Self-Defense: Are Juries becoming more Sympathetic?

In America, many buy handguns for the sole purpose of self-defense. They are spurred on by things like the Second Amendment to believe they have every right to defend themselves, their families, and their property.

Every eligible America citizen can buy and carry a concealed weapon. Concealed carry permits must be accepted by every state no matter which state issues them as of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity legislation.

Castle laws basically give property owners the right to protect their property from all trespassers by whatever means they need.

Stand Your Ground laws—accepted in many states—indicate that if you feel that you, your family, or your property is threatened you may use lethal weapons to defend yourself or your property.

These self-defense actions are not confined to the United States. A.J. Somerset, author of Arms: the Culture & Credo of the Gun, discussed the acquittal of Canadian Khill who was accused of killing a Native Canadian who was allegedly stealing his truck. The verdict demonstrates that Canadian juries believed Khill feared for his life. Evidence showed the thief was unarmed but he did not comply with a request to raise his hands. Instead, he appeared to be reaching for a weapon.

Are juries softening toward defendants who are articulate about fearing for their lives. Are they grasping at straws to acquit people?

Reasonableness has been an underpinning of Canadian laws of self-defense. But it is subject to interpretation. What is deemed reasonable can be defined in many ways. If, for example, you live in a rural area where police are a long way off if called, are juries more understanding of your need to defend yourself and your property?

Does it matter where you and a jury of your peers reside? Are rural juries more receptive to protecting families and property than—say—urban juries?

The reality is, in the rural area police response time might well be hours. In most cities, it averages five minutes at the most. 

Do juries take into account state of mind? For example, if a homeowner’s immediate reaction to a sound outside is to load a gun, is that more suspect than dialing 911? If the homeowner immediately loads his gun, is he merely fulfilling his castle law right or is he itching for a confrontation?

If you confront a mugger, a thief, or a car jacker with a gun, can it be argued that you have left yourself no other alternative? 

Will incidents like the Khill case encourage more people on both sides of the forty-ninth parallel to stand their ground?

What about Non-lethal Weapons?

Guns are basically not legal for concealed carry in Canada—except by members of law enforcement, security, and others who are required to be armed for their jobs. Should non-lethal defensive tools like mace, pepper spray, and Tasers be legal in Canada? Would non-lethal weapons stop or at least delay assailants until police could arrive? 

If they become legal, who is going to teach proper and appropriate use of these weapons? Would holders of these weapons need a permit?

Even a shooting of a non-lethal weapon can have serious legal consequences for the shooter. In Canada and USA, police and the justice system presently take lethal and non-lethal weapons seriously. Should a shot intended to halt a thief be taken less seriously than one aimed to kill a perpetrator? Changing jury attitudes toward self-defense is certainly an area for further study.

Are the times changing? Are juries more sympathetic toward those intent on protecting themselves and their property?