When Billy Kuch knocked on the wrong door, he had a cigarette in one hand and a shirt in the other. The homeowner, Gregory Stewart, stepped outside, stood his ground, fired a round from his semiautomatic into Kuch’s chest, and in the eyes of the state of Florida, committed no crime.
Three years after that shooting, in a Land O’ Lakes subdivision called Stagecoach Village, Kuch is alive but damaged by his injuries and the shock of being shot at point-blank range. Stewart is free but lying low, still sought out by neighbors and others who want him to account for his actions.
“I have no problem with people owning guns to protect themselves,” says Bill Kuch, Billy’ s father. “But somehow, we’ve reached the point where the shooter’s word is the law. The victim doesn’t even get his day in court. I don’t think most Americans realize it, but that’s where we are.”
In Florida and across the country, “Stand Your Ground” laws — the same kind of legislation that authorities cited for not arresting a neighborhood-watch volunteer after 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida in February — have coincided with a sharp increase in justifiable-homicide cases.
Prosecutors still reject many claims of self-defense under the new law, and no long-term studies definitively tie the rise in justifiable killings to the passage of laws that relieve citizens of the responsibility to back away from threats. But the Martin case has focused a spotlight on incidents in which the mere statement that people feel endangered allows them to, depending on your sense of what’s right, defend themselves against thugs or act like vigilantes.
This sharp turn in American law — expanding the right to defend one’s home from attack into a more general right to meet force with force in any public place — began in Florida in 2005 and has spread to more than 30 other states as a result of a campaign by the National Rifle Association and a corporate-backed group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which promotes conservative bills.
Florida has been at the forefront of expanding gun rights for decades, ever since an NRA lobbyist named Marion Hammer, the NRA’s first female president, became a force in the state capitol in Tallahassee.
When she helped write the Stand Your Ground bill and circulated it, some police chiefs and other law enforcement officials warned that the measure would make it hard to convict people of murder. Defendants would simply claim self-defense and challenge prosecutors to prove they were lying.
But those concerns were heavily outweighed by lawmakers’ desire to send a message to taxpayers that the justice system would no longer consider suspect those who defend themselves against attack.
In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks and amid images of lawlessness in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, many Floridians, and Americans generally, felt less safe and believed the justice system could not protect victims, said a study of Stand Your Ground laws by the National District Attorneys Association.
In Florida, where looters appeared in the wake of Hurricane Ivan in 2004, Hammer launched her drive for the new law based on the case of James Workman, a 77-year-old Pensacola man who fatally shot an intruder who entered the trailer Workman was living in after the storm damaged his house.
Prosecutors decided not to charge Workman, but many lawmakers pronounced themselves appalled that he had to endure months of uncertainty before being cleared.
Hammer told legislators her bill would protect citizens who simply defended themselves: “You can’t expect a victim to wait before taking action to protect herself and say, ‘Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, did you drag me into this alley to rape and kill me, or do you just want to beat me up and steal my purse?’ ”
The Florida Senate passed the bill unanimously.
The law says a person “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.”
In response, a pro-gun-control group put up ads aimed at visiting tourists alerting them to “Florida’s Shoot First Law.”
These days, Democrats and Republicans alike wonder whether the law should be tweaked to give prosecutors more leeway to determine whether a shooter really was in danger when the trigger was pulled.
Asked about the Martin case last week, former Gov. Jeb Bush, initially an enthusiastic backer of the legislation, said, “Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”
Hammer sees no cause to refine or backtrack. Neither she nor NRA officials responded to requests for comment, but Hammer told the Palm Beach Post that officials should not be “stampeded by emotionalism. . . . This law is not about one incident. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the law.”
Billy Kuch was a troubled kid. As an adolescent, he had bipolar disorder diagnosed and he’d been arrested a couple of times for driving under the influence. He drank too much, and he knew it.
So when he was out at a party that August night on Golden Eagle Drive near the intersection of Gun Smoke Drive, he decided he was too blitzed to drive home. He left the party to lock his keys inside his car so he couldn’t get behind the wheel later that night.
Kuch stumbled back toward the party but forgot which beige stucco house was hosting the bash. He knocked on the wrong door, the one belonging to Gregory Stewart, a 32-year-old homeowner who did not appreciate having his wife and baby disturbed by a drunk kid after 4 in the morning. Kuch went away and texted his sister that he was totally confused about what was going on.
Then Kuch found what he thought was the party house and tried the door. But he’d landed at Stewart’s place, again.
This time, after Kuch turned the doorknob, Stewart told his wife to call 911. Then he grabbed his Smith & Wesson semiautomatic and went into his front yard.
Stewart said he kept asking Kuch to leave, but Kuch, thinking the guys at the party were playing a joke on him, stayed.
“Don’t make me shoot you,” warned the 6-foot-1 Stewart, according to police records. “I don’t want to shoot you.”
Kuch, who stands 5-foot-9, raised his hands, asked for a light and lurched toward the homeowner. Stewart fired.
Stewart broke down in tears when police arrived. “I could have given him a light,” he said. But he said he had felt threatened.
Police asked Stewart why he hadn’t just waited inside until officers arrived.
“I don’t know,” replied Stewart. His unwanted visitor, he said, was unarmed.
“If I had a crazy drunk guy at my door,” said Jeanann Kuch, Billy’s mother, “I’d have locked my door and called 911.”
Kuch spent five weeks in a coma. He woke with no recollection of the incident.
Before the shooting, Kuch had supported the Stand Your Ground law, his parents said. Stewart’s view of the law is not known. He did not return repeated calls, and no court ever asked, because Stewart was never brought before a judge.
Stewart was arrested that night, but Assistant State Attorney Manny Garcia concluded that his actions were “justified.”
Kuch’s bipolar disorder has worsened since the shooting, his parents said. He is working as a chef’s assistant but has had trouble getting past the trauma of what happened that August night.
“By the grace of God, our son lived, but this could happen to anyone in Florida just because you went to the wrong house,” Jeanann Kuch said.
In the seven years since it was enacted, the Florida law and others like it have become an effective defense for an increasing number of people who have shot others, according to state records and media reports.
Justifiable homicides in Florida have tripled, according to Florida Department of Law Enforcement data. Other states have seen similar increases, FBI statistics show.
In the five years before the law’s passage, Florida prosecutors declared “justifiable” an average of 12 killings by private citizens each year. (Most justifiable killings are committed by police officers; those cases, which have also tripled, are not included in these statistics.) But in the five years after the law passed, that number spiked to an average of 36 justifiable killings per year.
Neither the state nor Florida’s association of prosecutors declares the jump in justifiable homicides to be a direct result of the new law, but the state public defender’s association does draw that connection, as have advocacy groups opposed to Stand Your Ground laws.
The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, a national group, argues that Stand Your Ground is not just a technical expansion of the castle doctrine, the ancient legal concept that allows property owners to defend their home, but rather a barrier to prosecution of genuine criminals.
“It’s almost like we now have to prove a negative — that a person was not acting in self-defense, often on the basis of only one witness, the shooter,” said Steven Jansen, the group’s vice president.
The Tampa Bay Times has identified at least 130 cases in Florida in which shooters cited the Stand Your Ground law to defend their actions; in at least 50 of those cases, prosecutors decided against bringing any charges.
After her victory in Florida, Hammer, the NRA lobbyist, brought the new law to the Criminal Justice Task Force of ALEC, the conservative legislative group. The task force made the Florida law a model to be presented in every state capital.
Since then, 32 states have copied at least part of Florida’s statute, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. The NRA and other conservative groups have continued to push the issue in other states, though the effort has stalled amid outcry over the Martin case.
Liberal groups are targeting ALEC for its role in spreading the laws, including a protest outside its Washington headquarters last week.
In the past few days, after the black advocacy group Color of Change led an online campaign urging major businesses to cut ties with ALEC, three huge companies — Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Kraft Foods — announced they will end their membership in the council.
ALEC has sought to distance itself from the Martin case, saying it was not involved in drafting the Florida law.
But minutes of ALEC meetings describe “the continuing success of the Castle Doctrine Act throughout the states,” and ALEC’s 2007 legislative score card lists the spread of Florida’s law as a highlight of the group’s successes.
ALEC, founded in the 1970s by conservative activist Paul Weyrich, has long been the target of liberal groups who say it wields undue influence in statehouses. ALEC funders include the NRA and organizations linked to oil magnates David and Charles Koch, who are key donors to many conservative groups. ALEC’s “private enterprise board” includes executives representing companies such as Exxon Mobil, Johnson & Johnson and AT&T, records show.
ALEC spokeswoman Kaitlyn Buss said critics are making “a cynical, callous attempt to turn tragedy into politics.”
“Using Trayvon Martin’s death in pursuit of such a dishonest dialogue is political opportunism at its worst,” she said.
Thirty miles away and one year after Stewart shot Kuch, a 69-year-old school bus driver emerged from his house to shoo away a kid who was skateboarding on the neighborhood basketball court.
David James, a 41-year-old Iraq war veteran who was playing hoops with his 8-year-old daughter, piped up in defense of the teenager: Where’s the sign that says no skateboarding?
Trevor Dooley turned away, saying, “I’m not here to fight with you.”
“Don’t walk away from me,” James said. “I’m not done with you yet.”
Seconds later, James was on top of Dooley, according to testimony at a court hearing. During the scuffle, Dooley reached into his right front pants pocket, pulled out his handgun and fired into James’s chest.
James fell back. In seconds, he was dead.
In court, a lawyer asked Dooley, “Why did you shoot him?”
“He was killing me,” Dooley said. “He was choking me to death, and he was about to take away the gun from me.”
A prosecutor asked if James had threatened Dooley.
“If you saw a bull coming at you, is that threatening?” Dooley replied.
“Yes or no? I’m asking the questions, sir.”
“He was charging me. Is that a threat? I don’t know.”
Dooley has been charged with manslaughter but is seeking to have the charge dismissed because he felt threatened and stood his ground. A hearing is set for next week.
Dooley was fired from his bus job after the incident. He has not been home in more than a year, because a judge freed him on condition that he stay away. Dooley’s wife said he is “doing badly.”
“Even if he is acquitted, can he ever live comfortably again?” asked his attorney, Ronald Tulin. “It’s a tragedy on so many levels. The notoriety follows Mr. Dooley wherever he goes. And Mr. James — the man was shot in front of his own daughter.”
That daughter had to testify last year.
After the gun fired, a lawyer asked, “did your dad say anything then?”
“Yeah,” she said.
“What’d he say?”
“Call the ambulance. I’ve been shot.”



I would like to see the stats of the stand your ground law vs the level of violent crime since it’s inception.
My thoughts exactly as I read the article. Just how much has violent crime risen since these laws were passed. We the people have a right to defend / protect ourselves. I live in a state where there is no stand your ground law but would defend my family and property with deadly force if necessary. I have the US government to thank for the training they gave me during Richard Nixon’s presidency !
A reasonable position. I go just a hair further. I want the continued assurance I can walk, ride or sit where the public is free to do these things without being molested. Up till now I have had that right. I do not intend to sacrifice it to the politically correct outrage of the looney left.
There should be a duty to retreat unless you’re in your home. These aren’t stand your ground laws, these are right to escalate laws. Shooting someone should be your last option.
Why should I be forced to “retreat” in the face of deadly force or attempted robbery? This sounds like you now support the “bullying” you decried on another thread.
Wrong. I don’t support bullying and I don’t support killing unless it’s absolutely necessary. You’re twisting what it means to be bullied to serve your purpose and it’s a little weird. You can’t claim to be bullied when you’re the aggressor — that’s not how it works.
Seems to me there are several other options, if truly in fear of imminent danger, before resorting to answering the door with a semiautomatic weapon.
Let me get this straight:
In your world when someone attempts to take my money, or some punk tries to push me off the sidewalk, I am the aggressor? When a gang of these low-life punks hassles an old man, and attempts to take his money it is not bullying?
I’ve got a real good idea. You run your world as you see fit. I’ll continue to run mine as I have done for over 60 years (without killing a US citizen) and we’ll see who gets out of here alive.
That’s no where near what I said and that’s not what Stand Your Ground laws do either. You already have a right to self-defense. You already have a right to kill if you’re in imminent danger.
And we’ll see who gets out of here alive? Is there like a goal post I’m unaware of? I somehow think I’ll be just fine leaving my gun at home, but thanks for the concern.
“You already have a right to kill if you’re in imminent danger.”Yes but in your world you want the person who was in danger and had to kill to be treated as guilty until proven innocent unless they were in their home.
Nope.
Yeap!
“We’ll see who gets out of here alive” was a joke… In case you have not noticed.. NO ONE gets out of here alive.
When “conservatives” get all huffy and serious, they are “bullies” what is it when liberals do it??
Why should I retreat from you just because you are paranoid about me too, Harry ?
This knife cuts both ways and should be called the No Compromise Quick Draw Law.
Whenever two people with guns met, it does not matter who goes for his or her gun first,
whoever draws and fires fastest, wins and walks free. Period.
There is real situation this law creates, Harry.
Yippie-kie -eye-aye !!!
Can you deny that WITHOUT SAYING BUT I should not have to worry about the paranoid threat
that you pose to me, because you are not really just like “all those other people”, Harry ?
How many paranoid , no compromise, gun toting, traditional gun fightin’ values,
“real” American cowboys and other assorted classes of paranoid yahoos
think all of those “other people”, whoever they decide are a threat,
should just be put down ?
This law enables doing just that.
The duty to retreat should be on the aggressor (not always the person with the gun). The bad guys can retreat too.
The problem is the “bad guys” today are so drunk and stoned they resemble the creatures in Night of the living dead more than regular people. No conscience no sense of right and wrong, and absolutely no regard for human life.
Negotiating with these cretins is not an option, and they are just as likely to shoot you after you begin “retreating.”
Like the one that killed that 17 year old kid, armed with Skittles, in Fla ?
Your solution includes arming seventeen year old Black kids, for their own self-defense, too, doesn’t it, Harry ?
But negotiating with these no compromise cretins is not an option,
because they can’t compromise.
Once they have been heard, do people who can not or will not compromise ever deserve a place at table, Harry ?
So it goes.
So you wish to play the race card? I lived in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and in all these places I got along with EVERYONE. My neighbors were Haitian, Dominican, Jamaican, Polish, Romanian, Muslim, Hindi. I’m sure not going to apologize to some Lilly-white liberal who’s view of “diversity” includes only colors.
By the way, look around EVEN HERE IN MAINE, 17 year old children regardless of racial or ethnic background, seem to have no trouble getting a hold of weapons which kill.
Your disrespect for my right to walk about unmolested is truly frightening. Is it because I’m white? Does the fact that I am a quarter Arab count? what about my Jewish half?
KMA
ROTFLOL
But your solution does include arming seventeen year old Black kids, for their own self-defense, too, doesn’t it, Harry ?
It is just the facts.
”
The duty to retreat should be on the aggressor …”
Let’s check the logic in that statement, okay ?
You can bet anytime ALEC and the NRA are involved in anything their only purpose is to drive sales they don’t give a twit about anything else, especially our safety.
ALEC and NRA don’t sell anything except second ammendment rights !
Your right … Drive sales dosen’t mean they actually sell, they prmote the sale and cause many to foam at the mouth when the word GUN is mentioned.
What do you have against people protecting themselves?
Do you feel a woman who kept herself from being raped by shooting her attacker should be treated as a murder suspect?
Nothing …. I think a small thermo nuclear device though
would do a much better job as well as cut down on all the foam.
I don’t think MAD doctrine should be the victims only choice for deterrence.
The only good that comes from laws like this is an increase in gun sales. First they want to make sure we can all strap weapons on then they allow us to shoot at will. Let chaos reign.
Sounds more like a plan to combat crime to me. I guess it depends how you look at it. The difference between a victim and a survivor is his ability to protect himself ! Guess you’ll be listed under the victim’s column.
I can protect myself just fine. Well there was that time at the OK Corral with Doc. Holiday and Wyatt, lead was flying everywhere I got lucky that time. But if the truth be told I prefer a ball bat I find it so much more personal and the hands on satiation is huge, huge I tell ya. Don’t you think it’s better to break your assailant’s legs vs. killing him, that way they’ll always remember you.
Try walking the streets with your ball bat.
crazy isn’t it, you can walk around with a semi-automatic and 30 rounds of ammo strapped to your body but not a ball bat … thanks for making, exactly my point.
Like the point or not it is still a valid one. We do not have the option of protecting ourselves in a less lethal way. The laws are written so that we can use deadly force or take the abuse that is being dished out to us by the criminal that doesn’t care about the law.
Allow us all to carry tazers and there is a good chance many of us would choose that instead.
NO … the point is none of this has to do with protecting one’s
self. Voters didn’t ask for this law it was pushed through the states by ALEC and the NRA. Though at one point in time the NRA served a purpose today they are simply the largest lobbyists in the country disguised as supporters of the 2nd amendment whose only purpose is to promalgate weapon sales.
Let’s not forget what we’re talking about here is capitalism, which means we do anything for a buck.
All of this is about protecting ones self. If our streets had not been made unsafe by the welfare state, liberal criminal justice system, and our current practice of treating every gang banger as a victim we would not feel the need to protect ourselves. The very idea that we the honest law abiding citizens should first make every possible attempt to flee from all of the criminals that have been let loose to prey on us is asinine but that is what is being argued here.
I should always have the right to respond to force with force.
Ok I’ll take your position then, if we’re all armed what do
we need the police for, let’s save the tax payers a whole bunch money because obviously our law enforcement isn’t doing their job? Which is exactly the point you’re making.
It isn’t that we don’t need the police it is that we need them in seconds not minutes when we do need them.
If I am in danger I may not have the 5 to 10 minutes to wait that you seem to think I should live with. Too many people have died waiting for the police and I do not choose to be one of them.
I also have no problem with them looking into the facts of the event after the event and if all looks kosher than they can move on. If not they should send it up the chain. No big deal. I do have a problem with the attitude that that the shooter is guilty until proven innocent.
Actually the insurance industry has the largest group of lobbyists, followed by the banks, the AMA, the real estate lobby, and the association of importers and exporters. NRA is sixth.
Thanks Harry, sixth then it is.
“Billy Kuch was a troubled kid”Lot’s of troubled kids out there and poor parents are making more of them all the time. That is not a reason for the rest of us to be required to out up with their issues.
killing someone should be reasonable grounds for procecution with the only grounds for aquital being self defense, with the burden of proof being on the the killer!
Thats the way that it is in Maine and thats the way it should be.
Ahyup, otherwise, the quickest draw always gets away with murder.
Te first case where the guy could close the door is questionable, and was NOT pursued, while the second, to me, seems more justifiable, and IS pursued. The problem is that “justification” seems to have very wide latitude.
There is no such thing, other than war, as a legitimized killing. Once something happens such as this, automatically, the burden of proof should shift on the shooter. This law allows people to determine, on their own, who is a criminal, who is an enemy, …who is not worthy of being on their doorstep, and who is not. What will happen when the next census person comes knocking?…..what happens if it’s an IRS pollster? or perhaps, what happens if it’s a detective seeking answers to an unrelated, but yet local crime?……..Is it ok to shoot them? Of course, the opposition will say….no. “It’s not guns that kill people…it’s people that kill people”……whatever.