DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States ______ No. 16-1027 In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________________________ RYAN AUSTIN COLLINS, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. ________________________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia ________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION FREEDOM ACTION FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ________________________________ DAVID H. THOMPSON Counsel of Record PETER A. PATTERSON JOHN D. OHLENDORF COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 220-9600 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae November 20, 2017 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 1 ARGUMENT .............................................................. 4 I. The History of the Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Demonstrates that that Right Has Its Highest and Most Urgent Application in the Home ............................................................ 5 A. The Fourth Amendment Has Its Roots in the Legal and Political Backlash Against the Crown’s Inspection of Pri- vate Homes in the Period Leading to the American Revolution. ................................ 5 1. The Wilkes Cases ................................... 6 2. Entick v. Carrington ............................. 8 3. Paxton’s Case ......................................... 9 B. In Its Original Context, the Fourth Amendment Was Meant Principally To Protect the Sanctity and Privacy of American Homes. ..................................... 10 C. This Court’s Precedents Confirm that the Fourth Amendment’s Highest Pur- pose Is To Defend the Sanctity of the Home. ........................................................ 11 ii II. The Sanctity of the Home Also Plays a Central Role in Safeguarding Many of Our Other Fundamental Constitutional Freedoms. ......................................................... 13 A. The Right to Armed Self-Defense—the Central Component of the Second Amendment—Applies with Full Force Within the Home. ..................................... 13 B. Throughout History, the Shared Im- portance of the Home to Both the Right to Self-Defense and the Right Against Unreasonable Searches Has Informed the Scope of Both Protections. ................. 17 C. The Sanctity of the Home Also Forms the Foundation of Several Other Constitutional Protections. ...................... 20 D. The Scope of the Protection Afforded the Home in the Context of Armed Self-De- fense Extends to Locations Adjacent to the Home, Such as the One at Issue in This Case. ................................................. 23 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 29 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895) ...... 24, 25 Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) ...... 2, 8, 11 Carmouche v. Bouis, 6 La. Ann. 95 (1851) ......... 15, 16 Collins v. Commonwealth, S.E.2d 611 (Va. 2016) ...... 2 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ........................................... 13, 16 Donoghue v. Philadelphia Cty., 2 Pa. 230 (1845) ..... 15 Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell’s St. Trials 1029 (C. P. 1765) ................................................................ 8 Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) ..................... 12 Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) ......... 19, 20 Haynes v. State, 17 Ga. 465 (1855) ..................... 23, 24 Huckle v. Money, 95 Eng. Rep. 768 (C.P. 1763) ......... 7 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) .............. 12 Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958) ............ 20 Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) ................. 19 People v. Rodriguez, 10 Cal. 50 (1858) ...................... 16 Pond v. People, 8 Mich. 150 (1860) ........................... 16 Semayne’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1603) .................................................. 17, 18, 19 iv Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) ............. 21, 22 State v. Frizzelle, 89 S.E.2d 725 (N.C. 1955) ...... 26, 27 State v. Hewitt, 31 S.E.2d 257 (S.C. 1944) ............... 28 State v. Pugliese, 422 A.2d 1319 (N.H. 1980) ........... 27 United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) ......... 8, 12 United States v. United States Dist. Court E. Dist. Mich., 407 U.S. 297 (1972) ..................................... 19 Wilkes v. Wood, 98 Eng. Rep. 489 (C.P. 1763) .... 6, 7, 8 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS & RULES U.S. CONST. amend. III ............................................ 20 Sup. Ct. R. 37.3(a) ....................................................... 1 Sup. Ct. R. 37.6 ............................................................ 1 OTHER 4 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND (Coleridge ed., 1825) ............................. 13, 14, 15, 25 SIR EDWARD COKE, THE THIRD PART OF THE INSTI- TUTES OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND (4th ed. 1669) (1644) ....................................................................... 14 WILLIAM J. CUDDIHY, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: ORIGINS AND ORIGINAL MEANING 602–1791 (2009) ..................................................... 3, 6, 9, 10, 11 William Cuddihy & B. Carmon Hardy, A Man’s House Was Not His Castle: Origins of the Fourth v Amendment to the United States Constitution, 37 WM. & MARY Q. 371 (1980) .................... 5, 6, 9, 10 Laura K. Donohue, The Original Fourth Amendment, 83 U. CHI. L. REV. 1181 (2016) ........ 8, 9 Richard A. Epstein, Entick v. Carrington and Boyd v. United States: Keeping the Fourth and Fifth Amendments on Track, 82 U. CHI. L. REV. 27 (2015) ....................................................................... 10 Robert A. Gross, Public and Private in the Third Amendment, 26 VAL. U.L. REV. 215 (1991) ...... 20, 21 1 SIR MATTHEW HALE, HISTORIA PLACITORUM CORONAE (Sollom Emlyn ed., 1736) ....................... 14 SAMUEL F. MILLER, LECTURES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (1893) .................................. 20 M. H. SMITH, THE WRITS OF ASSISTANCE CASE (1978) ....................................................................... 10 3 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITU- TION OF THE UNITED STATES (1833) ........................ 21 Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (1890)................... 22 3 JAMES WILSON, THE WORKS OF THE HONOURABLE JAMES WILSON (1804) ....................................... 15, 25 1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1 The National Rifle Association Freedom Action Foundation (“Freedom Action Foundation”) is a public charity dedicated to provision of non-partisan Second Amendment education to all American citizens. The Freedom Action Foundation’s primary mission is to ensure that gun-owners are registered to vote and ed- ucated about issues that affect their fundamental rights. The Freedom Action Foundation has a strong interest in ensuring that this Court’s decision properly respects the fundamental role the sanctity of the home plays in safeguarding many of our constitu- tional rights, including not only the right against un- reasonable searches and seizures, but also the right to keep and bear arms in defense of oneself, one’s family, and one’s home. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Ryan Austin Collins was convicted in the circuit court of Albemarle County on charges related to his dealings with a stolen motorcycle. Collins’s arrest and prosecution stemmed from a search of the motorcycle in question, while it was parked in his yard, in a par- tially enclosed structure a few feet from his house. 1 Pursuant to SUP. CT. R. 37.3(a), amicus certifies that all parties have given written consent to the filing of this brief. Pur- suant to SUP. CT. R. 37.6, amicus certifies that no counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part, no party or party’s counsel made a monetary contribution to fund its preparation or submission, and no person other than amicus, its members, or its counsel made such a monetary contribution. 2 Collins sought to suppress the evidence yielded by that search on the grounds that it had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, in a warrant- less search of the curtilage around his home. The Su- preme Court of Virginia rejected that argument, hold- ing that the “warrantless search of the motorcycle was justified under the automobile exception to the war- rant requirement of the Fourth Amendment,” not- withstanding the fact that the “automobile” was parked within the curtilage of Collins’s home. Collins v. Commonwealth, S.E.2d 611, 617 (Va. 2016). 1. The Virginia Supreme Court’s holding en- croaches upon one of the central liberties that the Fourth Amendment was meant to protect: the sanc- tity of the home. The home is the sphere where a per- son’s interests in property and privacy coincide, and it is therefore also the sphere in which that person has the strongest right to be secure against unwarranted search and seizure. Pre-revolutionary caselaw in Eng- land and the Colonies reveals widespread antagonism against certain investigative techniques employed by the Crown’s agents. That antagonism fueled efforts to ensure that the newly formed American government would not have the power to violate “the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886). Drawing upon the adage, ancient even then, that a man’s house is his castle, the ratifiers of the Fourth Amendment sought to ensure that the home
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What's Reasonable?: Self-Defense and Mistake in Criminal and Tort
    Do Not Delete 12/15/2010 10:20 PM WHAT’S REASONABLE?: SELF-DEFENSE AND MISTAKE IN CRIMINAL AND TORT LAW by Caroline Forell∗ In this Article, Professor Forell examines the criminal and tort mistake- as-to-self-defense doctrines. She uses the State v. Peairs criminal and Hattori v. Peairs tort mistaken self-defense cases to illustrate why application of the reasonable person standard to the same set of facts in two areas of law can lead to different outcomes. She also uses these cases to highlight how fundamentally different the perception of what is reasonable can be in different cultures. She then questions whether both criminal and tort law should continue to treat a reasonably mistaken belief that deadly force is necessary as justifiable self-defense. Based on the different purposes that tort and criminal law serve, Professor Forell explains why in self-defense cases criminal law should retain the reasonable mistake standard while tort law should move to a strict liability with comparative fault standard. I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1402 II. THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE ................................................... 1403 III. THE PEAIRS MISTAKE CASES .................................................. 1406 A. The Peairs Facts ..................................................................... 1408 B. The Criminal Case .................................................................. 1409 1. The Applicable Law ........................................................... 1409
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Chapter 18 SELF-DEFENSE 18.01 GENERAL PRINCIPLES Overview
    Chapter 18 SELF-DEFENSE § 18.01 GENERAL PRINCIPLES [A] Overview Every state in the United States recognizes a defense for the use of force, including deadly force, in self-protection. Indeed, one court has observed: It is difficult to the point of impossibility to imagine a right in any state to abolish self defense altogether, thereby leaving one a Hobson's choice of almost certain death through violent attack now or statutorily mandated death [or life imprisonment] through trial and conviction of murder later.1 If a state legislature were to abolish the defense of self-defense, it might very well violate the United States Constitution. 2 Most issues regarding the application of defensive force arise in the context of homicide and attempted murder prosecutions. Therefore, this chapter primarily focuses on the question of when deadly force may be used in self-defense. [B] Elements of the Defense At common law, a non-aggressor is justified in using force upon another if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person.3 Specifically, however, deadly force is only justified in self-protection if the actor reasonably believes that its use is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force by the aggressor. 4 1 Griffin v. Martin, 785 F .2d 1172, 1186 n.37 (4th Cir. 1986), aff'd en bane and op. withdrawn, 795 F.2d 22 (4th Cir.1986). 2 See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S._, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) (holding that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides an individual the right to possess a firearm, and to use that weapon for traditional lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home); see also Eugene Volokh, State Constitutional Rights of Self-Defense and Defense of Property, 11 TEx.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Defense Without Imminence
    ARTICLES SELF-DEFENSE WITHOUT IMMINENCE Fritz Allhoff* ABSTRACT The doctrine of self-defense allows that otherwise criminal force can be justi®ed so long as the actor reasonably believes its use necessary to protect against imminent and unlawful attack. Supposing that the force is necessary to dispel the attack, why the further requirement that the attack is imminent? The restriction precludes the use of force which, ex hypothesi, is the only way that the actor could defend himself. This Article surveys and critiques the rationale for the imminence requirement, arguing that it should be jettisoned in favor of a more expansive conception of self-defense. While the focus is on domestic law, the paper concludes by gesturing towards implications for international law as well, particularly with regards to preventive war (i.e., war against non-imminent threats). I. IMMINENCE AND NECESSITY Self-defense has long been taken to justify an otherwise illicit use of force. William Blackstone, characterizing the eighteenth-century common law of England, provided: [I]f the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray. For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and ... makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to * Fritz Allhoff, J.D., Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Western Michigan University.
    [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]
  • Laws: How the Modern NRA-Inspired Self-Defense Statutes Destroy
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 64 Issue 3 Article 10 6-1-2016 Standing Up to "Stand Your Ground" Laws: How the Modern NRA- Inspired Self-Defense Statutes Destroy the Principle of Necessity, Disrupt the Criminal Justice System, and Increase Overall Violence Daniel Sweeney Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Law Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Daniel Sweeney, Standing Up to "Stand Your Ground" Laws: How the Modern NRA-Inspired Self-Defense Statutes Destroy the Principle of Necessity, Disrupt the Criminal Justice System, and Increase Overall Violence, 64 Clev. St. L. Rev. 715 (2016) available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol64/iss3/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STANDING UP TO “STAND YOUR GROUND” LAWS: HOW THE MODERN NRA-INSPIRED SELF-DEFENSE STATUTES DESTROY THE PRINCIPLE OF NECESSITY, DISRUPT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND INCREASE OVERALL VIOLENCE DANIEL SWEENEY ABSTRACT A majority of states have enacted “Stand Your Ground” laws. Proponents argue that such laws enhance the important right of self-defense. In application, however, “Stand Your Ground” laws have had a negative impact on society. First, “Stand Your Ground” laws ignore the common-law element of necessity that traditionally provided a check on unreasonable self-defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Maryland Should Stand Its Ground Instead of Retreat
    University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 48 Number 1 Article 4 10-1-2017 Why Maryland Should Stand Its Ground Instead of Retreat Alicia M. Kuhns Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Kuhns, Alicia M. (2017) "Why Maryland Should Stand Its Ground Instead of Retreat," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 48 : No. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol48/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT WHY MARYLAND SHOULD STAND ITS GROUND INSTEAD OF RETREAT By: Alicia M. Kuhns* I. INTRODUCTION In the United States, a majority of states do not require one faced with the threat of death to attempt a retreat before defending themselves.' These states employ stand your ground laws which bar the prosecution of individuals who use deadly force against a deadly aggressor without first attempting to retreat.2 A minority of states, including Maryland, enforce a duty to retreat instead of stand your ground.3 Under a duty to retreat, a defendant may not successfully claim self-defense if he could have safely retreated, but failed to do so, before using deadly force against a deadly attacker.4 However, the line between stand your ground and duty to retreat is not clear cut.5 Doctrines, such as the English common law's Castle Doctrine, have blurred the line on when retreat is required.6 As a result, many states have expanded the traditional Castle Doctrine to apply to guests, cohabitants, places of business, etc., making the rule of retreat more obsolete.
    [Show full text]
  • Defending the Self Defense Case
    4/16/2010 http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.n… Close this Window Email / Print A self-defense case is fundamentally different from most other criminal prosecutions. The essence of the defense is that the defendant is the victim of an attempted or completed violent felony such as assault, rape, or homicide which, but for the defendant’s lawful actions, would have resulted in the defendant’s death or in serious bodily harm. The complainant is, in fact, a violent aggressor who, but for the defendant’s lawful actions, would be the one standing trial. The defendant is the “good guy” and the victim is the “bad guy,” despite the prosecution’s efforts to portray the converse. Many assumptions about trial tactics are inverted in a self-defense case. If the defendant presents some evidence on each of the elements of self-defense, then he or she is entitled to a jury instruction on the issue, which places the burden of proof squarely on the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to disprove self-defense, the client is acquitted. In practice, however, the defense attorney has a great deal of work to do in order to convince the jurors that the client’s conduct fell within the common law of self-defense or within applicable state statutes. This article is a starting point for attorneys representing clients in a self-defense case. It is focused on the common law of self-defense, using Massachusetts as its primary example, but the general principles are applicable in any state.
    [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]
  • Self-Defense in the United States: a Review of the Literature Jake Shields
    Eastern Michigan University DigitalCommons@EMU Master's Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations, and Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations Graduate Capstone Projects 2016 Self-defense in the United States: A review of the literature Jake Shields Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.emich.edu/theses Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Shields, Jake, "Self-defense in the United States: A review of the literature" (2016). Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. 877. http://commons.emich.edu/theses/877 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations, and Graduate Capstone Projects at DigitalCommons@EMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@EMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Self-Defense in the United States: A Review of the Literature By Jake Shields Thesis Submitted to the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology Eastern Michigan University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS In Sociology Thesis committee: Peter Wood, Ph.D., Chair Kristina Ajrouch, Ph.d. Brian Sellers, Ph.D November 11, 2016 Ypsilanti, Michigan ii Abstract This literature review examines self-defense as a general concept and in the context of specific legal doctrines. It looks at general issues of self-defense, such as philosophical principles, morality, and social norms; general guidelines of proportionality and force; and how non-lethal technology does not change these principles and guidelines. From there, the paper exams three major legal doctrines—Duty to Retreat, Castle Doctrine, and Stand Your Ground— and discusses their definitions, histories, legal significance, applied usages and specific study results, and the arguments and controversies surrounding them.
    [Show full text]