Self-Defense in the United States: Stand-Your-Ground and the Castle Doctrine
By Olivia Marcoccia ‘27
When someone is charged with a violent crime, such as murder, the prominent affirmative defense (i.e., rebuttal) is self-defense. That was the case in Beard v. United States in 1895, the 2012 death of Trayvon Martin, and the 2023 shooting of Scott Spivey. All three of these events are examples of where stand-your-ground laws prevented the cases from being considered murders. The castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws are two important foundational supports of the overarching legal meaning of self-defense. Across the country, states have different interpretations and implementations of these laws.
The Castle Doctrine originated from English common law, which held that “A man’s home is his castle.” These laws permit self-defense in one’s home or “castle.” What this broadly means is that if someone breaks into a home, or is let in but becomes threatening, the homeowner can take action against the intruder/threat without facing persecution from the law in the name of “self-defense.” The first cited use of this doctrine was in 1628 by Sir Edward Coke, the attorney general of England. When the thirteen colonies departed from Britain to form the United States of America, they took inspiration from the English common law for their own set of laws and governance. This included the castle doctrine.
In 1895, the Supreme Court heard the case of Beard v. United States. Babe Beard was initially convicted of murder when he killed a man named Will Jones. Jones and his two brothers, John and Edward, were arguing with Beard over a cow on Beard’s property. The Jones brothers had come to Beard’s property to take a cow, which they believed was rightfully theirs; Beard disagreed. As the brothers were in the midst of taking the cow, Beard returned to his property from town. In his hand was a shotgun that he often brought into town. Will Jones was also carrying a weapon. Beard ordered the three brothers to leave his property, but they refused. From there, Babe Beard and Will Jones attacked each other, with the latter initiating the attack. Beard hit Jones over the head with his gun. He testified that he could have shot Jones, but did not want to kill him. Unfortunately, the blow to the head was enough to kill Jones, despite Beard immediately calling a doctor to treat Jones’ wound. Based on the facts presented, Jones intruded onto Beard’s property, Jones being armed, and Beard’s effort not to kill Jones, the Supreme Court overturned Beard’s initial murder conviction. It was clear to the justices that Beard was acting in self-defense. This was the first official implementation of the Castle Doctrine in the United States. As of 2025, forty-five states have some version of the castle doctrine.
Stand-Your-Ground Laws are different from the castle doctrine because the castle doctrine only applies to an individual's home. Stand-your-ground laws expand the principle established in the castle doctrine to pertain outside of the home, specifically, in a place where individuals have a right to be. A key part of these laws is the duty to retreat. Before the implementation of stand-your-ground laws, victims had the duty to retreat from the aggressor unless the threat occurred within their home. With stand-your-ground laws, the victim does not have to retreat from a place where they have a right to be. Furthermore, when stand-your-ground is in play, the “victim” in the eye of the law is the person who usually ends up killing the “perpetrator.” These laws apply in twenty-eight states.
One of these states is South Carolina. There are a few elements that the South Carolina code § 16-11-440 requires citizens to meet to claim an affirmative defense under the stand-your-ground law. First of all, element A states that a victim is presumed to be in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury if…
The perpetrator forcibly enters the victim’s home or vehicle, or
If the perpetrator is attempting to forcibly remove another person from their home or vehicle, and
If the victim who uses deadly force believes that the perpetrator is doing either one or two as listed above.
Element B of South Carolina § 16-11-440 goes on to establish situations that do not meet element A of the code. These situations include if the person that the “perpetrator” is forcibly removing is someone that they have legal custody or guardianship of. Another situation that does not meet element A is if the “victim” uses deadly force on a police officer. Element C of the code sets out South Carolina’s stance on duty to retreat. It states that a victim does not have to retreat from a perpetrator if the victim is in a place where they have a right to be. Finally, Elements D and E state that a perpetrator is presumed to be forcibly entering a home or vehicle with the intent to commit a crime.
North Carolina’s self-defense laws greatly differ from South Carolina’s. As far as written law goes, the two states actually share a lot of similarities when it comes to stand-your-ground. The main difference between the sister-state’s laws is the application of it. While South Carolina's stand-your-ground broadly stretches to any place where victims have a legal right to be, North Carolina specifically outlines places where victims have no duty to retreat as their home, vehicles, and workplace. Here, North Carolina heavily relies on the original castle doctrine. South Carolina takes the principles from that same doctrine, but vastly expands its protections.
When stand-your-ground goes right, it shows the nuance of the United States judicial system. The aforementioned case of Beard v. United States is a great example of what happens when these laws are applied with the intended purpose of the laws in mind. There are many instances where these laws have offered victims protection from persecution, just as they were meant to do. Unfortunately, when stand-your-ground goes wrong, it is a severe breach in justice. One example of this is the shooting of Scott Spivey.
On September 9, 2023, Scott Spivey, a thirty-three-year-old man, was driving his black truck down Highway 9. Spivey was believed to be driving under the influence of alcohol. Weldon Boyd, a thirty-two-year-old man driving a white truck, was first behind Spivey on the road, coincidentally. As Boyd realizes that Spivey is a hazard to others on the road, he decides to intentionally follow the black truck. As he does so, he calls 911. Important statements from this call include, “I've got a guy pointing a gun at me, driving. We're armed as well. He keeps throwing the gun in our faces, acting like he's about to shoot us. If he keeps this up, I'm going to shoot him,” “He's trying to run from me now,” and “[If] This dude shoots at me, we're going to put him down.” All of these are statements attributed to Boyd. “Put him down” is exactly what Boyd ended up doing. Spivey was shot and killed in his black truck by Boyd less than a mile away from the North Carolina border.
According to all witnesses, including Boyd himself, this was self-defense. The Horry County police department investigated it as such. The department did not treat Spivey’s death as a murder. This means that Boyd and his passengers’ phones were not confiscated immediately for evidence. Although Boyd was taking pictures of Spivey on Highway 9 and recording all of his own phone calls, many of which provide insight into Boyd’s state of mind immediately after the murder, proving that Boyd was not in fear of Spivey, the Horry police department did not request Boyd’s phone until two months after Spivey was shot. The department also did not take into account that while Boyd claimed that Spivey shot first, Boyd’s white truck was free from any external damage. In fact, the only damage to the truck was the broken windshield, but this was caused by Boyd shooting Spivey through his windshield. Furthermore, the department did not correctly handle Spivey’s body. Rather than taking proper precautions, the department towed the black truck with Spivey’s body still in it twenty-five miles away to the police impound lot. Later on, phone calls between the deputy chief of the Horry department at the time and Boyd shed light on the mistreatment of Spivey’s body and the lack of investigation into his death. Boyd and the deputy chief, Brandon Strickland, were close friends. Strickland helped Boyd avoid criminal charges by corrupting the investigation. This was a case in which stand-your-ground laws were misused, causing Spivey’s family immense grief.
A less recent but more prominent instance of self-defense misuse is the case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. The latter was the alleged victim, according to the stand-your-ground law, but Martin is the one who lost his life. Martin was a seventeen-year-old, African American high school student in Florida. On February 26, 2012, Zimmerman, a Hispanic college student, called to report “a suspicious person” while on neighborhood watch duty. The 911 operator instructed Zimmerman to stay in his SUV and not to approach the person he was reporting. Zimmerman ignored these instructions. He shot Martin, claiming he did so in “self-defense.” Martin was not known to be carrying any weapons at the time of his death. Race is not a reason to assume threat or suspicion under the law. Initially, Zimmerman was not charged because “there was no way to disprove his story.” On March 16th, seven 911 calls from the night of Martin’s death are released. CNN reports that, “In one of the recordings, a voice screams ‘Help, help!’ in the background, followed by the sound of a gunshot.” In 2013, Martin’s parents settled a wrongful death suit with the neighborhood homeowners' association. After years in court, Zimmerman was found not guilty.
Self-defense laws such as the castle doctrine and stand-your-ground are important in the United States. They ensure a nuanced understanding of justice. They remind us that the legal system is often gray, rather than black and white. However, no law is immune to corruption or misuse. Self-defense laws are not the exception. Remembering the purpose of a law and comparing the purpose to how the law is used in a case is crucial to holding the United States’ courts accountable and just.
Olivia Marcorccia is a junior majoring in English.
Sources
Auerbach, M. (2024). “Stand Your Ground” Laws: Overview. ebsco.com. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/stand-your-ground-laws-overview
Bauerlein, V. (2025). Police Say He Killed in Self-Defense. His Phone Tells Another Story. -- WSJ. Dow Jones Institutional News. proquest.com. https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/police-say-he-killed-self-defense-his-phone-tells/docview/3191367655/se-2?accountid=14605
Bauerlein, V. (2025). Authorities Re-Examine South Carolina Road-Rage Killing Following Public Outcry -- Update. Dow Jones Institutional News. proquest.com. https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/authorities-re-examine-south-carolina-road-rage/docview/3259410263/se-2?accountid=14605
Castle Doctrine States 2025. World Population Review. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/castle-doctrine-states#castle-doctrine-states
Mineo, L. (2017). The loaded history of self-defense. The Harvard Gazette. news.harvard.edu. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/03/the-loaded-history-of-self-defense/
NCSL. (2025). Self-Defense and ‘Stand Your Ground’. ncsl.org. https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground
Randall, M., & DeBoer, H. (2012). The Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground Law. cga.ct.gov. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-r-0172.htm
SC Code § 16-11-440 (2024)
Trayvon Martin Shooting Fast Facts. (2025). CNN. cnn.com. https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts/
What You Need to Know About North Carolina’s Stand Your Ground Law. Browning & Long, PLLC. browninglonglaw.com. https://www.browninglonglaw.com/blog/stand-your-ground-law-in-north-carolina.cfm
