Few should have been surprised by the events that unfolded when Michael Dunn, 45, who was in town for his son`s wedding, met 17-year-old Jordan Russell Davis and several other teenagers playing loud music in an SUV at an entry station on Southside Boulevard. Stand-you-ground laws allow individuals to escape prosecution for, among other things, the use of lethal force, even though they could easily and safely retreat.  Many of these laws also allow individuals to use lethal force to prevent the commission of certain crimes, such as robbery, even if the accused has no well-founded fear of death or serious injury.14 15 But it should not be necessary to exert such public pressure for authorities to do the right thing. If Stand Your Ground stays on the books, it will continue to create situations where communities will have to hold law enforcement officers accountable. As the judge pointed out in the Drejka case, there is already adequate protection of self-defence in the law without asserting itself. Stand up and make justice less likely. Seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin returned to his parent`s home after buying sweets from a supermarket. George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator, reported in 911 what he called a “really suspicious black man.” Zimmerman was ordered by the 911 driver not to pursue Martin. However, Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin, who was unarmed, and shot Martin after a physical altercation. When police arrived, Zimmerman invoked self-defense and was not arrested. As the Chief of Police later explained: “In this case, Mr.
Zimmerman made the declaration of self-defense. Until we can find a probable reason to deny this, we have no reason to stop it. 20 Zimmerman was later tried and acquitted. Florida`s stand-your-ground law contributed to Zimmerman`s acquittal.21,22 Some states exclude certain situations from the application of the stand-your-ground doctrine. In Louisiana, “it does not apply if, at the time of the homicide, the person who commits the homicide is involved in the acquisition, distribution, or possession of a controlled hazardous substance with intent to distribute a controlled hazardous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Hazardous Substances Act.”  Other measures are broader and exclude any situation in which the person is “actively involved in conduct intended to promote criminal activity.”  It is likely that ground-only laws will have little impact on hunting or the recreational use of firearms. However, if these policies encouraged more people to acquire or carry firearms, we could expect an increase in gun sales, accidental injuries and deaths, and suicides once the legislation is passed. To assess this possibility, the ideal would be to find out if there is a greater increase in gun ownership and carrying compared to other states after stand-your-ground laws were passed, but data on gun ownership has not been systematically collected over time. Only two of the studies we identified that met our criteria assessed the effects of stand-your-ground laws on these outcomes: Humphreys, Gasparrini and Wiebe (2017) and Guettabi and Munasib (2018) estimated the effects of these laws on suicide rates in the form of placebo tests (i.e. on the theory that stand-your-ground laws should have no effect on suicides).
Stick to your basic laws that help black people be killed with impunity. These laws give people training without prejudice, without gunnery training, and without de-escalation training the green light to use lethal force in seconds. The degree of danger is determined and filtered by the preconceptions, prejudices and racism of untrained citizens. By lowering the threshold for the justified use of lethal force to protect oneself, stand-your-ground laws should increase the defensive use of weapons and, where a deterrent, reduce crime and violence rates. In particular, on-the-ground laws reduce the anticipated legal costs of using defensive firearms by reducing the likelihood of criminal or civil liability for fatal or non-fatal injuries. Laws, in turn, increase the expected cost of violent criminal behavior, as victims are more likely to respond with lethal force. This mechanism could help reduce crime rates or encourage criminals to turn to other types of crime where they are less likely to encounter armed resistance. In this case, crime rates may remain stable while the composition of crime types (e.g., robbery versus flight) changes. To unravel these mechanisms, ideal analyses would distinguish between the effects of stand-your-ground laws on criminal violence and the effects on violence in self-defense. Data on homicides, violent and property crimes are readily available. Methodological weaknesses in collecting data on the use of defensive weapons are well documented, but there are several lines of evidence (for further discussion, see Kleck, 2018; Hemenway and Solnick, 2015b; National Research Council, 2004; and our essay on the challenges of defining and measuring the use of defensive weapons).
Ideally, analyses of the impact of stand-your-ground laws on the use of defensive firearms would use data that captures whether the laws affect self-defense rates in the country (where the castle doctrine law already exempts victims from an opt-out obligation) or in other areas, as allowed by expanded stand-your-ground laws. This level of detail on the circumstances of the defensive use of weapons is not available in most existing data sources. The National Violent Death Reporting System provides detailed information on firearm deaths in participating states, but none of the studies that meet our inclusion criteria used this data source. Two studies we identified that met our inclusion criteria for this guideline separately examined the total number of homicides (as well as other types of crime) and justified homicides using statistics collected through the Federal Bureau of Investigation`s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting Survey – although, As the authors point out, the definition of the program of justifiable homicides does not cover some incidents. that would be explicitly considered defensive use of weapons under expanded stand-your-ground laws (McClellan & Tekin, 2017; Cheng and Hoekstra, 2013).