Reference no: EM133410772

Traditionally, the justifiable use of force, or the self-defense, doctrine required prosecutors to distinguish between deadly and non-deadly force. In general, state laws have allowed individuals to use that amount of non-deadly force that is necessary to protect themselves, their dwellings, or other property, or to prevent the commission of a crime.

The Duty to Retreat Doctrine

In the past in most states, deadly force could be used in self-defense only if there was a reasonable belief that imminent death or bodily harm would otherwise result. Additionally, the attacker must have been using unlawful force and there had to have been no other possible response or alternative way out of the life threatening situation. Further, many states, particularly in the Northeast, have on their statute books "duty-to-retreat" laws that require an individual to retreat from an invader or an assailant unless that individual's life is in danger.

Stand Your Ground Legislation

On October 1, 2005, Florida became the first state to enact a statute allowing the use of deadly force to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony," such as robbery, carjacking, and sexual battery. The law allows Floridians to use deadly force without proving that they feared for their safety. This law extends to homes and vehicles. The law also prohibits the arrest, detention, or prosecution of individuals covered by the law. Additionally, the law prohibits civil suits against said individuals. This legislation clearly expands the right to shoot home and vehicle intruders who pose no physical threat to the occupant's safety.

Those who are against stand-your-ground laws argue that they encourage vigilantism and preemptive shootings. Do you agree? Explain.

"A person's home is his or her castle." Does this traditional saying justify the use of deadly force against an intruder under all circumstances? Why or why not? (Especially in California).