THE STAND YOUR GROUND LAW

A stand-your-ground law is a justification in a criminal case, whereby defendants can "stand their ground" and use force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats.

There is no duty to retreat from any place where a person has a lawful right to be in while facing an intruder or any other person who appears to be a danger to the innocent person, that innocent person   may use any level of force if he or she reasonably believes that the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death. In the American case, Dawkins v. State, the court described the 'stand your ground' law by stating that a person has a right to expect absolute safety in any place that person has a right to be in.  That innocent person may use deadly force to repel an intruder or any other threatening person by using deadly force if that innocent person has a justifiable fear of him or anyone else of being injured or killed by the intruder or by any other threatening person.    

This does not mean that a home owner or a store keeper can shoot an intruder who has a gun in his hand but hasn`t made a threatening move that would cause the victim to shoot the intruder. There have been many cases where an intruder has a fake gun however, if the intruder is pointing his fake gun that looks real at the victim, the latter may fire his or her gun at the intruder. Several years ago, a child aimed a toy gun at a police officer.  The child`s gun looked so real,  the police officer believed that he was about to be killed so he shot his gun  first. The child was killed. The officer actually did no wrong.

There are laws throughout the U.S. that allow people to defend themselves when threatened, but the latitude that they have to do so varies from state to state. Many states have enacted so-called stand your ground laws that remove any duty to retreat before using force in self-defense. Florida passed the first such law in 2005, generally allowing people to stand their ground instead of retreating if they reasonably believe that doing so will "prevent death or great bodily harm."

Some states have self-defense laws on the books that are similar to stand your ground laws, often with one key difference. While they also remove any duty to retreat, these laws usually apply to specific locations such as one's home or business and are often referred to as "castle doctrine" or "defense of habitation" laws. Most U.S. states have castle doctrine laws.  I should point out that Canada permits its people to use deadly force if they are threatened with serious injury or death. 

Some states may use a blend of self-defense doctrines however their laws generally fall into the following three categories:      

1.  Stand Your Ground: No duty to retreat from the situation before resorting to deadly force; not limited to your property (home, office, etc.).

2.  Castle Doctrine: No duty to retreat before using deadly force (use of deadly force against intruders is legal in most situations); limited to real property, such as your home, yard, or private office; some states, like Missouri and Ohio, even include personal vehicles.

3.  Duty to Retreat: Duty to retreat from the situation if you feel threatened (use of deadly force is considered a last resort); may not use deadly force if you are safely inside your home etc.                 

It's important to understand that even states that have stand your ground laws still have certain restrictions when it comes to using force in self-defense. For example, they may require that the threat of perceived harm be objectively reasonable and that the force used be proportional to the threat. Stand your ground laws may also require that the person using self-defense be at the location lawfully (and not trespassing, for example) and that the person using self-defense was not the initial aggressor in the altercation.

On the other end of the legal spectrum, some states impose a duty to retreat. A duty to retreat generally means that you can't resort to deadly force in self-defense if you can safely avoid the risk of harm or death (by running away, for example). If that's not an option because you were cornered or pinned down and facing serious harm or death, then you would be authorized to use deadly force in self-defense.

It's important to note that many of the states that impose a duty to retreat; don't impose that duty when a person is in a residence, meaning that they must then adhere to the castle doctrine. So, even if you're in a state that imposes a duty to retreat, it's important to read the letter of the law because there may be an exception to the duty if a person is using self-defense in their home.

In July 20^th 2018, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, around 3:28 p.m. Britany Jacobs, 24, was sitting in her car in a handicapped parking space outside a Circle A Food Store while her boyfriend Markeis McGlockton, 28, a black man and their five-year-old son went into the store. While the father and son were in the store, Jacobs was approached by Michael Drejka, 47. The two them got into an argument because of where Jacobs was parked.

"According to witnesses, McGlockton exited the store and walked over to Drejka who was still arguing with Jacobs in the parking lot. Witnesses say McGlockton forcibly pushed Drejka causing Drejka to fall to the ground. Witnesses told detectives that Drejka was on the ground when he took out a handgun and fired one single round at McGlockton striking him in the chest.

McGlockton walked back inside the store where his young son was standing. In surveillance footage taken from inside the store, McGlockton was seen falling to the ground in front of his son. Moments later, Jacobs rushed into the store, tried to help McGlockton and then began to making a call on her cellphone for assistance. Several witnesses also called 911 as the incident unfolded.

When deputies arrived, Drejka was cooperative with the deputies. Drejka told deputies he placed his firearm in his Toyota 4-Runner prior to their arrival.  McGlockton was transported to a hospital for life-threatening injuries but was pronounced dead after he arrived at the hospital.

The sheriff said that Drejka wasn`t arrested and charged with anything because in the sheriff`s opinion, under the Stand Your Ground law, Drejka had the legal right to shoot McGlockton if he thought he was in serious danger.     

Quite frankly, I have difficulty accepting that sheriff`s rational since there was no evidence that the victim did was to simply push Drejka to the ground. 

Michael Drejka was booked into the Pinellas County Jail with a bond issued at $100,000, said Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, who was initially criticized for deciding not to bring charges in the case in the first place. 

The government has decided to put him on trial . He faces charges that can  put him in prison for 30 years.

Of course, if Drejka can convince the jury that he really believed that the man he shot was going to do him serious harm, he may be able to prove that he had the right to shoot McGlocton. However, a prosecutor could possibly convince a jury that aiming the gun at McGlocton would be the proper thing to do rather than shoot the man, he will be convicted of manslaughter.  In any case, it appears from the video of the shooting that Drejka got up on his knees while McGlocton was backing away and Drejka then shot McGlocton dead. 

A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that that person’s self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. In the case that I just gave you is an example of unreasonable force on the part of the shooter. Pointing the gun at McGlockton would have been sufficient to get his victim to back away.       

An update of Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law allows Floridians who threaten to use a gun or who fire a warning shot to protect themselves the chance to avoid criminal prosecution.

The change, signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott, was partly inspired by the case of Marissa Alexander, 33, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison after firing a warning shot during a dispute with her allegedly abusive husband.

Alexander's lawyers attempted to claim self-defense and that it was a warning shot, but the jury found Alexander guilty and she was sentenced to 20 years in prison under Florida's current sentencing rules. An appellate court later overturned the conviction and ordered a retrial for Alexander. That case is proof that juries sometimes make stupid decisions and that goes for judges also.  Twenty years for firing a warning shot? Give me a break.