Stand Your Ground Law: Felons' Rights And Exemptions Explored

The stand your ground law, also known as the no duty to retreat law, allows individuals to use deadly force when they reasonably believe it is necessary for self-defence against certain violent crimes. The law does not require individuals to retreat before using deadly force, as long as they are lawfully present in the place where the incident occurs. However, the specific details of this law vary by jurisdiction. In the US, the stand your ground law has been a topic of debate, with critics arguing that it may lead to an increase in homicides and racial disparities in legal outcomes. The law's applicability to convicted felons, particularly those prohibited from possessing firearms, has been a subject of contention within the legal system. While some courts have ruled that felons cannot claim immunity under the stand your ground law if they use a firearm in self-defence, others have held that felons can claim immunity under separate portions of the law.

Does the 'stand your ground' law apply to felons in possession of a firearm?

The "Stand Your Ground" law is a controversial self-defence law that eliminates the duty to retreat and allows people to use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. In the US, the application of this law varies from state to state.

In Florida, the law has been a subject of contention within the legal system, as felons are barred from possessing firearms. The conflict arises from the interpretation of the "Stand Your Ground" law, which states that the defence is not available to those committing an "illegal act". While some courts have ruled that felons are exempt from the law's protection, others have held that because the law is written in separate sections, with the "not engaged in an unlawful activity" portion being in another section, a felon can claim immunity under a different part of the law.

In California, a similar conflict exists. A 1978 case, People v. King, suggested that convicted felons who carry firearms do not have the right to stand their ground. However, a more recent case, People v. Rhodes (2005), limited this ruling to cases where the defendant is actually charged with violating the "felon with a firearm" statute.

In Michigan, a felony conviction does not necessarily bar an individual from possessing a gun. While specific conditions must be met, Michigan law does allow for the restoration of gun rights for convicted felons. These conditions include satisfying all terms of incarceration, successfully completing probation or parole, and paying all fees and fines ordered by the court. After meeting these requirements, there is a three-year waiting period before an individual can apply to have their gun rights restored.

It is important to note that even if gun rights are restored at the state level, they will not be restored at the federal level. This means that convicted felons in possession of firearms can still be arrested and charged by federal agents.

Can felons claim immunity under the 'stand your ground' law?

The right to "stand your ground" is a contentious issue, and the laws vary by jurisdiction. In the US, the "stand your ground" law is sometimes called a "no duty to retreat" law, and it provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it is necessary to defend against certain violent crimes.

In the state of Florida, the "stand your ground" law has been a subject of contention within the legal system. The conflict arises from another Florida law that prohibits felons from possessing firearms. If a convicted felon uses a gun to defend themselves, it has been argued that the "stand your ground" law does not apply to them because the law states that the defence is not available to anyone committing an "illegal act".

In 2015, the Florida Supreme Court was prepared to resolve the difference between the two conflicting courts of appeal on this issue. However, before the Supreme Court could consider the matter, the 4th District Court of Appeal reversed itself and held that defendants were entitled to claim the "stand your ground" law as a criminal defence, even if they were illegally in possession of a firearm.

With the underlying difference between the two courts of appeal resolved, the Florida Supreme Court declined to consider further appeals on the matter. This means that, in Florida, convicted felons can use the "stand your ground" defence if they believe it is necessary to avoid imminent death. However, it is important to note that this argument may not always be successful, and the impact of the Florida Supreme Court's action is to allow the argument to be made so that a jury can decide.

In California, a case from 1978, People v. King, suggested that convicted felons who carry firearms do not have the right to stand their ground. However, a more recent case, People v. Rhodes (2005), limited this ruling to cases in which a defendant is actually charged with violating the "felon with a firearm" statute. In this case, the defendant was charged with attempted manslaughter and a drive-by shooting, but not with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court ruled that, although the defendant was a convicted felon, he had the right to defend himself, stand his ground, and use a reasonable amount of force under the circumstances.

Therefore, while the laws vary by jurisdiction, it appears that in some cases, felons may be able to claim immunity under the "stand your ground" law, even if they are illegally in possession of a firearm. However, it is important to note that the specific laws and court interpretations can vary by state and even by individual case, so it is always best to consult with a legal professional for specific advice.

Does the 'stand your ground' law contradict the 'castle doctrine'?

The Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground laws are both rooted in the right to self-defence, but they differ in their scope and application.

The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine that gives a person the right to use force, including deadly force, to defend themselves and their property when they are in their home or "castle". The doctrine asserts that "a man's home is his castle", and that a person is entitled to resist unlawful intrusion in their home rather than withdraw. The Castle Doctrine lessens the duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in their own home. It is not a defined law but a set of principles that may be incorporated into the laws of different jurisdictions. The doctrine applies not only to a person's home but also to any legally occupied place, such as a vehicle or workplace, depending on the jurisdiction.

On the other hand, Stand-Your-Ground laws extend the Castle Doctrine to the public realm. These laws allow a person to use force, including deadly force, in self-defence when they encounter a threat in a public place. Under Stand-Your-Ground laws, individuals are not required to retreat but can instead meet force with force. These laws revoke the duty to retreat, which says that individuals must withdraw to avoid conflict if they can do so safely.

While the Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground laws share similarities, they also have distinct differences. The Castle Doctrine is typically limited to a person's residence, while Stand-Your-Ground laws apply to any place a person has a legal right to be. Additionally, the Castle Doctrine permits the use of deadly force, whereas Stand-Your-Ground laws allow for proportional force, which may or may not include deadly force depending on the danger faced.

In conclusion, the Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground laws both provide legal defences for individuals who have been charged with crimes involving the use of force. However, the Castle Doctrine is generally limited to a person's home or legally occupied place, while Stand-Your-Ground laws apply to any place a person has a legal right to be. The main contradiction between the two doctrines lies in their scope of application, with the Castle Doctrine focusing on protecting an individual's home or property, and Stand-Your-Ground laws extending that protection to public places.

How does the 'stand your ground' law impact racial disparities in legal outcomes?

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows people to use lethal force to defend themselves without needing to retreat. While supporters claim that it benefits public safety, critics argue that it underscores profound racial biases.

Impact on Racial Disparities in Legal Outcomes

The "Stand Your Ground" law has been criticised for its impact on racial disparities in legal outcomes. Research suggests that the law disproportionately disadvantages Black defendants and victims. Several cases have highlighted racial incongruity in the implementation of the law. For example, in the case of Marissa Alexander, a Black woman who fired a warning shot near her abusive ex-husband, was convicted of aggravated assault and given a 20-year sentence despite invoking the "Stand Your Ground" law. In contrast, white defendants in similar cases have often escaped charges.

A study by the Urban Institute in 2013 found that if the victim is Black, the probability of not convicting a shooter with charges of manslaughter or murder is significantly higher than if the victim is white. The study also found that in "Stand Your Ground" states, "justifiable homicides" with a white shooter and a Black victim are 10-11 times more frequent than those with a Black shooter and a white victim.

Another study by John Roman of the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center found that killings of Black people by whites were more likely to be considered justified than killings of white people by Blacks. In "Stand Your Ground" states, whites who kill Blacks are 354% more likely to be found justified in their killings compared to 250% in non-"Stand Your Ground" states.

The application of the "Stand Your Ground" law has been criticised for its racial disparities, with some arguing that it reflects deeper problems with racial bias in the criminal justice system. These disparities have led to calls for legislative reforms to address racial injustice and ensure equal protection under the law.

Application to Felons

The application of the "Stand Your Ground" law to felons is currently a matter of debate. In Florida, felons are not legally allowed to possess firearms, which raises the question of whether they can claim immunity under the law if they use a firearm in self-defence. The Florida Supreme Court is set to decide on this issue, with two appellate courts currently split on the matter. The outcome of this decision will have significant implications for how the law is applied to felons in the state.

What is the history of the 'stand your ground' law?

The history of the stand-your-ground law can be traced back to English common law, which holds a "duty to retreat" in the face of an attack. The exception to this duty was established in a 1604 court case, which ruled that there is no duty to retreat when one is in their home – this became known as the "castle doctrine".

In the United States, the castle doctrine evolved into a more expansive set of ideas about who is allowed to use lethal force against whom. This ideology of lethal self-defense has been selective, with laws historically favouring white, property-owning men and their right to protect their property.

The pivotal moment in the expansion of stand-your-ground laws came in the 1870s, coinciding with the end of Reconstruction in the post-Civil War era. Two crucial court cases, one in Ohio and one in Indiana, ruled that white men did not have to retreat in the face of danger, even if they were outside their homes. This shift in legal thinking accompanied an effort by whites to retain control over formerly enslaved people and maintain their property.

Today, stand-your-ground laws can be found in over half of US states, and they continue to be a source of controversy, with critics arguing that they disproportionately impact racial minorities and contribute to a culture of fear and anxiety.

Frequently asked questions