An Introduction to Stand Your Ground Laws
Stand your ground laws are state-level legal statutes that govern an individual’s right to use physical force in self-defense or the defense of others when they are confronted by perceived threats. Specifically, stand your ground laws remove the duty-to-retreat component of self-defense and self-defense against the use of deadly force. Generally, a person that is threatened has an obligation to try to escape harm before they can protect themselves with a reasonable show of force, however, under the law in Arizona, they have an obligation to first attempt to retreat, but are not required to do so .
In many stand your ground states, including Arizona, the use of physical force is justifiable "if a reasonable person would believe that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself or herself against another’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force." Under this provision, self-defense is permitted if a person believes it is immediately necessary to act and a reasonable person would also believe it to be immediately necessary. However, this is a subjective test involving a reasonable person standard, and there is no universal test for what exactly the terms "reasonable," "immediately," or "necessary" really mean. Also, these terms may be narrowed in their definition under statutory or case law interpretations.
Legal Structure in Arizona
Arizona’s stand your ground laws are set forth in A.R.S. 13-411-415. Arizona has a "No Duty to Retreat" provision. A.R.S. § 13-411 provides in pertinent part: The initial aggressor is forbidden from using physical or deadly physical force until the point at which (1) if using nondeadly force, the other person fortuitously and accidentally uses or is about to use nondeadly force or if using or about to use deadly physical force, the other person is using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force, then (2) the initial aggressor first withdraws from physical danger and the opportunity for retreat exists, and only if the other person uses or is about to use unlawful physical or deadly physical force the initial aggressor may then use or threaten to use physical or deadly physical force in defense of oneself. Arizona’s stand your ground laws, like many other states, require that a defendant contend that they acted in self-defense or defense of another person, which requires circumstances including a battery or attempted battery against the defendant or another person at the hand of the victim and that the threat be unlawful. Manifestly, there must be a showing generally that the person was attacked or believed that an attack was forthcoming; there was a reasonable basis for believing the use of deadly physical force was the only way to protect themselves or another, and only then may they use deadly physical force. It is important to note here that in Arizona, and thus in a murder prosecution in Arizona, a defendant cannot introduce evidence to justify or excuse his conduct under Arizona law, i.e., that the use of deadly physical force was an accident or simply the mistake of law, nor can they contend that they acted in self-defense or in the defense of another, only to find out that this did not excuse their conduct under Arizona law. If a defendant does argue such, then he has opened the door for the State to introduce the defendant’s prior acts or criminal history as to the same. This is an unusual provision that differs from other jurisdictions, particularly federal jurisdictions.
Qualifying and Restrictions
Stand your ground defenses are available only to individuals who are acting within the very specific confines of the law. In essence, you can’t shoot someone because they were trying to seat themselves in your favorite pew at your place of worship, and you can’t shoot someone trying to seat themselves in your pew at a different house of worship either, as this level of threat is not enough to trigger these laws into action.
The exceptions also carry an obligation to make a reasonable attempt to escape from the confrontation in the first place. Like the "castle doctrine" – another self-defense law often used interchangeably with "stand your ground" – Arizona law does not require citizens to retreat from a confrontation. However, in order to invoke stand your ground defenses, the situation facing the individual "must have been reasonably perceived to have come upon them in such a way as to imply a threat to their life or great bodily injury."
In short, circumstances ought to dictate what the outcome might be if a situation is approached in the following situations:
You will of course have to provide evidence for the suggestion that you felt threatened. The idea is that those armed with weapons have a higher standard when it comes to determining whether a threat is credible. It doesn’t mean that all of these circumstances will absolutely result in a verdict of "not guilty" if your case is brought before a court, but if your circumstances do fall into one of these categories, there’s a far greater likelihood that a grand jury will not return an indictment.
Effect on Self-Defense Pleas
In the context of self-defense in Arizona, stand your ground laws have a significant impact on when a court may determine that a defendant may assert self-defense as an affirmative defense. While the scenario just mentioned three paragraphs ago deals with self-defense and use of physical force, consider the same scenario whereby, instead of striking the charging individual, the individual is shot. Although "stand your ground laws" may be mentioned in this example, this situation occurs every day throughout the country. When the police arrive, the individual who was shot has no problem recalling who assaulted him, and is able to provide police with a license plate while providing a relatively simple report of the unknown assailant. At a certain point (early in the investigation) , the officer may be required to make a decision. Either it did not rise to the level of "resisting" or this individual has a basis to defend himself and therefore was justified in shooting the person. However, for the sake of this example, assume this individual shoots the other party and misses. Obviously, that can create questions as to whether it was a legitimate use of force or an "intent to kill." The question becomes, how do the above-noted "stand your ground laws" come into play? Because Arizona does not impose a duty to retreat when acting in defense of self, the prosecutor may not be able to determine if a "reasonable person" would have been able to retreat before the use of deadly physical force after weighing the entire set of circumstances, and therefore, the issue becomes a question for the jury.
Debates and Discontent
The controversies and criticisms of stand your ground laws primarily center on their enforcement and application in the real world. Critics have claimed that the laws are inconsistently enforced, or that they allow for greater latitude in the use of deadly force in self-defense than was previously legally appropriate.
Additionally, there has been a large amount of controversy over the media’s coverage of the Trayvon Martin case, as some people have claimed that initially misleading reports too heavily influenced public opinion on the case before Zimmerman was charged with a crime.
The public opinion on stand your ground laws has largely been divided along racial and ideological lines. A January 2013 poll by Gallup showed that support for stand your ground laws in the United States was highly polarized along racial lines. Seventy-three percent of polled whites supported stand your ground laws in general, while only 35 percent of African Americans agreed with the law as it is applied in most states today. Public opinion may partially be reflective of the fact that campaigns to change or repeal stand your ground laws are more often launched by liberal groups who may be more concerned about the perceived impacts of a stand your ground case on a minority victim than a more conservative group of individuals.
Arizona’s stand your ground laws have not been the subject of large-scale public debate during the past decade. There have been several high-profile court cases, however, where Arizona defendants have claimed the protections of a stand your ground defense. Two Arizona hunters were involved in a high-profile shooting of a man who they alleged tried to steal from them, although the victim’s family has stated that he was in fact protecting his home from intruders. Another case involving two men who shot and killed a family of four in east Phoenix also garnered substantial media attention. The case was brought to light when the family’s parents began to doubt that the two men could claim a stand your ground defense, and instead launched a campaign to get the case prosecuted as a double murder.
Arizona has not seen any large campaigns, or attempts by any large organizations, to push for stricter stand your ground laws (or stand your ground law repeal). Instead, the law seems to go largely unnoticed, aside from the periodical high-profile case.
Advice and Caution
Engaging in a stand your ground situation is a complicated and dangerous scenario to be in, and the law surrounding it is similarly complex with many intricacies. Seeking legal advice if involved in such a situation is incredibly important and can make or break a case.
One important thing to remember is to avoid the temptation of assuming what is self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be proven. There are a lot of factors (And questions) to consider before assuming that a stand your ground shooting is automatically self-defense. Issues must be considered such as whether there was an actual threat, whether you were justified in your perception of a threat, or whether you broke state or federal laws in your actions leading up to the shooting.
There are a number of preventative measure you can take if you are considering relying on stand your ground laws in an altercation:
Call the police for any incident involving a gun, even if you feel it was justified self-defense.
If you have fired a gun, it does not matter if the other party has a gun or not. If you follow all of these steps, that is still considered deadly force.
Many states have legal thresholds that must be met to obtain a conviction for certain offenses, including murder . States have different laws about what kind of evidence is required to even bring forth a charge of a certain crime. Often there is a legal threshold, there is an evidentiary threshold, and then there is a burden of proof.
The man who shot Trayvon Martin was not found guilty of murder because the jury felt that the Florida legal threshold was not reached. Prior to starting this blog, the blogger was involved in a case where the defendant went to meet his girlfriend out in the country at a reciprocal campsite. An argument broke out with a couple of other people who were also camping there. The girlfriend was pregnant and it was apparent that she was due very soon. At some point while the argument was occurring, the defendant exited his trailer and shot and killed one of the men who had been arguing with him after issuing a warning shot that struck a tree. During the fight, the other man went into the trailer and the man’s girlfriend came out to try and stop the entire affair. The defendant tried to justify his actions by arguing that since the man had entered into his trailer, that he had a right to shoot him. The state charged him with murder. The jury acquitted him of murder by finding its legal threshold was not reached, so he was found not guilty.