol39/iss2/8 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WITHDRAWING A LICENSE TO KILL: WHY AMERICAN LAW SHOULD JETTISON “STAND YOUR GROUND” AND ADOPT THE ENGLISH APPROACH TO RETREAT FRANKLIN STOCKDALE* Abstract: The justification of self-defense generally allows the use of a reasona- ble amount of force when a victim of an attack has a reasonable belief that the use of force is necessary in order to prevent an imminent harm. For centuries, the justification of self-defense included a duty of the victim—or defendant—to re- treat before resorting to force. Today in the United States, this duty has been eliminated entirely in many jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]