Business Law 11th Edition by Kenneth Clarkson,Roger LeRoy Miller,Gaylord Jentz,Frank Cross

تمرين 4

Traditionally, the justifiable use of force, or self-defense, doctrine required prosecutors to distinguish between deadly and nondeadly force. In general, state laws have allowed individuals to use the amount of nondeadly 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, most states allowed deadly force to be used in selfdefense only if the individual reasonably believed that imminent death or bodily harm would otherwise result. Additionally, the attacker had to be using unlawful force, and the defender had to have no other possible response or alternative way out of the lifethreatening situation. a Today, many states, particularly in the Northeast, still have "duty-to-retreat" laws on their statute books. Under these laws, when a person's home is invaded or an assailant approaches, the person is required to retreat unless her or his life is in danger. Juries have sometimes been reluctant to apply the duty-to-retreat doctrine, however. In a famous case in the 1980s, Bernard Goetz shot and injured four young men who asked him for money while he was riding the subway in New York City. The jury found that Goetz had reasonably believed that he was in danger of being physically attacked. b
Stand-Your-Ground Legislation on the Increase
Whereas the duty-to-retreat doctrine attempts to reduce the likelihood that deadly-or even nondeadly-force be used in defense of one's person or home, today several states are taking a very different approach and expanding the occasions when deadly force can be used in self-defense. Because such laws allow or even encourage the defender to stay and use force, they are known as "standyour- ground" laws.
On October 1, 2005, for example, Florida enacted a statute that allows the use of deadly force to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony," including not only murder but also such crimes as robbery, carjacking, and sexual battery. c The law applies to both homes and vehicles. Under this statute, Floridians may use deadly force without having to prove that they feared for their safety. In other words, a Florida resident now has the right to shoot an intruder in his or her home or a would-be carjacker even if there is no physical threat to the owner's safety. The law prohibits the arrest, detention, or prosecution of individuals covered by the law and also prohibits civil suits against them.
Since the Florida statute was enacted, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming have passed or are considering passing similar laws. Utah already had a "stand-your-ground" law. d Louisiana's statute, which mimics the Florida statute, was passed after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. In Louisiana, there is now a presumption of innocence for anyone who uses deadly force when threatened with violence in his or her home, car, or place of business.
Although the media sometimes describe stand-your-ground laws as "new," these statutes are actually based on a centuries-old precedent. The laws are a throwback to the "castle" doctrine, which was derived from English common law in the 1700s, when a person's home was considered to be his or her castle. e
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BUSINESS PERSON
1. States that have enacted standyour-ground laws often include places of business as well as homes and vehicles. Consequently, businesspersons in those states can be less concerned about the duty-to-retreat doctrine.
2. Presumably, business liability insurance will eventually be less costly in stand-your-ground states.
Those who oppose stand-yourground laws argue that they encourage vigilantism and preemptive shootings. Do you agree Explain.
a. State v. Sandoval, 342 Or. 506, 156 P.3d 60 (2007).
b. People v. Goetz, 506 N.Y.S.2d 18, 497 N.E.2d 41 (1986). See also People v. Douglas, 29 A.D.3d 47, 809 N.Y.S.2d 36 (2006); and State v. Augustin, 101 Haw. 127, 63 P.3d 1097 (2002).
c. Florida Statutes Section 776.012.
d. Utah Code Ann. 76-2-402 and 76-2-407.
e. One reference to the castle doctrine can be found in William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Chapter 16.