Other side of stand your ground

The aftermath of the home invasion that left farmer Vijay Ragoonanan injured and vulnerable is that the trust he placed in his neighbourhood, living in a home without burglar-proofing, has been shattered.

It's unclear if a more robustly defended house would have helped. Mr Ragoonanan's family was attacked by six armed men, an uncommonly large assault force even by the cruel standards of crime-ridden TT.

There seemed to be little point to the attack beyond intimidation. Mr Ragoonanan had no cash on the premises, and the thugs who pistol whipped him stole phones and jewellery. The incident has strengthened the Prime Minister's resolve – her private residence is in the same neighbourhood – to bring stand-your-ground legislation to Parliament, regardless of the potential impact on the wider society of putting more guns in the hands of civilians.

Heartened by that news, Mr Ragoonanan now wants a weapon to defend himself, a shaky proposition in a country that remains unevenly policed.

Kamla Persad-Bissessar's enthusiasm to introduce castle doctrine to TT law would remove the expectation that a homeowner must respond forcefully only if retreat is impossible. Castle doctrine had its beginnings in 17th century English common law, codified as Semayne's Case, the first legal justification for mortal response to home invasion. The tools of violence have become more efficient and readily available.

Given the speed at which incidents of violence can occur, the leeway of castle doctrine offers legal protection to potential victims who respond but can also serve as a lubricant to violent response in borderline threat environments.

No study has established a link between the introduction of castle doctrine and any reduction in violent crime, though incidents of homicide increase.

The acquittal of George Zimmerman after he left his car, pursued and killed Trayvon Martin as a "real suspicious black guy," was overshadowed by Florida's broad stand-your-ground laws. Thirty-eight states in the US are stand-your-ground states with eight legislating that "there is no duty to retreat from an attacker in any place in which one is lawfully present." That addition shields individuals responding to threats outside of their homes as well. The recent international history of castle doctrine is littered with examples of racist response, mistaken identity, confusion over intentions and anger-driven misjudgment.

In the worst cases, the families of victims must prove that the killings were the result of something other than the declared presumption of threat. The point at which uncomfortable becomes actively threatening is mercurial at best. Adding guns to the mix without assessment of potential users and requiring response-appropriate training in their use is likely to only increase killings justified under law, not reduce crime.

At the point of confrontation, clarity about appropriate response defines the difference between fatalities that are defensible and others in which fear and an available weapon result in avoidable woundings and fatalities.