Stand your ground law and related concepts like, self-defense; the ‘castle doctrine’; and the duty to retreat, have continued to pose significant legal problems in different jurisdictions and States in the US. Defendants are now more willing to resort to these defenses, when it appears all else have failed. This, in large part is due to the fluidity and overlapping nature of these defenses, and the different legal interpretations given to different sets of facts, even where in some cases, none of these defenses could ever avail the defendant. The Trayvon Martin and Zimmermann case, is just one, in a long line of cases, that have recently come to the attention of the public; highlighting the intricacies and difficulties of applying the stand your ground law.
In the last 2-3months, there have been an avalanche of legal commentaries and commentators taking and defending positions regarding the stand your ground law. None, in my opinion is as pungent and explanatory as that expressed by Prof. Sherry F. Colb in her article entitled: ‘Stand your ground’ laws and competing visions of ‘fight and flight’ in the real world. In the said article, she connects the dots, as well as delineate the fine distinctions between the duty to retreat, the castle doctrine and stand your ground law, providing examples and interesting case studies: connecting one with the other, and explaining lucidly where one defense begins and ends, and where the other defense(s) kicks in.
Her conclusions will no doubt reveal where she stands – particularly on the stand your ground law and the Trayvon Martin case, albeit sub judice – and how she thinks the concepts have been muddled up. Read full article here.
Wrongful Convictions Blog 
Reblogged this on Upside Down.