Racial Disparities in the Application of Stand Your Ground Laws

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, originally enacted in 2005, is perhaps the most robust of its kind, and it may also be one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in the United States today. The vocal group of supporters claims that it benefits public safety as citizens are given an opportunity to defend themselves.

The group of critics, however, insists that the very application of this law underscores profound racial biases baked into the cake. Under this law and others like it, individuals can employ deadly force if they feel threatened without the need to retreat.

The burden of proof is also shifted from the defendant to prove justified use of force, to the government to prove the force was unjustified. This shifting of the burden can be the key difference between a prosecution and case dismissal, or a guilty and not-guilty verdict at trial.

Still, more and more evidence has pointed to the fact that the application of this law may not be uniform, and that significant racial disparities have been recognized in incidences involving different racial groupings, typically in favor of whites.

This article goes into depth regarding the particulars of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, its application to date, what would cause the racial disparity, and what has been exposed in research.

Background: Understanding Stand Your Ground Doctrine
The theory behind Florida’s Stand Your Ground law essentially flipped traditional self-defense doctrine: Under traditional self-defense legal doctrine, the law mandated that one retreat, if possible, before resorting to using force in self-defense, in particular deadly force.

Stand Your Ground laws remove this “duty to retreat,” again wanting to allow those in fear to use force— even lethal force—if they believe it is reasonably necessary, with the thought that it will help ward off a perceived threat, or imminent threatened death or great bodily harm. This received wide national attention and in several high-profile cases, such as the 2012 shooting by a neighborhood watch volunteer of Trayvon Martin, by George Zimmerman. Zimmerman was acquitted.

That case then sparked protests and a nationwide conversation about race and how self-defense law is applied. That case and several others made scrutiny on how the Stand Your Ground laws are being applied and whether the defense is equally applied across the board in a racially fair manner.

Statistical Evidence of Racial Disparities
A number of studies have paid attention to significant racial discrepancy in the application of Stand Your Ground laws. Research conducted by the Urban Institute in 2013 concluded that if the victim is black, the probability of not convicting a shooter with charges of manslaughter or murder is notably more than if the victim was white.

For instance, the study found that in Stand Your Ground states, “justifiable homicides” with a white shooter and a Black victim are 10-11 times more frequent than those with a Black shooter and white victim.

New research on this came out in a 2017 edition of the journal Social Science & Medicine, studying wide swaths of data. It indicated that in the times when the victim was Black, the finding of justified was substantially more likely than in the times when the victim was white.

The study also concluded that in states with Stand Your Ground laws, homicide rates, both justified and unjustified, were significantly increased.

These numbers suggest that some kind of racial bias, applied either intentionally or unintentionally, sits at the center of the law in Stand Your Ground cases, and that such laws may actually encourage violence.

Notable Case Studies Demonstrating Racial Disparities
The Case of Marissa Alexander – One of the most striking cases that displayed racial incongruity in the implementation of the Stand Your Ground doctrine in Florida is the example of Marissa Alexander: in 2010, a black woman, she fired a warning shot near her ex-husband, who, according to her version, was abusing her.

Despite claiming that she was acting in self-defense and invoking Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute, Alexander was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and given a 20-year sentence. A judge held that because she had left the house to retrieve a gun and subsequently re-entered, Alexander could not legitimately claim she was standing her ground.

Alexander’s case became a source of outrage, far more than other cases running parallel, in which white defendants escaped all charges. After a series of appeals and public outcry, Alexander was released in 2017 after serving time in prison and being placed under house arrest.

Her case exemplifies how the Stand Your Ground law can be applied differently, arguably according to the race of the defendant.

The Killing of Trayvon Martin – The Trayvon Martin case is perhaps the most eminent when it comes to discussions on Stand Your Ground laws. George Zimmerman, a Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer, shot an unarmed black teenager, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, in Sanford, Florida, in 2012.

George Zimmerman claimed self-defense, and in his case, although the Stand Your Ground motion was not already invoked, it was taken as a matter of justification, and it became the law under which the jury had to deliberate on their verdict.

Though Zimmerman was acquitted, the case mobilized protests in cities across the nation and perhaps ultimately helped coalesce the founding of a social movement, Black Lives Matter. To many, the implications of the racial trends in the case are relevant to what Stand Your Ground laws incubate, and some even thought that if Martin were white, then maybe, just maybe, the outcome would not have been the same. The case is a pivotal work in discussing questions of race, justice, and self-defense laws in the United States.

Legal Expert Commentary on Racial and Ethnic Disparities
To learn more about the overall racial disparities of Stand Your Ground laws, we consulted with Joshua Padowitz of Kenneth Padowitz, P.A., a criminal defense attorney and nationally acclaimed legal expert on self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws.

Joshua Padowitz, (left) an authoritative source who has successfully handled numerous Stand Your Ground self-defense cases in Florida was able to shed more light on the issue for us.

“In theory a Stand Your Ground defense should be universally applied no matter [the] race,” said Padowitz, but “in practice, such is not the case. Implicit bias can come into play throughout each step of the legal process, from the initial investigation and whether there is an initial determination of justifiable self-defense by an investigator, through the jury room where important legal decisions are made,” he added.

“The issue is not necessarily with the law itself or how it is written; the issue is how it is applied and interpreted by the police, prosecutors, judges and juries.”

Padowitz pointed to racialized perceptions about what is threatening in our society. “It’s just a very sad, unfortunate fact that when Black defendants are involved, they’re very often regarded as more threatening or perceived as more dangerous, and this can influence how their behaviors are perceived by others.

It goes way beyond issues of law-it goes to the very fabric of our society and the core of our psychological makeup. Until society rids itself of these implicit and/or explicit biases through education and awareness, we will likely always have these types of racial disparities in how Stand Your Ground self-defense laws are applied.”

How Implicit Bias Impacts Legal Results
Implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases are pervasive in society and can significantly impact legal outcomes, particularly in cases involving Stand Your Ground laws.

Research indicates that every representative of criminogenic specialization—from law enforcement and prosecutors to judges and jurors—bears implicit biases that shape their perceptions of threat and culpability determinations.

People are much more likely to perceive a black man as larger and more threatening when the behavior is identical to that of a same-sized white person. This perception can eventually lead to differences in legal outcomes with regard to self-defense cases: Black defendants are more likely to be convicted or deemed less justified in their actions under Stand Your Ground laws. Similarly, white defendants are more likely to be acquitted on the basis of justified self-defense when the “victim” is black.

Legislative Responses and Reforms
After such increasing evidence of racial disparities in implementation, several states have mulled reforms in the law, or actually brought in some. There have been demands from certain quarters for the repealing or altering of the law in Florida. Some legislators suggest raising the burden for defendants invoking Stand Your Ground while claiming self-defense. Others have called for required training in law enforcement and prosecution regarding implicit biases.

However, efforts to reform Stand Your Ground laws have faced significant opposition. Supporters of the law argue that it is essential for protecting individuals’ rights to self-defense and that any changes would undermine this fundamental principle.

As a result, legislative reforms have been slow and piecemeal, with many of the proposed changes failing to gain traction. Instead, Stand Your Ground laws in the United States have actually proliferated since 2012.

The Impact of Media Coverage on Public Perception
Media attention plays a fundamental role in influencing public opinion about Stand Your Ground laws and the particular cases in which they are applied. Most high-profile cases, especially those with racial undertones, receive vast media attention; in turn, this might greatly impact public sentiment and even legal judgments.

For instance, the media’s coverage of the Trayvon Martin case raised the nation’s interest in the racial implications of Stand Your Ground laws. The popular coverage described the case from Martin’s perspective as an innocent victim and Zimmerman as an overzealous vigilante, which drove the national dialogue about race/judgment/self-defense considerations.

But, at the same time, media coverage can be a two-edged sword. The media occasionally reinforces racial stereotypes based on the race of the defendant or victim, which can further increase implicit biases. Furthermore, if the media sensationalizes the coverage of Stand Your Ground cases, this can result in a skewed perception of the law and its application, leading to misconceptions related to its effectiveness and fairness.

The Broader Implications of Racial Disparities

These implications are wider than the racial disparities in application for Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws: they bear severe facts about the criminal justice system generally and more widely upon society at large.

The application of these laws creates an epistemic feeling among people, especially those residing within the communities of color, that people are not all treated the same. Such a law, if not applied evenly, strands the faith of people in the fairness of the legal system and supports further systemic racism. The disparities apparent in Stand Your Ground cases portend far deeper problems in the criminal justice system. Implicit biases, unequal treatment, and racial profiling are features of the overall criminal justice system and are not specific to Stand Your Ground cases.

Remedying these disparities, therefore, requires a holistic approach to confront the underlying roots of racial injustice, and not merely reforms of isolated laws.

Conclusion: Addressing Racial Disparities in Stand Your Ground Laws

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law was centered around empowering individuals with the ability to protect oneself; the uneven implementation has exposed deep racial disparities that cannot be ignored.

The evidence seems to show that Black defendants and victims are disproportionately disadvantaged under the law, which more broadly reflects problems with racial bias in the criminal justice system.

These disparities can only be abolished by an approach that does not only include legislative amendments but also an enlightenment on implicit bias such that there is an absolute commitment to ensuring that the rule of law is applied fairly and justly and with no respect to appearance or rather, the shade of someone’s skin.

As earlier put by attorney Joshua Padowitz, “The goal should be to ensure that Stand Your Ground laws protect everyone equally but to achieve that, we must first confront and address the statistically proven biases that currently undermine that ideal.”

The ongoing debate on Stand Your Ground laws and their racial implications reminds that there is much to do in the pursuit of justice and equality.

As society grapples with such issues, the attention remains well placed on fairness, equity, and the protection of all citizens under the law. Only then will we be able to establish a legal order that truly serves the interests of justice for all.

Until then, us mortals must rely on criminal defense attorneys like Joshua Padowitz: those with a strong moral compass and profound awareness of the racial disparities that pervade the criminal justice system, who will maintain a relentless focus on each person’s individual needs without fear to fight aggressively in court and speak hard truths in the pursuit of justice—irrespective of skin color or ethnic origin.