March 27, 2012 3:53PM # The Myths and Realities of ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws By [Walter Olson](https://www.cato.org/people/walter-olson) --- SHARE In recent days a great deal of ill-informed commentary has appeared about the “stand your ground” self-defense law enacted in Florida and many other states since 2005 ([earlier](https://www.cato.org/in-defense-of-stand-your-ground-laws/)) and how if at all it applies to the February 26 confrontation between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. The *Orlando Sentinel* invited me to sort things out for readers and the resulting op-ed is [here](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-ed-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-yes-032712-20120326,0,3710156.story). Much of the piece is devoted to clearing away myths: > Let’s start with one of the most common misreadings of the law, namely that (in the words of Washington Post columnist [E.J. Dionne](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rights-etch-a-sketch-imperative/2012/03/23/gIQAIgReaS_story.html?tid=pm_pop)) it sets out a rule of “Feel threatened, just shoot.” Florida law justifies lethal self-defense in a public place only under *reasonable* belief that force is *necessary* to prevent *imminent* death or great bodily harm. > > > Belief that’s not reasonable is of no account. No wonder, according to [Sentinel reporting](http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-21/news/os-trayvon-martin-stand-cases-20120322_1_orlando-police-prosecutors-records-show), Central Florida police regularly arrest people who try to claim self-defense after committing violent acts, and courts regularly convict them. That’s consistent with the “stand your ground” law. > > > The best-known provision of “stand your ground” rejects the so-called “duty to retreat.” Under that rule, prosecutors could sometimes overcome an otherwise valid claim of self-defense by arguing that you could have safely fled your attacker. > > > But — to clear up another misconception — the old duty of retreat would not have put Zimmerman at fault for following Trayvon around the neighborhood. Instead it came into play only when a confrontation had boiled up to a point of imminent violence. Evidence remains inconclusive on some crucial points, in particular what happened immediately before the two men got into a scuffle in which Martin inflicted injuries on Zimmerman, who then shot him. (Jacob Sullum has a [good summary](http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/27/new-details-about-george-zimmermans-acco) of the current state of reporting, which is changing rapidly.) Under most likely scenarios, however, Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence as a substantive matter is the same under Stand Your Ground as under Florida’s pre-2005 law, because the prosecutors’ case probably would not hinge on the “duty to retreat.” The 2005 law does afford him some procedural advantages, however; and it also has a number of other provisions (applying to immunity in defense of property and of third parties’ safety, for example) that may well be worth a second look but are not relevant to the Martin/​Zimmerman case. On the key legal issue of “provocation” as it applies to violent fights, by the way, Michael Mannheimer has a [very useful post](http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/03/trayvon-martin-and-the-initial-aggressor-issue.html) at PrawfsBlawg. You can read my new *Orlando Sentinel* piece [here](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-ed-trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground-yes-032712-20120326,0,3710156.story). ##### Related Tags [General](https://www.cato.org/general), [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).