There are very few instances of honest people shooting someone without good cause. After all, there are maybe 3500 to 4000 non-gang related homicides with firearms each year, and most of those are committed by criminals who aren't affiliated with gangs.
People who defend themselves or others against immanent threat should have the same rights as cops.
I'd give a criminal a chance to back away if possible. But if they threatened deadly force against myself or anyone else, I'd be the cop and neutralize them. The idea isn't to try to kill them, just neutralize the treat. That means at least a double tap to the center body mass and more if they didn't lie down and drop their weapon.
If someone broke into my house or tried to rob or car jack me and didn't flee when I warned them, I'd shoot their stupid ass. People should have no obligation to flee from such a situation.
If they were aggressing and I didn't have a chance to warn them, I'd shoot their ass.
My intention would not be to kill them, but I'd be really happy if they experienced a lot of pain, a long hospital say, and prison time. And if they died, too bad. Fuck them AND their family. I don't feel sorry for violent criminals at all. When I see videos of violent criminals getting shot, I laugh my ass off.
I've never had to defend myself with deadly force. I sincerely hope I never do. I don't want to harm anyone, but I would if I had to.
I'm reading many of these posts and see that some of you are unaware of exactly what "Stand your ground" means in regards to the law. It means you do not have a duty or requirement by law to retreat. Many states had that requirement before deadly force could legally be used. To understand the use of "stand your ground" the devil is in the details. For example A person is robbing someone on the street with a weapon. DURING the robbery a reasonable person would believe their life was in danger so deadly force is legal. However, let us say the victim tosses their wallet away from them hoping the robber is more interested in the money than bringing them harm. It works. At that point "stand your ground" no longer applies. The robbery is technically over, and intentionally bringing harm to the robber is illegal. Another case is home burglaries. If a person in a home AND make a move that causes the resident to believe their life was in danger "stand your ground" applies. Should the burglar surrender OR retreat "stand your ground" does not apply. Finally, there is the letter of the law to consider. To use deadly force in self-defense a person must believe their life is in IMMINENT and IMMEDIATE danger of DEATH or GREVIUS INJURY.
Stand your ground does NOT give people the legal ability to execute anyone that dares challenge them. There are guidelines.
As I've stated many times around GaG I am advocate of self defense. martial artist. I am always armed and I advocate that absolutely every man and woman of every race if you are legally allowed and not a hot head to own train with and carry a hand gun. Anti gun advocates would say that stand your ground would lead to more shootings as were the exact opposite is actually true. States that have stand your ground and expanded castle doctrine ( meaning you are under no duty to retreat in ANY place you are LAWFULLY allowed to be) The logic and reason for the reduced amount of crime is simple. CRIMINALS DO NOT WANT TO FIGHT YOU. Criminals are much like predatory animals they are looking for the easiest meal. When states pass pro self defense laws... like stand your ground it encourages more people to take their self defense into their own hands. Thus criminals typically go to places were dumb ass soft on crime laws ensure that the likelihood of their victim being able to hurt them back is reduced thus making crime rates higher in those areas. A criminal is there to rob you hurt you victimize you and in a lot of cases won't think twice about killing you if they have to... so a sane sober morally prudent person that was just minding their own business when a criminal CHOSE THEM should have the full protection of the law.
except that is not the reality of the states were stand your ground laws are the law of the land. Or a reality that makes much sense in any case. there are now 178million legally armed gun owners in the USA that is some 70% of the adult population that says nothing of the millions of illegally armed criminals. www.mprnews.org/.../the-majority-of-us-gun-deaths-are-suicides-but-a-new-poll-suggests-few-americans-know-it weirdly there are a lot of polls coming out lately not only are criminal shootings down. but the united states while being one of the most heavily armed populaces in the world... are also the safest. So sleep soundly in the knowledge that you are much much much safer in stand your ground states than you are in California or Newyork state.
gah, I meant 78million got my numbers mixed up, been a long day for me. Which is also wrong americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/ it is 81 million now at 44% of adults. 70% of all violent gun crimes happens in cities with some of the tightest gun laws. NYC, Baltimore Chicago Detroit L. A SanFrancisco etc etc. http://jpfo. org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective. htm With that all said though. Stand your ground\defensive shooting still make up a very small amount of actual shootings in the united states. Some one shooting some one over a simple argument is not and never has been protected by stand your ground laws and is always treated as murder. I'm not saying that it dont happen but those people are not protected by the law and shouldn't be.
In a dangerous situation your priority is to escape, self-defence should be proportionate to the danger your in and should cease once the attacker is no longer a threat. The legal problem with self-defence laws is getting that balance right, people are scared, angry and not thinking logically when faced with an intruder. It's easy to overstep the mark. The problem with stand your ground is it removes that safety line, now you can sentence that 14 year old burglar to death, in effect you've got more power than the police or a judge. Worse still people feel it's shameful to hide or escape and they feel the need to be a hero and that can go tragically wrong.
This is why societies should focus on crime prevention than methods of self defence. The more people get people to respect the laws and all in the country the less likely they are to go against anyone. Easier said than done.
I feel like they leave a lot of room for shady shit. If I don’t like a guy, I could invite him over to my house, just verbally so there’s no electronic trail, kill him, then claim he just showed up and tried to assault me.
I also don’t have enough respect for the restraint of gun owners. Too many of them seem like they’re itching for a reason to shoot someone without repercussions. Somebody trying to fistfight you should not be legally allowed to be met with lethal force like a gun, the threats and likelihood of serious injury or death are nowhere near equal.
Also, it’s not foolproof. Remember Ma’Khia Bryant, the girl from Ohio? Some girls showed up trying to fight her, Bryant called the police, had to defend herself in the meantime, used a knife, which should be legal since Ohio is a stand your ground state. Whoops, cops came at the wrong moment when she was on the offensive, and the cop just shot her dead, in order to protect the assailant who showed up at her house with violent intentions. Just something to think about…
The REAL issue IS in defining exactly what "YOUR ground" IS. In an area generally considered a 'public' space, its EVERYONE'S 'ground'...
and faced with the choices of irrevocably taking away something I CANNOT replace (a human life) or pragmatically being mature and wise enough to retreat or take cover... the legal standard by which you will be judged IS: "under the prevailing circumstances, were YOUR actions those of a 'prudent and reasonable man'?
Is an affront to YOUR pride or Ego WORTH a human life? Is it WORTH being 'dead' right? I've NEVER started a fight but I HAVE lethally ended four over half a century~
I can sleep with a clear conscience BECAUSE I'd given my Assailant EVERY chance to take another course of action, and in the time allowed remaining, I deemed MY survival MORE important than THEIR immaturity. SOME 'mistakes' a Fool only gets to make ONCE! There ALWAYS EXISTS the potential of a "what IF..." 'worst case' scenario.
Did YOU exacerbate (make it worse) or mitigate (defuse / de-escalate) irrevocable harm? The critical issue is the 'irrevocable' aspect! I suggest you read Massad Ayoub's seminal work: "In Gravest Extreme" (how to survive AFTER a shooting!)
Yes, I do agree with stand-your-ground laws. If someone attempts to car-jack my car with me in it, I should have the right to defend myself, even with a gun. The same applies if someone or several someones attempt to relieve me of my money. I absolutely need to be able to legally protect myself in any way possible, including using deadly force.
I certainly won't use that to start with, but if the situation deteriorates, I won't hesitate to respond with extreme measures. I've taken training, have the legal card carrying proof to conceal a gun, and will deal with those situations as needed. Now, my state and about half the country no longer require a CCW license to carry concealed.
So those wishing to try their luck at robbery, or car jacking, or breaking and entering a house or whatever, had better be extremely careful about who they choose. You never know who's carrying and who isn't. With 450+million guns in the US, your smart choice is don't even try it.
Yes, I won't retreat to only have them come after me. Running way, now I can't see what they are doing and they could tackle me and then its over.
They need to be incapacitated first before I will retreat. Many times criminals will sue someone who shot them, while they were committing the crime and win. Stand your ground laws are to help prevent that.
I'd lose a fist fight, rather shoot him. As people die all the time from fist fights, lots of people die from single punches. Plus since police are usually 60 to 90 minutes away, running can be a very long process if someone wants to chase. No one here would say killing a criminal is murder, no jury would at least.
so, being frightened by someone means it's legal to be someone someone can be frightened of, means its legal to be someone someone can be frightened of, means its legal to be someone someone can be frightened of. . . what ever happened to assault being defined as any stance which causes a person to perceive a threat? isn't stand your ground effectively raising all human to human presence to the level of this definition of assault unless the people present aren't threatened by the legal right to kill them based on nothing but subjective perception?
Those who would home invade and prey on others need to fear for their gentials. If they are at the level of human sharks, cut off their fins. It takes seconds to make a home invader whimper like a dog, or to be butchered like a chicken by one. It takes police 8 minutes to process where the hell you're even calling from, let alone drive there.
If homeowners could be little Rorschachs, home invaders would think twice! Same goes for gas stations! Gas stations should have automated turret guns at this point! A mugger shows up, bang! He's a dead m*f*ker! He wants free Marlboros? He gets a trip to the incinerator -and his next of kin gets to pay for the gas!
If we can't make these goons wanna cry for their moms, they'll walk all over us. Wolves always prey on the weak.
It's called Castle Doctrine. And I wouldn't want to live anywhere without stand your ground and Castle Doctrine present. Nor would I want to roam the streets daily without a carry piece. Smell that freedom. The freedom to protect me and mine
@t-8900 : Indeed. One reason of many that my family migrated to Florida. I miss the northern climate, but the insane politics requiring everyone except for violent criminals to be helpless, defenseless slaves of the state was absolute horsecrap. Especially when state officials started engaging in partisan denial of the rights of ballot workers! And when they started murdering the elderly and the sick, like Whitmer has done.
That isn't even the worst of it. All the neighbors that were acting like zombies, and refusing to make necessary changes to hold these goons accountable, who were living in denial that officials were doing anything wrong when one's plain eyes and ears in light of plainly written laws should have made that clear! All while also bitter clinging to absurd, instantly-disproven narratives, and trying to suppress and censor anyone exposing fraud for what it was! Not even out of personal financial benefit, but because of blind worship of the state as a messiah from a fungus-induced exosome bioweapon that said state was partially responsible for creating in the first place! Only to move that research to Ukraine once China got became too sore a subject.
Florida now feels like a tiny microcosm where sanity can still dangle by a thread, while Michigan feels like the freakin' zombie apocalypse.
If someone wants the law to go away... would that mean if an intruder breaks into your home and you shoot them the homeowner will now be charged with a crime?
I mean lots not talk in vagaries. What are people for and what are people against?
I mean if some stranger enters your property and has a weapon or they threaten you or your loved ones in any way... how much leeway are we wanting to give to intruders? What is it about the law you'd want to see changed?
When I lived and worked in the US I had a CCW and got to know the local LEO's when practicing on the local range, they knew that if they ever got a call to my address (out in the country) for a break-in that they had best have the Coroner/ME come out with them as there would be at least one body on the ground, the older LEO's understood what I meant, the state that I was living in had Stand Your Ground, which permits the use of reasonable force in the defence of self or others in any setting without a duty to retreat first.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
I support them. If you're in a situation where your life is being threatened by someone you should be able to protect yourself without worrying about the details that distinguish between self-defense laws and stand your ground laws. We shouldn't be prioritizing the "rights" of perpetrators above those of potential victims.
4
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Yes there are many men locked away in prisons in more repressive states because even though they couldn't escape a situation they still got locked up, even though they had a lethal threat presented against them. On a common sense level If people are robbing or raping others at knife or gun point we want them dead for the betterment of society and not continuing to live in taxpayer dollars. If you don't have stand your ground laws you don't truly have "self defense laws". Stand your ground allows for the great equalizer to be used and many don't have the stature or various skills to otherwise defend themselves. Make an example of violent criminals. You start shit, you die. So stop starting shit. This way you have less repeat offenders. I won't retreat because 1) I'm not a p*ssy and 2) I'm not a slave 3) I'm not running from sh*t.
100% support them. I should not be required to retreat at all if someone is aggressively attacking me to the point I need to use deadly force. I would do what I could, but someone continuing their attack should not be given the chance to succeed.
It would depend on the situation I guess. Are you pushing me out the door so you can assault my child? Are you pushing me into a closet so you can rape / kill me at your leisure? A punch from a strong man could very likely cause me severe trauma leading to death.
Yes, a push or a punch could be the line for some situations. So my line would be if a reasonable set of peers would feel the same fear of death or bodily harm that you did.
In my eyes the boundary of should you be able to shoot them is the based off how much of an active threat they are
If what they are doing isn't likely to cause you or someone else severe injury if not death then shooting is something you should probably not do there are other cases where shooting someone would be considered okay but I'm not going to list every action you can take that wouldn't kill or maim you but would still be considered equally bad if not worse
@crossdressingrihno agreed, but since thats self defense, the stand your ground law is being used after arguments or idiots acting like pseudo security guards.
Okay let's say someone breaks into your house right?
They're a thief they are stealing your stuff and they have been caught they have not been detained but you have seen them conveniently for whatever reason you had a gun near you at the time.
In this scenario I believe the best action would be to take the gun then load it because if you are keeping a preloaded gun in your house then you seem pretty special to me and not in the good way
Then aimed the gun at The Intruders and tell them to drop the stuff and and if they make any motions that is not the dropping of the stuff then I feel shooting is a reasonable assessment
And here's why Number one they are in your house and you don't know what they have they could have a gun they could have a knife you really don't know and while they may look like they are running away they could be running to grab a pal they could be running to get a gun or a knife or maybe they're just trying to run off with your stuff or run for their life but whatever it is they are doing by running to whatever direction they run they probably aren't doing anything good and since it isn't uncommon for multiple burglars to break into a house together and then split off while you may only see one thief it would be a fair assessment to say there might be more and if this one ain't armed who's to say the other possible burglars aren't
I also believe things like having a child around alter the morality of the situation
For example anytime there is a aggressive adult near a child that aggressive adult goes from just being aggressive to now being a legitimate threat to someone who is nearby because you don't know what that adult is going to do and you don't know what that child is going to do and that child could easily get punted to the moon and back by that adult with a very little defense
Yes I do be cause I am Fallon and I have several felonies but I have never ever used a weapon or a gun of any type just to commit a crime I do have several what they say are violent felonies on my record but nothing with a weapon so I don't care just because the law say that I am violent doesn't make it true. I have a gun an will use it if one breaks into my home and threatens me the law should be not allowing them who have unjustly kill someone not to have a bun not just because u have a felony. God Bless
I do support Stand Your Ground laws. They are different from self-defense laws. Self-defense laws state you have the right to defend yourself but are worded too poorly to have confidence that you are within the law should something happen. Stand Your Ground laws clearly state that you can defend yourself without being expected to retreat, which is reasonable because why should my plans change just because a criminal threatens me?
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Ah. I see you'd rather force people to abandon their homes and property when the angry thugs show up at their doors. rofl. Makes sense seeing as how supportive you were of the riots the past few years. Yes, Stand Your Ground/Castle Doctrine laws are needed now more than ever. If people would like to avoid being shot or beat to a pulp while citizens defend themselves, their families OR their property, they should consider NOT being a damn criminal attempting to cause harm to others in the first place. The responsibility for their safety falls squarely upon their own shoulders.
Just because someone isn’t armed it doesn’t mean they aren’t a threat (and sometimes lethal threat)
What if a 200lb athletic man attacks a 115lb woman? She might have pepper spray or a taser. Maybe that works, but what I’d that doesn’t? Firepower definitely works.
Yes there have been a few isolated incidents where arguably guilty people got off. For example I am not a fan of George Zimmerman. But that’s not how most of these incidents go down.
I had to ask my dad what that met and YES I do support Stand Your Ground law. I live in Texas and I do have a concealed carry license. Come in my house at night unannounced and There will be an issue.
That’s a bit different. Castle doctrine or self defense covers you there. But people are having arguments and shooting each other. Claiming stand your ground.
Seems to be the case they can be abused. I think if you can reasonably avoid a fight you should. Like the George Zimmerman thing, he pursued and threatened that boy when he should have deescalated the situation. Back in the day if you got into a fish fight you didn't shoot the other guy
Yes. I had a roommate try to literally kick in my front door, after having said he was going to harm my girl and kill us both. Thankfully the cops arrived before he got in. If he did get in before the cops arrived, I would have done what should be done to protect myself and those I care for.
Yes, I support stand your ground. When a criminal dies, the world becomes a slightly better place. Nothing is a more effective deterrent to a sociopath than the knowledge that they may receive a.45 lobotomy.
As a non-''American'' I stood my ground each day of my life. I needed no ''laws'' for that. Do I support it? - well: if common sense needs to be backed with 'laws' ... then something goes very wrong. As a sum-up: Fuck that shit :D
I know there are people out there that shouldn’t have access to a toy gun. But I still support the Stand your ground and the Castle doctrine. I have had CW permit for many years and thankfully never needed to use it.
i mean i'm open to understanding why this law has to exist. but it occurs to me this law just opens the door to lawfull murder out of ego, stubbornness or spite.
Except it doesn't. Killing someone, even when completely justified, even with Stand Your Ground laws, is very risky and potentially ruinously expensive. No one who has anything to lose will put themselves in that situation if it can be avoided. The stats clearly show that to be true.
Even in the rare cases that make the news (no more than 2 or 3 a year in a country of 340,000,000 people), despite the alarmist headline of the initial story, you virtually always eventually find that the person invoking the Stand Your Ground defense was not the person who initiated deadly violence. The early story usually heavily suggests that the person who did the shooting was a trigger-happy cowboy, but if you follow the story or trial, it virtually never ends up to be true. Of course, the places that run the alarmist headlines never retract their position and usually spin the exoneration as a mistake so that they don't have to be wrong or change their narrative.
Look at all the facts the media falsely reported in the Rittenhouse case, even into the trial, despite a wealth of video evidence being available for over a year prior that easily debunked those stories. Did any of those news organizations retract their stories? Of course not.
@MrOracle but to me, many of the laws are way too much opinion anyway. lots of the laws depend on what the shooter felt as he shot. bunch of horse shit in my opinion.
Very few of those unreasonable people are legally allowed to own guns in the first place. Most have disqualified themselves by becoming felons.
The second-least likely group in the US to commit any kind of crime are legal gun owners. The least likely group to commit crimes are concealed carry permit holders. That has remained true for the last 30 years, which is when the first major wave of CCW laws were passed. The argument against those laws in EVERY state was that people would end up shooting each other over parking spaces and sports scores, but after 30 years, there are no examples of that or anything like it happening among CCW holders.
Are you aware that half of US states now allow ALL legal gun owners to carry, no permit required? That was also supposed to come with a huge increase in shootings from legal carriers - but that also didn't materialize.
The venn diagram of people who have a legitimate need to kill someone in self defense and people who would be stopped from doing so due to fear of punishment is 2 separate circles.
100%. If theathen with serious immediate bodily harm then a person should be able to kill or hurt someone assuming they didn't start the fight or situation first.
In my home 100% yes. On the street, I avoid confrontations. I have been carrying a firearm for almost 40 years. It is a full time obligation and commitment.
Yeah I don't do the fighting MMA stuff. I don't give fair ones, one on ones. I'll rather just settle it if my life is in danger or I feared for my life
Stand your ground means that if someone attacks you, you can stay and defend yourself. Some states have that and others have "Duty To Retreat" meaning that is there is a realistic chance for you to get out of dodge you have to or you can get in trouble. Note this is not talking about castle doctrine which refers to if someone is attacking your home or car while you're in it.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(25-29)+1 y
Anonymous(36-45)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
