In the
,
stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in
self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an
first. The concept sometimes exists in
and sometimes through
precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations.
Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using
in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or
to
and
. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an
, permits a
or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justifies the accused's conduct.
More than half of the states in the
have adopted the
, stating that a person has no
when their home is attacked. Some states go a step further, removing the duty of retreat from other locations. "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.
[1] Other restrictions may still exist; such as when in public, a person must be carrying
in a legal manner, whether
or
.
"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal
in which
right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of
. The
ruled in
Beard v. U.S. (158
550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."
[2][3]
Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in
Brown v. United States (1921) (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".
[