Will deadly clashes multiply as the right to self-defense expands?

Stand-your-ground laws, derided by opponents as “shoot first” laws, were promoted in the early 2000s by the National Rifle Association and the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council as a way to ease the legal burden on gun-carrying Americans who feel threatened in public settings.

But opponents of the laws cite research showing that in most cases where defendants claimed they were just standing their ground against a threat, they could have safely retreated. That conclusion led an American Bar Association report to recommend that states revert to laws that require people to avoid confrontation if they can do so safely.

As the right to carry firearms openly expands in many states, and as people bring guns into politically fraught confrontations such as the unrest that erupted in Kenosha after the police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, who was wanted for alleged sexual assault, the prospect of more cases like Rittenhouse’s will blossom, said Findley, the law professor.

“When everybody’s armed, everybody can reasonably fear great death or great bodily harm when they get angry with each other,” he said. “It’s going to be hard to prove that people didn’t reasonably fear for their lives, right? We’re creating a powder keg with these laws.”