What is a Stand Your Ground Law?
Stand your ground laws are the subject of fierce debate in the United States. Common in many states, these stand your ground laws allow individuals to use force, including fatal force, if they reasonably believe they are in imminent physical danger of death or serious bodily injury.
Stand your ground laws differ from other self-defense statutes in two primary ways. First, unlike other self-defense laws, these laws do not require an individual to first exhaust all avenues of escape from the situation. An individual is not required to retreat if they feel threatened, even if a safe exit is available and practical.
Second, most stand your ground laws, are vague and subjective, requiring only a "reasonable belief" that serious injury will occur if the individual does not respond with force. These vague definitions give rise to inconsistent standards for the use of force and often result in disparate treatment based on the race, gender, or sexual orientation of the individual.
Due to the inconsistencies in the application of these laws and their far-reaching implications, some states have eliminated the duty to retreat or redesigned their self-defense laws altogether. A few states even require immunity hearings before charges are filed and are progressive in allowing individuals to not only defend themselves , but also their property and bystanders. The jury instructions in these states are also fairly broad and encourage juries to find self-defense in almost any case if they believe the individual reasonably believed he or she was in danger.
Virginia follows a somewhat moderate approach to self-defense, and the laws surrounding the duty to retreat. The statute generally only allows individuals to use reasonable force to repel a threat. Importantly, it does not require individuals to retreat and does not require an individual to reasonably believe they are in imminent danger.
Additionally, the statute sets forth an affirmative defense to the otherwise accepted standard of retreat in the Commonwealth. This affirmative defense overwrites the duty to retreat if "the person using force first retreats the person invoking that right has a duty to request the aggressor to desist from his or her threatening conduct and to avoid the use of force on the person by retreating if the person can do so with complete safety." This standard can be used by defendants in Virginia to claim self-defense in a court of law.
How Does Virginia’s Self-Defense Law Work?
Virginia law does not directly afford you the protection of a "stand your ground" law. In fact, Virginia law has instead adopted a duty to retreat doctrine. However, the concept of "stand your ground" has come to be embodied in self-defense laws surrounding the use of deadly force—a category into which disparate uses of firearms have developed.
Virginia is not a castle doctrine state. Under the common law that existed at the time Virginia’s General Assembly first enacted statutes governing the use of deadly force in self-defense, the duty to retreat was the rule, with narrow exceptions. One of those exceptions was that you had "no duty to retreat or to stand your ground" at your fireplace or front door (which were deemed your castle) from an armed assailant who unlawfully and forcibly entered your house. The reasons behind this carve out from the general duty to retreat were that an invasion of one’s home threatens death or grievous bodily harm to the house-breaker as well as the occupants without warning and in a sudden, violent and aggressive manner, and that retreating until the threat has abated is not feasible.
Today, the Vinson rule surrounding self-defense in the home has been codified in Virginia, but it has also been broadened. Specifically, while you are still under a duty to retreat before using deadly force against another in self-defense, you are presumed to have acted reasonably and with perfect self-defense intent if you used deadly force in your home. However, you do not have that same presumption if you use deadly force outside your home.
How Does Virginia’s Law Compare to Other States?
Virginia’s stand your ground law differs significantly from the laws of many other states. Most notably, of the 36 states with some form of stand your ground law, Virginia is one of only two that do not impose a duty to retreat before using deadly force. This omission has been a longstanding point of policy discussion, with some arguing that the duty, whether explicitly stated or implicit through the "imminent threat" requirement, provides necessary protections against hasty conclusions being drawn in potentially life-threatening situations.
Furthermore, many states place a specific timeframe on which an individual may use stand your ground as justification for their actions. These differing provisions mean that regardless of a particular situation’s nuance, the outcome of a case may depend on the law of whatever state it is being brought in. Virginia Criminal Attorney Kenneth P. Theisen says "This can create confusion for defendants who assume that all self-defense laws within the United States are similar. In fact, they vary quite a bit and it is important for someone facing criminal charges to understand how their actions are viewed in the state where the crime was allegedly committed."
Unlike many states with stand your ground laws, Virginia does not explicitly extend the law to protect property owners from civil suits resulting from having been used in a self-defense situation. Virginia does allow for "defensive force" to be used by an individual when a trespasser has entered his dwelling, which would include things like a home or a workplace; however, this does not directly provide for protection in case of a criminal suit.
As in other states, stand your ground in Virginia does not apply to police officers or other law enforcement officials who are pursuing a suspect in the course of their duties.
Virginia’s Law and Legal Consequences
As our society continues to change in the post-9/11 world, so do the laws that govern self-defense. Experts believe that these changes are a direct result of the violent, random crimes recorded within the U.S. legal system, when in reality much debate surrounds the legality and justifications of stand your ground legislation. One thing is certain, though: both the proponents of a stand your ground law and its opponents can agree on one fact: that absent a stand your ground law, those who kill others because they believe they must to defend themselves are likely to face murder charges.
Virginia’s use of self-defense law is not well known or understood. Many Virginians aren’t even aware that we’re not alone in being "stand your ground less" than other states, as there are only 15 states in the U.S. with the same self-defense laws as Virginia. While many Virginians might believe that asserting their right to self-defense is enough to avoid conviction of a crime, in reality, determining the legality of a claim to self-defense in Virginia depends upon the circumstances of the encounter.
What does this mean for residents of Virginia? In short, it means that if you believe you must use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury in Virginia, you are essentially required not only to retreat, but actually to demonstrate that there was no other reasonable alternative to avoid the conflict. In other words, if you are in in any way able to safely retreat from the situation beforehand, you may not be able to claim self-defense in the court of law.
While opponents of providing more protections for the accused in a stand your ground law claim that doing so would allow criminals to conceal violence as self-defense, and would make homes more susceptible to violence, others argue that those laws reduce gun violence, and that stand your ground laws actually place the burden of proof on the prosecution, not the accused.
Court Cases and Legal Precedent
Overview of Significant Virginia Court Cases and Precedents Involving the Stand Your Ground Law
In order to understand the full ramifications of Virginia’s Stand Your Ground Law, it is important to know how the law has been applied in practice by the courts. Several key cases in Virginia have had a big impact on how self-defense against assailants has been viewed and treated under Virginia law. Hilton v. Commonwealth—This 2007 case dealt with the prosecution of a 15-year-old for shooting an intruder who was attempting to break into the family home. The court determined that there was sufficient evidence to find that the defendant felt there was a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm in order to justify a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. Further, the court found that the defendant had no duty to retreat when facing an imminent threat because he was in his own home at the time of the confrontation. Barnes v. Commonwealth—This 2007 case involved a homeowner who shot and killed an attacker before the latter tried to breach his front door. This case detailed the circumstances under which deadly force may be used to defend a home or occupied building. The court ruled that there must be evidence presented to show that the defendant had a reasonable belief the threat was going to force entry into his home and that the force being used was necessary to prevent the threat from entering . Ruffin v. Commonwealth—In this case, the court ruled the defendant could be tried for murder and use of a firearm in committing murder despite claiming he had acted in self-defense against an attacker with whom he had a long-standing grudge. The court noted the defendant’s need to convince the jury of his innocence rather than allowing the case to be decided by the attacker’s actions. Branch v. Commonwealth—This case clarified rules surrounding use of deadly force wherein a confrontation was preceded by an altercation between the defendant and the victim elsewhere. The defendant was ruled justified in the use of deadly force under the circumstances, understanding that if an attack of an altercation is both unprovoked and unjustified, the victim does not have the duty to retreat, and thus is entitled to use deadly force to defend himself. This right continues until the potential victim reasonably believes there is no longer any threat. Wescott v. Commonwealth—This case involved a homeowner who shot and killed an intruder who had already broken into his house and was hiding in a closet. The shooter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The court determined that, while there was some evidence that the shooter had acted in self-defense, it led more strongly to a conclusion that the shooting was reckless and ill-advised.
Public Opinion and Advocacy
In Virginia, the issue of "stand your ground" laws has generated public debate, with various advocacy groups taking positions on both sides of the issue. Generally, public opinion in Virginia appears to lean towards supporting self-defense rights, though there is still a significant discourse around the potential ramifications of such legislation from both sides.
Some advocacy groups argue in favor of "stand your ground" laws, suggesting that they are necessary to ensure the safety and interests of individuals who may be faced with the need to use deadly force in self-defense. They contend that these laws empower victims of violent crime, particularly in instances where an assailant might not otherwise be deterred. Additionally, proponents often cite instances of perceived injustice or cases of perceived overreach in criminal charges against individuals who have used lethal force to protect themselves or others, suggesting that "stand your ground" laws serve as necessary safeguards against undue criminal liability. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a strong advocate for "stand your ground" laws and has been actively involved in the legislative process in Virginia and other states.
Conversely, those opposed to "stand your ground" laws argue that such legislation can contribute to unnecessary violence and misinterpretations of self-defense, potentially leading to severe legal and social consequences. They raise concerns that, without a "duty to retreat," individuals may feel empowered to meet perceived threats with deadly force when other options for de-escalation may have been available. Opponents of "stand your ground" laws also argue that these laws disproportionately affect communities, particularly those already vulnerable to violence or crime, and exacerbate existing problems related to gun violence and public safety. Groups such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have opposed "stand your ground" laws, arguing that they increase the risk of gun-related injuries and deaths.
The debate over "stand your ground" laws in Virginia, as elsewhere, highlights a broader discussion about self-defense, the right to bear arms, and public safety. While the debate continues, the issue remains highly influential in the political landscape as the 2020 legislative session approaches, with advocacy groups on both sides continuing to employ outreach and educational campaigns to raise awareness and bolster community support for their opposing positions.
Tips for Virginians
As a Virginia resident, your best course of action during an altercation is to avoid violence. However, not all altercations are preventable or avoidable. In that case, Virginia law may provide you with some legal protection if you fear for your life or physical safety. But you do not have permission from the state of Virginia to instigate violence and then claim self-defense. To protect yourself legally, do not provoke a person into a fight, and if a fight does break out, you must retreat and avoid fighting whenever possible, according to Virginia law. The only exception is when you are in your home. If someone breaks down your front door and comes inside, they are not welcome, and it is legally acceptable for you to assume that they intend to cause you harm. Self-defense and defense of another person are closely related. For example, if a group of people is attacking one person, it is acceptable to jump in and defend that victim . Of course, there are caveats: Only use sufficient force to stop the attack, and the person you are helping must be in imminent danger. If someone threatens your family, member of your household, or pet, you should call the police rather than directly protect yourself. If you attempt to protect your family or pet, you risk hurting them or escalating the conflict. This suggests intent to cause physical harm to a person or animal, which could lead to criminal charges against you. Be careful about where you are when you attempt self-defense. You are not legally protected if you attack someone in an establishment that has a no weapons policy and your weapon is the reason that you win the fight. Likewise, if you attack someone on their own property where they were justified in defending themselves, your chances of avoiding criminal charges are minimal.