Stand-your-ground law
A stand-your-ground law, sometimes called a "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law, provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against certain violent crimes. Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present. The exact details vary by jurisdiction.
The alternative to stand your ground is "duty to retreat". In jurisdictions that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.
Even areas that impose a duty to retreat generally follow the "castle doctrine", under which people have no duty to retreat when they are attacked in their homes, or in their vehicles or workplaces. The castle doctrine and "stand-your-ground" laws provide legal defenses to persons who have been charged with various use-of-force crimes against persons, such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and illegal discharge or brandishing of weapons, as well as attempts to commit such crimes.
Whether a jurisdiction follows stand-your-ground or duty-to-retreat is just one element of its self-defense laws. Different jurisdictions allow deadly force against different crimes. All American states allow it against prior deadly force, great bodily injury, and likely kidnapping or rape; some also allow it against threat of robbery and burglary.
A 2020 RAND Corporation review of existing research concluded: "There is supportive evidence that stand-your-ground laws are associated with increases in firearm homicides and moderate evidence that they increase the total number of homicides."
Jurisdictions
Canada
In Canada, there is no duty to retreat under the law. Canada's laws regarding self-defense are similar in nature to those of England, as they centre around the acts committed, and whether those acts are considered reasonable in the circumstances. Generally where retreat is available in the circumstances, the decision to stand your ground is more likely to be unreasonable. The sections of the Canadian criminal code that deal with self-defense or defense of property are sections 34 and 35, respectively. These sections were updated in 2012 to clarify the code, and to help legal professionals apply the law in accordance with the values Canadians hold to be acceptable.A great deal of case law has emerged from different provincial superior courts regarding the interpretation of the elements of self-defense per ss. 34-35 of the Criminal Code. In Ontario, jurors are not permitted "...to consider whether an accused could have retreated from his or her own home in the face of an attack by an assailant in assessing the elements of self-defense.” In British Columbia, the leading case law of which predates the 2012 ss. 34-35 amendments, courts will permit juries to consider available lines of retreat in deciding whether an accused had no other option than to defend himself. However, the option of retreat is not considered a categorical exclusion from self-defense.
Alberta
The province of Alberta is unique among Canadian jurisdictions in affording civil immunity to occupiers who employ force, including lethal force, in defense of homes and other premises. In 2019, the Alberta legislature passed the Trespass Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, in response to rising rural crime, public concern with police inaction and several high-profile self-defense shootings the previous year. Especially influential was the case of Edouard Maurice, who wounded a trespasser and was served with a lawsuit after having criminal charges against him dropped.The new Act amended the and added the following sections:
Where a trespasser is not a criminal trespasser, an occupier is not liable to the trespasser for damages for death of or injury to the trespasser unless the death or injury results from the occupier’s wilful or reckless conduct.
Where a trespasser is a criminal trespasser, no action lies against the occupier for damages for death of or injury to the trespasser unless the death or injury is caused by conduct of the occupier that
is wilful and grossly disproportionate in the circumstances, and
results in the occupier being convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code that is prosecuted by indictment.
For the purposes of subsections and, a trespasser is a criminal trespasser if the occupier has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is committing or is about to commit an offence under the Criminal Code.
For the purposes of subsection, an occupier is deemed not to be convicted of an offence until the period limited by law for the commencement of an appeal from the conviction has elapsed or the appeal taken from the conviction has concluded or been abandoned.
Czech Republic
Czech law abandoned the duty to retreat in 1852. Since then, the successive recodifications of criminal law lacked any such requirement. In order for a defense to be judged as legitimate, it may not be "manifestly disproportionate to the manner of the attack".England and Wales
The common law jurisdiction of England and Wales has a stand-your-ground law rooted in the common law defense of using reasonable force in self-defense.In English common law there is no duty to retreat before a person may use reasonable force against an attacker, nor need a person wait to be attacked before using such force, but one who chooses not to retreat, when retreat would be a safe and easy option, might find it harder to justify his use of force as 'reasonable'.
Any force used must be reasonable in the circumstances as the person honestly perceived them to be, after making allowance for the fact that some degree of excess force might still be reasonable in the heat of the moment.
In the home, the householder is protected by an additional piece of legislation in which it is specified that force used against an intruder is not to be regarded as reasonable if it is 'grossly disproportionate'.
France
Like England and Wales, France has a stand-your-ground law rooted in the defense of using reasonable force in self-defense.Under article 122-5 of French Criminal Code, a person who, faced with an unjustified attack on himself or another, at the same time performs an act required by the need for self-defense of himself or another, is not criminally responsible, unless there is a disproportion between the means of defense used and the seriousness of the attack. There is no duty to retreat before a person may use reasonable force against an attacker, nor need a person wait to be attacked before using such force, but one who chooses not to retreat, when retreat would be a safe and easy option, might find it harder to justify his use of force by the need for self-defense.
Any force used must be reasonable in the circumstances as the person honestly perceived them to be, after making allowance for the fact that some degree of excess force might still be reasonable in the heat of the moment. The person who performs the act is presumed to have acted in self-defense:
1° when repelling, by night, the entry by break-in, violence or trickery in an inhabited place;
2° when defending himself against the authors of robbery or looting executed with violence.
There is an explicit exception however for homicide: one cannot argue that a homicide was in self-defense.
Germany
German law permits self-defense against an unlawful attack. If there is no other possibility for defense, it is generally allowed to use even deadly force without a duty to retreat. However, there must not be an extreme imbalance between the defended right and the chosen method of defense. In particular, in a case in which firearms are used, a warning shot must be given when defending a mere material asset. If the self-defense was excessive, its perpetrator is not to be punished if he or she exceeded on account of confusion, fear or terror.Ireland
Under the terms of the Criminal Law Act 2011, property owners or residents are entitled to defend themselves with force, up to and including lethal force. Any individual who uses force against a trespasser is not guilty of an offense if he or she honestly believes they were there to commit a criminal act and a threat to life. However, there is a further provision which requires that the reaction to the intruder is such that another reasonable person in the same circumstances would likely employ it. This provision acts as a safeguard against grossly disproportionate use of force, while still allowing a person to use force in nearly all circumstances.The law was introduced in response to DPP v. Padraig Nally.
Italy
In 2019, the Italian senate passed a "legitimate defense" bill, protecting the right to self-defense for private citizens of Italy.Poland
Stand-your-ground law applies to any kind of threat by an attacker that endangers the victim's safety, health, or life. The victim has no obligation to retreat, as said in a statement by the Supreme Court of Poland on February 4, 1972: "The assaulted person is under no obligation either to escape or hide from the assailant in a locked room, nor to endure the assault restricting his freedom, but has the right to repel the assault with all available means that are necessary to force the assailant to refrain from continuing his assault."Section 2a of the Polish Penal Code introduced in 2017 codifies a limited castle doctrine, by excluding punishment if the defendant used excessive force while protecting one's home unless "exceeding the limits of necessary defense was gross".
If the self-defense was excessive, its perpetrator is not to be punished if he or she exceeded on account of fear or rage justified by the circumstances of the attack.