Stand Your Ground Law at a Glance
Stand-your-ground laws are self-defense provisions in criminal law that allow individuals to use force in defense of themselves or another person, up to and including deadly force, when faced with an imminent threat that cannot be safely avoided. Stand your ground laws allow individuals to respond to a perceived threat without a duty to retreat first. In other words, people have the right to stand their ground and meet force with a similar level of force, or use deadly force to meet a deadly threat.
Most states have stand your ground laws, including Mississippi. Under Mississippi law, it is lawful for a person to kill another in self-defense when: In some circumstances, a person may also use deadly force to prevent the escape of a felon in certain situations .
Stand your ground laws are similar to so-called "castle doctrine" provisions, which are more limited in scope. Castle doctrine provisions generally allow people to use force, and even deadly force, to defend themselves in their homes (or "castles") without first attempting to retreat. While it is not always required, most U.S. states have a duty to retreat before using deadly force unless in a "castle" context. Such is the case in Mississippi.
To explain castle doctrine, consider two different scenarios. Let’s look at them here: Under scenario two (the "castle" principle), a person may stand his ground and defend himself from an intruder shooting at him in his home. Regardless of anything else, he does not have duty to retreat. However, in the first scenario, he would likely have a duty to retreat before firing.
Does Mississippi Have This Law?
Prior to the enactment of a 2006 statute, Mississippi law was not clear with respect to whether a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is a reasonable alternative to doing so. However, the 2006 legislation, found at Mississippi Code Annotated Section 97-3-15 (1972), is clear. A person in Mississippi "has no duty to retreat and has a right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force wherever he or she has a right to be." That section goes on to provide that there is no duty to retreat in a few other circumstances, but the primary point is there is no retreat provision for self-defense.
Background Behind Self-Defense Law of Mississippi
Throughout our country’s history and throughout Mississippi’s history, the concepts and laws related to self-defense have evolved over time. The first legislative code in Mississippi was adopted in 1821. It did not contain any provision expressly addressing self-defense. In Miss. Code Ann. 14 section 3-5 (1821) juries were instructed: every one is bound to avoid doing mischief, and is excusable in case he does it involuntarily or by necessity; that is, when he does it in order to prevent a greater evil.
The 1867 code followed a few years later. Section 3210 of that code instructed juries on the law of self-defense: Homicide committed in the necessary defense of the person or family against a violent attack is excusable. The violent attack must be either: (1.) an assault accompanied by such circumstances as would induce a reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm to the person or family, if the attack were successful; or (2). an assault upon a person or family it to take life; or (3.) an assault upon the person or family to accomplish a felony. The assailed person must retreat; but only to the extent necessary to avoid the mischief threatened. The language of applicable statutes continued to evolve in Mississippi over the next 100 years and a Court created common law ruled the land. But in 2006, the legislature passed a "stand your ground" law that no longer requires one to retreat from an attacker in many circumstances.
How Mississippi Law Differs From Other States
Stand your ground self-defense law is controversial throughout the United States. In Mississippi, the law is set forth in the jury instructions and is not a statute. In other states, the law is set forth in the statutes. As such, some commentators might assume that since self-defense is set forth in the jury instructions in Mississippi rather than the statutes, Mississippi courts would have more discretion to craft the law as compared with other states.
Frankly, though, I’m not sure how much discretion Mississippi courts really have in defining the law. As I’ve mentioned before, Mississippi appellate courts take their precedent — the juries instructions — laid down in other criminal cases pretty seriously. Maybe too seriously.
The world has not come crashing down because of this. Before departing from the prior precedent, Mississippi courts will do things like note that the current version of the law was adopted in 1980 and cite pre-1980 cases with similar self-defense facts and circumstances. Looks like the Mississippi courts are still going to treat any form of innovation as a seismic shift of grand tradition.
But just in case you were interested in comparing the precision with which other states have codified the concept of stand your ground self-defense, here is how it looks in Mississippi’s neighboring states.
Alabama: Section 13A-3-23(c) Arkansas: Section 5-2-601 Louisiana: Section 14:20 Tennessee: Section 39-11-611 Texas: Section 9.04 Florida: Section 776.012 and 776.013
Court Decisions and the Law
Legal implications of stand your ground in Mississippi case studies
There are a lot of factors that will influence the application of § 97-3-15(1) (a)-(c). For example, if a person is a licensed concealed-carry permit holder, a court may apply laxer protection than if the actor had obtained their weapon illegally.
In State v. Shaw, the defendant was aware that the victim had a reputation for violence. He came home late one night when he was drunk to find his house dark and his girlfriend not home. He thought his home had been invaded.
He went to the victm’s neighboring house. The neighbor told the defendant that the victim was trying to kill him and that he should shoot the victim. The defendant went home and found the victim. The victim was armed. As the victim lunged at him, the defendant shot him.
The trial court precluded the state from introducing evidence of the victim’s violent reputation, concluding that the defendant had no right to use deadly force because simply because he had drunk that night . Although the defendant was convicted by a jury, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and ordered the circuit court to grant him a new trial.
In State v. Hill, the Court once again reversed and remanded for what it called a "new trial." The defendant shot the victim from his porch while the victim tried to grab at him. The State argued that the defendant was not justified because he was not in his "castle." In finding for the defendant as a matter of law, the Court stated that "the invasion of one’s home is not a necessary predicate for a defendant to raise self-defense under the ‘stand your ground’ statute."
Mississippi courts have yet to interpret which protections are afforded to those with a stand your ground defense. For example, how far does the immunity go? Does it protect people who inadvertently shoot innocent bystanders? Does it extend to the driver of a "get-away" vehicle and other accomplices?
Criticism and Advocacy of the Law
After various, often controversial, cases and legislative debates across the United States, support and pushback for the "stand your ground" law have rippled through Mississippi in a similar manner.
Proponents of Mississippi’s law argue that the legislation is crucial to ensuring individuals the freedom and ability to protect themselves and their families from unlawful violence. Supporters laud the passage of the law in 2011, arguing that self-defense is a fundamental right. Legislators who backed the law believed it would safeguard citizens from being inequitably penalized for using force to effectively defend themselves and, in some cases, their property, from an assailant. Mississippi House Bill 1083, which passed in 2011, was enacted to provide immunity from civil and criminal liability to individuals who utilize justifiable deadly force, extend this option to those who defend their home, business and vehicle, and also protect bystanders from attempting legally justifiable self-defense. According to 2011 leading supporters, the law is necessary to ensure people are not being tried for defending themselves. Supporters see enough problems with the judicial process when individuals are tried for legitimate self-defense, and they do not think the results should also extend to those who defend themselves on their own property – or have an "opportunity to retreat" before using deadly force. In addition to private residences, Mississippi law allows the use of justifiable force toward those who forcibly enter a business or motor vehicle with the intention of committing an act of unlawful violence. Opponents of stand your ground laws tend to argue that the policies promote irresponsible vigilantism and exacerbate rates of violence. Those against Mississippi’s law argue that the law creates an "invitation" for "how-to" guides that instruct would-be vigilantes on how to solve their problems with violence. They also believe that the law creates a presumption that shooters are innocent, and that it fosters a culture that seeks to justify killings, suggesting that victims could have "avoided confrontation" – even in their own homes – if they knew the risks they take by not being adequately prepared to kill in self-defense. Opponents also note that encouraging "vigilante" justice undermines the work the justice system does to hold perpetrators accountable, and also the rule of law. Additionally, opponents are wary of the increased number of people who claim to feel threatened, fearing this number will go up exponentially as more individuals – and businesses – adopt firearms. Finally, opponents say that the law places all of the responsibility for situations that lead to shootings on victims, placing the burden on them to avoid violent situations. According to The Washington Post, experts commissioned by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control concluded that the "stand your ground" law tends to increase homicides and nonfatal shootings. The American Bar Association also released a comprehensive journal article analyzing the ambiguous language of many stand your ground laws and the potential for unintended consequences within communities. The ongoing debate over the law’s effectiveness is mirrored in recent legislations and court cases throughout the state. In May 2013, the Mississippi Supreme Court considered a case that involved the fatal shooting of a teenager, 17, during a fight between two groups of teens at a pool party in Columbus, Mississippi. According to news reports, two Mississippi teenagers were arrested for allegedly causing the shooting death of Lamar Sykes, 17. The victim’s mother filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a local apartment complex – where the shooting occurred – in 2014, allegedly arguing that the complex failed to secure properties and sidewalks "free from illegal and dangerous activity." A 2015 police report identified four suspects and ultimately cleared the homeowner, with the prosecution dropping charges against one suspect and dismissing the case against a second due to lack of evidence. The victim’s mother settled the complaint approximately five months later for an undisclosed amount. On the other hand, in September 2013, the Mississippi Supreme Court also dismissed a wrongful death case involving former NFL player Brian Sparling from an alleged drunken shooting. In this case, According to NewsMS, an elderly Baton Rouge man allegedly was not attacked and threatened like the shooter had reported, and thus did not have the right to claim "stand your ground" immunity. The shooter claimed in his defense motion that his victim had yelled obscenities and "muffled death threats" before Sparling allegedly shot him in the lower back from inside the house, allegedly claiming self-defense in accordance with Mississippi’s stand your ground law. In support of its rulings on both cases, the Mississippi Supreme Court argued that law enforcement officials need to make decisions on the ground before a case goes to the courts. The court also noted that the state standard is "clear and unmistakable," explaining that adjusting the requirements of the law would create a new law, lending too much flexibility to those charged under the statute. Each of these cases continues to drive the conversation about stand your ground laws and their effectiveness – both argued by expert law professionals and by laypersons alike throughout the state.
The Upcoming Future of Stand Your Ground Law in Mississippi
Discussions and debates surrounding the "Stand Your Ground" law are ongoing, particularly since 2012 when it was added to the Mississippi self-defense laws. While proponents believe it is necessary to protect people from criminal prosecution when acting in self-defense, opponents argue that it is mostly unnecessary in a state already containing strong Castle Doctrine protections. While there haven’t been many reported court cases or changes to the Stand Your Ground law since its adoption, that could change moving into the next decade. Issues ranging from vague language to incorrect enforcement are at the center of continued deliberation, though both sides seem to agree that the law may need to be fine-tuned before it can be viewed as satisfactory . In particular, there have been significant discussion on the vagueness of the term "stand your ground," which is not a recognized legal term in Mississippi. There is also some debate as to whether the law adequately addresses certain "real world" situations and whether the criminal justice system is being overloaded with dubious claims for self-defense. Additionally, many believe that the issue is more one that should be handled through jury instruction rather than by making changes to the law itself. The future of the Stand Your Ground law in Mississippi still seems to be up in the air, but as there is widespread debate on the subject, it’s clear that "Stand Your Ground" will remain a part of the discussion surrounding self-defense in Mississippi for the foreseeable future.