When our state legislature replaced the longstanding Castle Doctrine with a version of the Stand Your Ground statute, the fiercest opposition to the new law came from an unexpected source: The District Attorneys.

Prosecutors felt that there was no apparent need to alter the law, and that the new law would promote confrontation. Thus, they argued that the new law frustrated public policy considerations.

Under the previous Castle Doctrine type statutes it was still possible to raise a self defense claim outside of your home. The Castle Doctrine differs from the Stand Your Ground laws in that the former imposed a duty to remove yourself from a dangerous encounter if it was reasonably feasible. It was considered better policy to avoid the altercation if possible. If the threat became so imminent that attempting to flee was not reasonable, using appropriate force would be justified.

Also, self-defense is an affirmative defense, like duress, coercion, necessity, which means that the defendant bears the burden of establishing the elements of the defense. It is a question of fact, which therefore rests in the purvieew of the finder of fact, usually a jury.

Self defense is only available as a defense when the defendant, whose presence is lawful, reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of death or seriously bodily injury. The focus is not just on his subjective perception, but whether that belief was reasonable under the circumstances. Of course, one, who is in the commission of a crime or unreasonably advanced the confrontation that gave rise to the need to use deadly force, is generally not entitled to the protection of the statute.