Stand Your Ground

Does Florida have roots in the Wild Wests is a question some ask when they hear about Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. But the law is not really so extreme. It is a statutory extension of Common Law right to self-defense. Let’s take a look at the historical development of Stand Your Ground.

Every person has a right to self-defense. However, use of deadly force is given special scrutiny. In England, a person must run away from danger as far as possible before using any violence against an attacker. The requirement that one avoid violence by retreating extended to what was referred to as “the Wall.” The Wall was one’s home. There was no duty to retreat inside one’s home, where a person could use as much violence as needed to stop an unlawful entry by another or for protection inside the home. This was known as the Castle Doctrine.

In England, protection of one’s home seems to have been the major rationale for allowing deadly force in that area as opposed to only protecting one’s person or family. Nonetheless, the Castle Doctrine made its way to America.

Americans tended to reject the English mandate to retreat. Americans were tough and brave and believed in the need to protect one’s honor. Those beliefs conflicted with the thought of running away to avoid violence. This was especially true in the South and even without a statute the concept of standing one’s ground in self-defense became the rule in most southern states by the mid-1800s.

The United States Supreme Court entered the discussion in 1895 when it decided the case of Beard v. United States. Beard killed a trespasser and was convicted of murder when the trial judge instructed the jury that Beard had a duty to retreat before he could use deadly force, even in his own home. The Supreme Court reversed noting even in England a person did not have to retreat when defending his home.

Two decades later, the Supreme Court expanded the right to use deadly force beyond one’s home in the case of Brown v. United States. In that case the Supreme Court explained use of deadly force is justified whenever a person is in reasonable fear of imminent death or severe bodily injury.

Florida’s Supreme Court was not far behind. In 1929, the Florida Supreme Court decided the case of Pell v. State. The court explained Florida had a general duty to retreat to avoid using deadly force but that a person violently assaulted in his own home could stand his ground and use as much force as a “prudent man” would deem necessary to save his life or avoid serious bodily harm. The court also explained the right to use force only applied when the defendant did not provoke the situation and would not allow a man to “lie in wait for his adversary.”

The Castle Doctrine protected someone in their home from trespassers. What about a non-trespasser? In 1965, the court applied the Doctrine when a woman shot her lover to protect herself from his assault. But, in 1982, the court refused to extend the Doctrine to a co-occupant. In State v. Bobbitt, the court explained it saw no reason a mother should not retreat from her son. It went on to explain, the requirement of retreat did not render a family member defenseless as retreat is only required until doing so would be useless.

It took 20 years for Florida’s Supreme Court to change its collective mind. In 1999, the court decided Weiand v. State. In that case, the court reversed itself explaining one’s home is the ultimate sanctuary and based on a better understanding of domestic violence ended the retreat requirement in attacks by co-occupants.

Outside of the home, even in a car, the retreat requirement remained until the legislature took action in 2005. The legislature adopted statutory provisions eliminating the retreat requirement in certain circumstances. Retreat is not required if the person is in a location where the person has a right to be, is not engaged in criminal activity and reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

The Castle Doctrine was carried forward by statutory amendments providing a person using deadly force in the person’s residence or vehicle in response to an attack or an unlawful, forceable entry is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril or great bodily harm.

The statutes carve out an exception from allowed use of deadly force when the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in performance of his official duties who identified himself or for whom the person reasonably should have known was a law enforcement officer.

The statutes create a complete defense to criminal prosecution when applicable, and not merely a defense to be raised after a criminal trial starts. The defense is examined before trial and, if applicable, no trial at all. Stand your ground statutes also create a complete defense to civil liability. The statutes are quite powerful.