Overview

On an early January evening in 2008, John Stuart and his wife were happily spending quality time together, talking and laughing, hanging up “Ron Paul for President” signs. Life was good. In fact it was better than good. They each had good jobs, a beautiful, custom home, several cars, and spent much of their leisure time following their joint passion -- dancing. In the blink of an eye, that life was violently and unalterably changed forever, never to be the same.

While sitting at an intersection waiting for the light to turn green, a man – a complete stranger to John and his wife -- jumped out of the driver’s side of his car, ran around to the driver’s side of John’s car, and started viciously attacking John and his wife, threatening to kill them both. He was a raving lunatic. John and his wife believed they were going to die. This unprovoked attack ended with the attacking man being shot and killed. The attacking man’s autopsy showed the man’s blood alcohol level to be two and a half times the legal limit. The man’s website boasted that his favorite pastime was to get drunk and go find someone to beat up!

Eleven separate witnesses -- none of whom knew any of the parties involved and had no dog in the fight -- confirmed the version of events given by John and his wife to the police. According to the clear language of the law, John should have been released and the matter forgotten. However, despite the witness statements and clear and convincing evidence, for some unknown reason the state continued to prosecute John, lie to the grand jury (not once but twice, after being ordered by a judge to hold a second grand jury hearing), and attempted to put pressure on witnesses to get them to change their testimony – including threatening to prosecute his wife for perjury after the first trial in order to change her testimony to be more favorable to the state. All of the many police reports are replete with references that “there was a Ron Paul sticker on the car,” or “there were several Ron Paul signs in and around the garage.”

Our justice system, which has allowed an innocent man to be convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison, away from his family and friends, has effectively stripped John of everything he has worked hard all his life to attain. The scary thing is, this could happen to any one of us at any time. “There but for the Grace of God go I.” This case is not unique to John. In fact, this type of “justice” happens all across this nation to law-abiding individuals every single day, completely destroying lives and families. While John served ten months in Maricopa County’s 4th Avenue Jail, John, a former teacher and preacher, started teaching reading, writing, and basic math skills to other inmates.

Arizona Self Defense Law

Arizona law states that, with some exceptions, citizens are presumed to be acting in self-defense when they use deadly force against people who have entered or are attempting to enter their home or vehicle with bad intent.

The cases of David Appleton, John Chester Stuart, and Don Purse are three recent Arizona self-defense cases, where the state’s stand-your-ground laws were applicable, yet only one of the three, Stuart, has been criminally charged. Stuart was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison while a Maricopa County grand jury refused to indict Appleton and Purse, the owner of a mobile-home park who shot to death one of his former tenants, so far has escaped prosecution.

ARS § 13-403. Justification; use of physical force

The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:

1. A parent or guardian and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or incompetent person may use reasonable and appropriate physical force upon the minor or incompetent person when and to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain discipline.

2. A superintendent or other entrusted official of a jail, prison or correctional institution may use physical force for the preservation of peace, to maintain order or discipline, or to prevent the commission of any felony or misdemeanor.

3. A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a place where others are assembled or on a common motor carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use physical force if and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to maintain order, but such person may use deadly physical force only if reasonably necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.

4. A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself may use physical force upon that person to the extent reasonably necessary to thwart the result.

5. A duly licensed physician or a registered nurse or a person acting under his direction, or any other person who renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency occurrence, may use reasonable physical force for the purpose of administering a recognized and lawful form of treatment which is reasonably adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient if:

(a) The treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient is a minor or an incompetent person, with the consent of his parent, guardian or other person entrusted with his care and supervision except as otherwise provided by law; or

(b) The treatment is administered in an emergency when the person administering such treatment reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent.

6. A person may otherwise use physical force upon another person as further provided in this chapter.

ARS § 13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

ARS § 13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

ARS § 13-406. Justification; defense of a third person

A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect.

ARS § 13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

ARS § 13-408. Justification; use of physical force in defense of property

A person is justified in using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to prevent what a reasonable person would believe is an attempt or commission by the other person of theft or criminal damage involving tangible movable property under his possession or control, but such person may use deadly physical force under these circumstances as provided in sections 13-405, 13-406 and 13-411.

ARS § 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicabilityA. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.

ARS § 13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force pursuant to this section.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.

2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons or property.