Stand-your-ground stand-your-ground (sometimes called " line in sand " or "no legal revocation ) is justified in a case criminal, where defendants can "stand on their land" and use force without retreat, to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats. An example is where there is no obligation to withdraw from the place where they have the legitimate right to be, and that they can use any level of power if they believe that the threat increases to an immediate and immediate threat level from serious physical and/or death harm. One case illustrates the 'law of self-preservation'... a person has the right to expect absolute salvation in a place they have the right to be, and can use lethal force to expel unlawful intruders. "
Justification by using laws standing on your ground may be limited when "[the accused] is involved in illegal activities and is not entitled to benefit from the legal provisions 'standing on your ground'". This may happen even if the illegal acts committed by the defendant have nothing to do with the threat of inciting the use of lethal force. For example, using illegally obtained weapons to defend themselves from being robbed and beaten is not justified by this law.
The doctrine of the castle is a general legal doctrine which states that people have no obligation to retreat in their homes, or "palaces", and can use reasonable powers, including deadly forces, to defend property, people, or others. Outside the dwelling, however, a person has an obligation to retreat, if possible, before using lethal force. The doctrine of the castle and the law "stands in your place" is an acceptable defense for those accused of criminal assassination.
In common law, self-defense claims are invalid if the defendant can safely withdraw from harm (backward assignment). The doctrine of the castle is an exception to this. It provides immunity from responsibility to individuals who act defensively at home even if they can safely back out of the threat and fail to do so. The obligation to withdraw is a legal requirement in some jurisdictions that threatened persons can not survive and apply lethal force to defend themselves, but must retreat to a safe place. Deadly power or lethal force is power with the intention of serious bodily injury or death of another person. In most jurisdictions it is only accepted under conditions of extreme need and last resort.
The law standing before you removes the retreat requirements at any location the defendant has legal rights, although this varies from state to state.
Video Stand-your-ground law
United States
Legal
States that legislatively have adopted the laws applicable in your country are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
States that have adopted steadfast practices, either through legal cases/precedents, judge instruction or otherwise, are California, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia and Washington.
Countries that have adopted your foundation, but restrict it only when someone is in their vehicle, are North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Countries that have the doctrine of the castle with only the task of retiring in public are Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island. This means that people can use lethal force in their homes, cars, or other shelter forms but have to retreat in public.
Controversy
Your constitution is often criticized and is called the law of "first filming" by critics, including Brady's Campaign to Prevent Pistol Violence. In Florida, claims of self-defense have tripled in the years following their enactment. Legal critics argue that Florida law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against individuals who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can state that he feels threatened, and in many cases, the only witness who can deny it is the deceased. Before the law was issued, the Miami police chief, John F. Timoney, called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that regard, "[b] whether it's a trick-or-treater or children playing on the page of someone who does not want them there or drunk people stumble into the wrong house, you encourage people to use deadly physical force where it should not be used. "This is contrary to the counter argument that states that implementing the duty-to-retreat places the safety of criminals over the lives of the victims own.
In Florida, the task force examining the law heard testimony that the law was "confusing". Those who testified to the task force included Buddy Jacobs, a lawyer representing the Florida Prosecutor Attorney Association. Jacobs recommends repeal of the law, the feeling that modifying the law will not fix the problems. Florida Governor Rick Scott is planning his own investigation into the law. In a July 16, 2013 speech after a jury decision released George Zimmerman from allegations stemming from the death of Trayvon Martin's shooting, Attorney General Eric Holder criticized the law that stands before you as "unreasonably expanding" self-concept. -call and sow the dangerous conflict in our environment. "The defendant, George Zimmerman, claims he was arrested at the time of the shootings, so there is no option to back down and make 'standing on your ground' irrelevant to the case.Location legislation is currently considering a bill that would allow people to show a gun or fire a shot warning during confrontation without attracting long prison sentences There is a bill that moves through the Republican legislature that will prosecute prosecutors to prove that the defendant's use of defendants is illegal.If this passes, the prosecutor will have to try the case twice at the hearing and the trial which will facilitate the defendant to argue against prosecution on the basis of their fears.
Race gap
In 2012, in response to the Trayvon Martin case, Tampa Bay Times compiled a report on the application of standing on your ground, and also created a case database where the defendant sought to seek the law. Their report found no racial difference in the case of Florida in the manner in which the defendant claimed self-defense under the law was treated, with white subjects prosecuted and punished at the same level as black subjects, and the result of a mixed race case was similar for both white victims a black assailant and a black victim of a white assailant. The overall black assailant shooter is more successful in using the law than the white assailant shooter, regardless of the race of victims who claim to defend themselves, but analysis shows that black attackers are also more likely to be armed and involved in crime, such as robbery, when shot.
Texas A & amp; M found that when whites used defense in your defense against blacks, they were more successful than when blacks used defense against white attackers. A paper from The Urban Institute analyzing FBI data found that in your states, the use of defenses by whites in black shootings was found to be justified 17 percent of the time, while defense when used by blacks in the shooting of the skin white managed 1 percent of the time. In non-stand-your-ground states, the shooting of blacks by white is found justified about 9 percent of the time, while shooting white people by black is found justified about 1 percent of the time. According to the Urban Institute, in Stand Your Ground states, black and white killing is 354 percent more likely to be ruled justified than white-and-white murder. The paper authors noted that the data used did not specify the state of the shootings, which could be a source of disparity. They also noted that the total number of shootings in the FBI dataset of black victims by whites was 25. A study of 2015 found that cases with white victims were twice as likely to result in punishment under this law rather than cases with black victims.
The laws relating to Native Americans have caused controversy due to the fact that state law supersedes reservation/tribal law. If tribal members use self-defense in their reservations, they will be protected in a tribal court. This is not always the case if it is handled in federal court because the state has a separate self defense law from the reservation. In other words, tribal members are protected in one place, but not elsewhere. Because of the Supreme Court case Oliphant v. Suquamish in 1978, the tribes were stripped of the right to arrest and prosecute non-Indians committing crimes on Indian soil.
Crime
Corporate Summary 2018 from the existing research concludes that "there is moderate evidence that the law standing in front of you can increase the murder rate and the limited evidence that the law increases the killing of firearms in particular." The justifiable murder is found to have increased 8 percent in the state with your standing-on-ground law. Economist John Lott says that countries that adopt your stand-on-land/castle doctrine law reduce murder rates by 9 percent and overall violent crime by 11 percent, and that happens even after taking into account other factors such as national crime trends, enforcement law of variables (arrest, execution, and imprisonment), income and poverty measurement, demographic changes, and changes in national average in crime rates from year to year and statewide differences across states. One study found that applying the laws standing on your ground caused a statistically significant increase in the level of raw killings, and only had a very small positive effect on crime prevention. The study authors were unable to determine what percentage of the increase could be justified as murder, because the murder reporting to the FBI often lacked the notation of whether the murder was justified or not.
Another analysis of the laws applicable in your country by economists at Georgia State University, using monthly data from US Vital Statistics, found a significant increase in white killings and injuries, especially white males. They also analyzed data from the Health Care Utilization Project, which revealed a significant increase in the level of emergency room visits and hospital discharges associated with gun injuries in the states that enacted this law.
In a symposium of the National District Procuratorate Association 2007, a number of concerns were voiced that the law could increase crime. These include criminals who use the law as a defense for their crimes, more people carry guns, and that people will not feel secure if they feel that everyone can use deadly power in a conflict. The report also notes that misinterpretation of clues may result in the use of lethal force when there is, in fact, no danger. The report specifically noted that racial and ethnic minorities can have a greater risk because of negative stereotypes.
Florida's Florida legislation came into effect on October 1, 2005. Florida state representative Dennis Baxley, a law writer, said that the level of violent crime has declined since the enactment of the law, although he says there may be many reasons for that change. Others argue that law can lead to an increase in crime. Violent crime data for 1995 - 2015 has been published by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
In 2012, a published study found that after Joe Horn fired on controversy in 2007, publishing your stand-your-ground law, the robbery declined significantly in Houston, but not in Dallas, over a 20-month period.
A 2013 study at the Journal of Human Resources claims that enforcing your laws in States in the United States contributes to 600 additional killings in a year. According to Mark Hoestra, co-author of the study: "We asked what happened to the state of homicide rate that passed this law between 2000 and 2010, compared to other countries over the same time period We found that the state of homicide rate with the legal version of Stand Your Ground rising an average of 8 percent above the countries without it - which translates to about 600 additional killings per year.This murder is classified by police as criminal murder, not as justifiable murder. "Although police officers redeeming extra killing, they are justified. This is not classified as murder because the officer acts in performing the duty. The police do not have to retreat when acting in the duty.
A study in 2015 found that the adoption of the law in your Oklahoma state is associated with a reduction in housing robberies, but also that the law has "undesirable consequences of an increasing number of non-residential robberies." In 2016, Mark Gius published a study that found that the law standing in front of you is not associated with lower crime rates.
A widely reported 2016 study at the Journal of the American Medical Association compares murder rates in Florida after the passage of self-defense law "stands on your ground" to levels in four control states, New Jersey, New York, Ohio , and Virginia, which have no similar laws. It was found that the law was associated with a 24.4% increase in murder and 31.6% increase in gunfire-related killings, but no change in suicide rate or suicide by firearms, between 2005 and 2014. He noted that, "[ c] Unique circumstances to Florida may have contributed to our findings, including those we have not been able to identify, "and" [o] your research examined the effect of Florida law on killing and killing by firearms, not on crime and public safety. " The study was criticized by human rights advocate John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center for studying only one country. Gun and lawyer Andrew Branca, writing in the National Review , criticized the study for not distinguishing between justifiable murder and killing, and relying only on temporary laws ignoring the case law (ie Virginia) in determine the data set. The study was praised by Duke University professor Jeffrey Swanson for his use of other countries as a control, saying "[t] hey see a comparable trend in countries that do not pass the law and do not see the effect."
Maps Stand-your-ground law
other jurisdictions
England and Wales
The jurisdiction of the common law of England and Wales has a stand-alone law rooted in the defense of common law using reasonable powers to defend itself.
In English general law there is no obligation to retreat before one can use a reasonable force against an attacker, nor does one need to wait to be attacked before using that power, but the person who chooses not to retreat, when retreating will be safe and easy choice, may feel it is more difficult to justify the use of its power as 'reasonable'.
Every power used must be reasonable in situations as perceived by the person, after making leeway for the fact that some degree of excess power may still make sense in the heat of the moment.
It has been thought that in cases of 'household protection', excessive force would be considered unreasonable only if it is "highly disproportionate", but that view has been twice rejected by the court. A highly disproportionate force will never make sense, but a lower force may or may not, depending on circumstances. In Rv Ray (2017) Chief Justice, gave the Court of Appeal appraisal, saying:
"If there is a threat of confrontation on the road, then the option to retreat may be important in determining whether the use of any power makes sense.In the case of home intruders, the retreat option is unlikely to arise in many cases and therefore the level of force used, disproportionate, may still be considered reasonable. "
Czech Republic
There is no provision of erect doctrine or castle explicitly in the laws of the Czech Republic, but also there is no obligation to withdraw from the attack and it has an effect similar to the provisions of "standing on your ground". In order for a defense to be considered legitimate, it is impossible to "significantly disproportionate with the way of attack".
German
German law allows self-defense against unlawful attacks. If there is no other possibility for defense, it is generally permitted to use even lethal forces without the obligation to retreat. However, there should be no extreme imbalance ("extreme MissverhÃÆ'¤ltnis") between the defended rights and the chosen defense methods. In particular, if firearms are used, warning shots should be given while retaining material assets alone. If the self-defense is excessive, the culprit will not be punished if he is over because of confusion, fear or terror.
ireland
Under the terms of Defense and Stay Law, property owners or residents shall have the right to defend themselves with force, up to and including lethal force. Any individual who uses violence against a violator is innocent of a violation if he/she honestly believes that they are there to commit a crime and a threat to life. However, there is a further provision that requires that the reaction to the intruder is such that others who are reasonable in the same situation are likely to use it. This provision acts as a safeguard against the use of a very disproportionate force, while still allowing one to resort to violence in almost all circumstances.
The law was introduced in response to the DPP v. Padraig Nally .
A person who uses the force as permitted by part 2 under the circumstances referred to in that section shall not be liable in error with respect to the injury, loss or damage arising from the use of such force.
The power used is just as natural in a situation when he believes they become--
(I) to protect yourself or any other person present at home from injury, assault, detention or death caused by a criminal act,
(ii) to protect the property or the property of others from seizure, destruction or damage caused by a criminal offense, or
(iii) to prevent acts of crime or to influence, or to assist in influencing, legal capture.
It does not matter whether the person using force has a safe and practical opportunity to withdraw from the place of residence before using the force in question.
This law does not apply to the force used against members of An Garda SiochÃÆ'¡na (Irish Police) or anyone who helps them, or someone who legitimately performs functions authorized by or under any applicability.
See also
- Cancellation cancellation
- Proxemics, the study of human space use and the impact of population density on behavior, communication, and social interaction
- Restorative justice
References
Further reading
- Palmer, Brian (July 16, 2013). "Do Other Countries Have Your 'Stand-Standing' Law Or do they require you to slowly retreat?". Slate . Slate Group . Retrieved May 26 2014 .
- Lithwick, Dahlia (February 25, 2014). " ' Stand Your Ground' Nation: Americans used to appreciate the concept of retreat, now we're just shooting". Slate . Slate Group . Retrieved May 26 2014 . Ã,
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments