![]() These Stand-Your-Ground statutes essentially codify the absence of the duty to retreat and allow individuals to use deadly force even when there is an option to safely retreat from a potentially dangerous situation.ī. ![]() Generally, however, there was no duty to retreat when the defendant was in her home, and this concept is called the “castle doctrine.” Some states expanded the castle doctrine to include motor vehicles or workplaces, and other states have enacted legislation that removes the duty to retreat in all circumstances-known as “Stand-Your-Ground” statutes. Under the common law, self-defense imposes a duty to retreat before using deadly force, meaning if the defendant had been able to safely avoid the conflict, she was obligated to do so and could not avail herself of the defense. ![]() In the case of a deadly use of force, the defendant would need to show that deadly force was necessary to prevent serious injury of bodily harm or death. In general, the law of self-defense is an affirmative defense that allows a defendant to argue that the use of force was justified to protect herself or others harm. The expansion of Stand-Your-Ground statutes and an entrenched gun culture in the United States complicate both these propositions, and the racial impact of these laws deserves greater attention from policymakers. Although the Rittenhouse case did not involve issues of Stand-Your-Ground, it offers an interesting lens through which to analyze the role that race potentially played in his acquittal. This means ensuring that Black Americans, when appropriate, are able to avail themselves of available defenses under the law. Valuing Black lives also means ensuring equal access to self-defense claims and treating similarly-situated defendants similarly. Valuing Black lives means confronting a gun culture that promotes private vigilantism (as in the shooting death of Arbery), which some white Americans use to justify gun violence against Blacks. Holding those responsible for these homicides is important, but it is imperative to determine how to prevent future killings. These cases demonstrate that the role of race and guns in America cannot be disentangled. Many observers have opined that had Rittenhouse been a Black man, he surely would not have lived to stand trial, and even if he survived, he would have been unlikely to receive the sympathy that so many had for Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse moved freely about Kenosha streets, even as those in the crowd warned officers that he had shot three people, killing two of them. Rittenhouse, only 17 at the time, openly carried an AR-15 assault rifle down the street during protests related to the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man. Miles away, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Kyle Rittenhouse, was acquitted of murder and attempted murder. ![]() Many argue that had Arbery been white, he never would have aroused the suspicions of the McMichaels, and certainly had the assailants been Black, they would have been arrested immediately. In Georgia, Greg and Travis McMichael (father and son), and William “Roddie” Bryant, stood trial for fatally shooting Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man whose race seemed to be the only provocation the three white men needed to end his life. Recently, there have been several high-profile trials that underscore the intersection of guns and race in America. The Dangerous Expansion of Stand-Your-Ground Laws and its Racial Implications By Kami Chavis on JanuCategories: Race, Scholarship, Stand Your Ground
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |