Stand Your Ground

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

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."

[Hitchens]

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

It is a fact that we are living in the most peaceful time in our species' brief history. This is not an opinion. This is a fact backed up with data.

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Yes, yes. Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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."

The context is entirely appropriate, as the only thing that makes it legal to not be obligated to retreat, is (in my opinion) based on a flawed premise. If Stand Your Ground laws applied to private property and private property alone, I would agree. They do not, therefore I cannot.

Life is not an action movie and the average citizen is not Charles Bronson.

[Tecmos Deception]

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

[Raavak]

Being forced to retreat *out* of your own home seems like an absurd concept to me. Where you sleep should be a place that you should feel safe in... stand your ground /castle doctine laws reinforce that concept.

[Hitchens]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Being forced to retreat *out* of your own home seems like an absurd concept to me. Where you sleep should be a place that you should feel safe in... stand your ground /castle doctine laws reinforce that concept.

No one has made the argument that you should be obligated to retreat from your own home or private property, but red herring noted.

[Jimes]

We can debate what the law should say, but put a gun in someone's hands and have a crazy person coming at them, and the debate will end pretty quickly. When it comes down to it, your life is all you really have and you will do whatever it takes to defend that, laws be damned.

[Tecmos Deception]

My semantics regarding civilized and most peaceful and all that aside, I'd still like to hear why you think I should be required to flee if at all possible.


Sidenote - I like how almost everyone sees that word, semantics, and thinks it is a bad thing, when all semantics is is the study of meaning. "It's just semantics" is about the dumbest shit anyone can possibly say. WTF else do we have if we don't have meaning in the things we say and do PLUS an understanding of what someone else means when they say or do something?

[Auditore]

we got kids in south america killng taxi drivers to see if it's as easy as GTA 4 and ur worried about this

black kid shouldnt have brought skittles to a gunfight

[Daldolma]

Stand your ground is drastically misrepresented. It's an element of self defense.

It merely eliminates an obligation to retreat. An obligation to retreat is absurd, anyway. Faced with an imminent threat of violence, a person has a justifiable right to defend himself/herself by any means necessary. There is absolutely no reason to ask that person to attempt to retreat or face legal consequences. If a guy with a ski mask hits me in the head with a pipe and I have a gun, I'm not going to challenge him to a race and see who wins.

The application of the stand your ground law can be imperfect because it has grown to account too much for perception. Just because someone is perceived as a threat shouldn't grant you the right to use deadly force. In my estimation, the law should be corraled to only protect those who have used force against someone actively engaged in unlawful and dangerous behavior. This is also a state-by-state matter. Some states enforce this law extremely well. Others, not so much.

If this is being discussed in the context of Trayvon, stand your ground is not being abused.

[Black Jesus]

Stand your ground is a noble law to protect self defense from weasely lawyeryness. Right to pursue would be closer to the vigiliantism you refer to.