Since the Trayvon Martin case—my home blog Martin case archive is here–the racial grievance industry has endlessly claimed “stand your ground”—SYG—laws allow white racists to murder innocent blacks at will. Never mind that SYG was not implicated in that case and that neither the prosecution nor the defense raised it. An unmistakable case of self-defense, the local prosecutor refused to prosecute. So racially charged was the political atmosphere, then Florida AG Pam Bondi appointed a corrupt special prosecutor who lost the case.
The anti-liberty/gun industry continues to lie about SYG laws, and the Wall Street Journal has jumped on the creaky bandwagon:
The premise of the WSJ story is that Stand Your Ground laws have led to a 59% increase in the number of justifiable homicides in some states between 2019 and 2024, and that the law is allowing some folks to literally get away with murder.
As we discussed yesterday, though, none of the anecdotal cases cited by WSJ in support of that premise are slam dunk examples of murders that were deemed justified as a result of SYG laws. The data set used by the paper is also suspect, since it did not include the significant number of states where Stand Your Ground exists in common law but not specifically in statute.
The WSJ is, at least, misleading:
Even using the WSJ’s own flawed dataset, the percentage of homicides deemed justified in SYG states has climbed from about 2.8% in 2019 to 3.8% in 2024. We don’t know how many self-defense claims were raised in the 96.2% of homicides that were deemed murder, but we know the number isn’t “zero.” Stand Your Ground laws aren’t a “get-out-of-jail free” card for armed citizens, despite the slanted reporting from the WSJ and Gifffords’ wild suggestion that many or all of these justifiable homicides are actually murder.
Just because a state has a SYG law doesn’t mean SYG is implicated in every murder or justified instance of self-defense. All SYG laws do is remove any legal requirement that people unlawfully attacked run away before defending themselves. If they are legally present when and where attacked, they may “stand their ground” and defend themselves. That’s it. The legal criteria for the use of deadly force remain, and the good guys, not Democrat’s criminal constituency, have the advantage.
Keep in mind I’m not an attorney. I’m providing only general information available by reading the use of force statues of most states. Visiting attorney Andrew Branca’s Law of Self Defense site is also helpful.
Generally, one may use deadly force if a reasonable person in like circumstances would believe they are facing an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Whether those elements are fulfilled is the job of the police to determine. No detective is going to simply take a defender’s word for it.
They’ll exhaustively interview all witnesses. They’ll find and collect all video from the area—almost everything is recorded these days. They’ll determine if the defender’s account is supported by physical and forensic evidence. They’re required to investigate every unattended death, even if it initially appears to be an obvious case of self-defense, as a murder until they can conclusively prove otherwise.
In the Martin case, that’s just what they did and discovered George Zimmerman was telling the truth. Ambushed out of the dark by Martin, who broke his nose, knocking Zimmerman to the ground and straddling him. Ruthlessly beating him in “MMA ground and pound” fashion as a witness recounted, Martin repeatedly beat Zimmerman’s head on a concrete sidewalk. Unable to defend himself, Zimmerman managed to draw his legally carried handgun. One round ended the attack.
Would a reasonable person in Zimmerman’s position, pinned to the ground and being viciously beaten, unable to fight back, believe he was facing serious bodily injury or death? The jury, applying Florida law, thought so and so should any reasonable person.
SYG didn’t apply because Zimmerman couldn’t run even if he wanted to. All the evidence supported Zimmerman’s account.
Claiming people can “shoot first and ask questions later” or all people have to say is “I feared for my life officer,” and that SYG laws require nothing more is either a complete misunderstanding of the law or an outright lie. In the Martin case, that lie tried to further anti-white racism. Now, Giffords and the WSJ are trying to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights and necessary legal protections, which would only worsen criminal violence.
Both are as predictable as they are despicable.