Stand Your Ground
 

On the surface, Stand Your Ground laws make sense. Those who defend themselves legally and legitimately should be protected from frivolous lawsuits from criminals and their families.

But is there a middle ground between Stand Your Ground and protecting those who defend themselves? Is it a good idea for untrained civilians to take on the role of police? I'm not sure.

What do you think?

We need a Right to Pursue amended to the constitution.

But trolling aside, stand your ground is the most sensible law on the books only hippie shitbag gungrabbing socialist liberals would argue against. When a gaggle of naggets is beating your head in, do you reach for your cell phone?

I reach for my penis, im a sadomasochist.

in theory and on paper its a good law.

but like many good things, it can be taken advantage of.

id be curious to see the stats comparing how often whites get away with murder (legal or illegal) based on the "stand your ground" law, compared to how often blacks or hispanics get away with murder based on the same law.

i'd bet my position on staff that they aren't even close.

<object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ju4Gla2odw?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ju4Gla2odw?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Stand your ground laws hold a special place in my heart as they empower the individual and not the masses. However, they are abused by the people enforcing these laws which leads to a lot of corruption. The main thing to consider when viewing a law is does it make logical and theoretical sense in relationship to your governing philosophy and how does that affect the masses and establish better progress. (By your governing philosophy, I mean the most general and abstract stance you take on human existence: is a humanity a community or an aggregate of individuals)

Good luck! **hug**

The stand your ground laws have been greatly misrepresented by the media which draws viewership by sensationalism. The only thing these laws do is remove the duty to retreat from any place one is legal to be - they grant no extra leeway in using lethal force on others.

In a civilized society, I think people do have a duty to retreat from a deadly situation if they are able to do so.

There is a distinct difference between advocating vigilantism and protecting people from litigation after defending themselves.

Just my view.

There is a enormous difference between not having to flee from a criminal before you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself and taking on the role of the police.


1. Whether we live in a "civilized society" is open to debate.

2. I'm sure you already know the arguments against retreat being required, and how "if they are able to do so" is the kind of phrase upon which lawyers make bank.

3. I don't think vigilante justice should be discussed in this context, since "not having to retreat from an unlawful and dangerous threat when in a place that you are legally allowed to be" has basically nothing at all in common with "unlawfully taking the role of law enforcement into one's own hands."

I'd like to hear your arguments in favor of an obligation to retreat.