![]() Traditional laws on the use of force place that burden on the alleged self-defender, who must prove that their actions were reasonable. Indeed, the resolution of cases like the Yarl shooting turn on a highly subjective reckoning of what counts as reasonable force, and on which side – prosecution or defense – bears the burden of proof. ![]() Missouri’s stand your ground law, in place since 2016, removes the duty to retreat anywhere a person may legally be, even beyond one’s “castle.” But you still need to prove that force is used reasonably, that it was not carried out in aggression or anger, and that there was a genuine fear for your life. This does not preclude the defense from invoking Lester’s right to “stand his ground” and use force in self-defense, if his lawyers can show Lester truly believed Yarl posed a real threat. Lester, the homeowner, has since been charged with two counts: assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. It seems that in the case of Yarl, state prosecutors believe that the bar of reasonable cause was not met. But he would still have to show reasonable cause for firing two shots at the unarmed teen standing at his front door. Given that the encounter took place on the shooter’s property, there is a possibility the shooter could find legal protection in the “ castle doctrine,” which allows someone to use reasonable force – without first trying to retreat – in self-defense in their home. The wounding of the Black teen, who was simply trying to pick up his siblings, generated widespread outrage, especially when Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves suggested that investigators would consider whether the shooter – an 84-year-old white man – might have recourse to the state’s stand your ground law as a defense against prosecution. Some also expand the circumstances in which someone could use lethal force to defend property.Īlthough the laws appear to apply to all law-abiding citizens, research shows that they are not equitably enforced, and that they may be emboldening property owners to shoot first and question their actions later, even when there is no real threat of harm.Ĭertainly that seems to be the case with the shooting of Yarl. Stand your ground laws, meanwhile, authorize defensive violence without a duty to retreat, wherever a person may legally be. While preexisting laws regarding justifiable use of force allowed the use of lethal force for self-defense in some circumstances, they required that people first try to retreat from a perceived threat if it was safe to do so or to seek a nonlethal solution to a hostile encounter. Since 2005, these “ stand your ground” laws have spread to around 30 states, transforming the United States’ legal landscape. What these young people have in common is that they were killed in accidental encounters with armed property owners.Īs a scholar who has studied America’s love affair with guns and lethal self-defense, I have explored the history of laws that selectively shield citizens from criminal responsibility when they use force and claim self-defense. And then there is the case of 20-year-old Kaylin Gillis, a passenger in a car that turned around in a driveway in upstate New York on April 15, 2023. Take Renisha McBride, who sought help after wrecking her car in a Detroit suburb in 2013, or Carson Senfield, who entered the wrong car in Tampa – thinking it was his Uber – on his 19th birthday. ![]() Others who have made similar mistakes have died. The wounds the 16-year-old suffered after being shot twice on April 13, 2023, by the owner of the house whose doorbell he rang, thinking it was where he was due to pick up his two younger brothers, did not prove fatal. In one key respect, Ralph Yarl was fortunate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |