Sturge: We'll hear Beckles' views on stand-your-ground, gun laws

MINISTER of Homeland Security Wayne Sturge promised to take into consideration a concern recently raised by Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles regarding the possible effects of liberalised laws on gun ownership and usage to defend one's home.

The UNC in its campaign for the April 28 general election had proposed stand-your-ground laws along with easier access to firearms for law-abiding citizens, in light of a public outcry over a continuing prevalence of store robberies and home invasions.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar's election tag-line had been, "Empty the 'matic!" as she urged home-owners to defend themselves, aided by her proposed easier access to do so.

However Beckles sounded a strong caution at a June 3 briefing at the office of the Opposition Leader, saying the UNC's stand-your ground-law was based on a Florida law that had resulted in a 24 per cent rise in homicides, plus a 31 per cent jump in homicides by firearm. Saying the most affected people were those aged 20-34, she urged the government to first hold consultations.

Sturge, in a reply via WhatsApp to Newsday on June 4, promised to give consideration to Beckles.

He said, "There will be public and stakeholder consultation where the Opposition Leader can share the basis of her findings and where a proper analysis can be carried out to categorise and arrive at an informed conclusion as to what caused the spike referred to by the Opposition Leader."

Opposition Senator Faris Al-Rawi told Newsday on June 5 home-owners now have protection under the common-law idea of "castle doctrine," whereby "a man's home is his castle" which he may defend. He said thit ideal also existed in the Offences Against the Persons Act.

The stand-your-ground law, Florida statute 776, says a home-owner has "no duty to retreat" but has the right to stand his ground and to use/threaten to use force.

A study was published on stand-your-ground (SYG) laws nationwide in US states, by Oxford University's Michelle Degli Esposti, PhD on February 21, 2022.

Its conclusion said, "This cohort study found that the staggered adoption of SYG laws in US states was associated with increases in homicide and firearm homicide rates across the US.

"These increases reach ten per cent and higher in several southern states, while no states had significant reductions in violent deaths, as advocates often argue when justifying these laws."

The conclusion said the study and others pointed to harmful outcomes from SYG laws.

"Despite this, SYG laws have now been enacted in most states, and the uptake of new SYG bills continues to be popular, unnecessarily risking lives."

Oxford University on February 23, 2022, published an online article titled, US Stand Your Ground laws are associated with 700 additional homicides every year.

It said, "The accumulation of evidence suggests the expansion of self-defence laws in public places may escalate violence and result in unnecessary loss of life."

The article said SYG laws could "exacerbate social inequalities in violent victimisation."

This is because biases (implicit and explicit) of threat perception serve to discriminate against minority groups and cause them disproportionate harm.

"Some of these concerns have been realised as the laws lie at the heart of a number of high-profile cases in the US, including that of the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in 2021, and, the killing of Armaud Arbery in 2020, and the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse in 2021."

The Florida statute allows a home-owner to act with deadly force in self-defence if in fear of his life, that is, "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

It also lets him act to prevent a forcible felony – a serious crime using force such as murder, robbery, assault or sexual battery. The act's definition of a home includes a porch, a tent, a conveyance (vehicle) and a mobile home/caravan.

A home-owner is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another if an intruder was "in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering" a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle, or had already done so; or was trying to remove someone against their will from that property.

That justification does not apply if the force is used against a police officer or the property's lawful owner/occupier, or if the person being removed in a child, grandchild or ward of the intruder, or if the occupier is conducting criminal activity on the premises.

The statute also allows a person to act to prevent trespass on a piece of property that is not a home.

He can use non-deadly force – without any duty to retreat – to "prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property."

Similarly, he may use deadly force in such a property to "prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."

The act also allows a person to act under SYG principles in a public space, that is without any reference to defending your property. People can use force – deadly or non-deadly – in self-defence, without any duty to retreat. A person can use non-deadly force to the extent he reasonably believes it is needed to defend himself (or another) against someone's use of unlawful force.

The law added, "A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."

The Florida law (section 776.032) grants immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for a justifiable use/threat of force, suggesting the police can direct the case not to go to court.

"A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful."

The only exception is if the person attacked was a police officer.