Does Stand-Your-Ground Law equal machismo bullsh*t?

Question

Basically says a shooter doesn’t have to retreat. Or back down. Isn’t that life? Why are we so against compromise or walking away?

WhiteSteve · Accepted Answer

Obviously there’s a level of self-defense everyone should be afforded, but I don’t believe in this whole concept of basically just assuming the worst case scenario in any sort of confrontation, the whole “well, they MIGHT have a weapon.

No one is entitled to being alive, I think that’s the first mistake we make, we overvalue our own lives. We have no “right” to see the next day. We are all just competing organisms in the competitive environment that is nature. Don’t humanize us, we aren’t worthy of that, lmao, our species is trash. I don’t say that to be misanthropic, but rather to shake everyone by the shoulders and remind them that none of us matter a lick, that importance only exists in our own minds, and perhaps the minds of our loved ones.

I don’t have time to expound on this whole topic the way I want to, I’m leaving a lot out, but I wanted to mention that Ohio has “Stand your ground” laws. Ma’Khia Bryant was engaged in defending herself using lethal force (knife) a couple years ago, against multiple assailants who showed up to the property she lived on and instigated a physical altercation with her. A cop showed up and pretty much immediately shot her dead. And I don’t want to hear “she should’ve relented when the cop announced himself”, I know I personally black out during a fight and don’t register any outside noise, so you have to account for that. But the cop walked, no charges. It seems that “Stand Your Ground” doesn’t apply for Black teenage girls, but it DOES apply if you want to excuse shooting a Black teenage boy (Trayvon Martin).

I just don’t understand why the people who constantly yell that “facts don’t care about your feelings” all of a sudden think “feeling” threatened is perfectly justifiable reasoning to try to kill somebody. I don’t care how you “felt”, bro, lmao

MrOracle · Accepted Answer

"Stand Your Ground" *only* applies to self-defense. It does not give someone carte blanche to go on the offense. These laws were put into place because politicians in many areas were trying to enact laws that would FORCE someone being attacked to retreat - and in a couple of states, those laws still exist, and in a few, you must even retreat FROM YOUR OWN HOME. That is disgusting, wrong, and not constitutional, but until a case is heard in the Supreme Court, those laws won't be overturned.

The law also requires that the person attacking you represents a credible threat of death or severe injury. You can't shoot or stab or bludgeon someone who is just shouting at you, or who is behind a fence without a weapon, or who otherwise doesn't pose a real and present threat of serious violence. If you attack in that situation, YOU will be arrested and charged.

The truth is that these laws have REDUCED serious violence - states with these laws have lower rates of assaults and murders/attempted murders.

I have zero sympathy for people who attack other people who get hurt as a result. Criminals who go unchecked escalate their crimes, and makes society worse and more dangerous for everyone.

APrettyLittleLady87 · Accepted Answer

"Does Stand-Your-Ground Law equal machismo bullsh*t?"

Why? Stand the ground applies is when the shooter is DEFENDING themselves due to FEAR of their life.

People don't know if the burglar has a gun in their pocket. A knife to slit their throat. A screwdriver to jam into their eye and rattle their brains around. Hell you don't even need a weapon to kill someone... choking, wrap hands around a person's throat & squeeze.

.

Or would you prefer that criminals are allowed to run around like a pack of wild dogs burgalizing, assaulting, raping, etc. home owners and get away scot free?

If a burglar kills home owners it's not like there'd be anyone to call the police for hours potentially DAYS later and by then the criminals are the long gone. Which means they can keep burgalizing & killing, keep burgalizing & killing, keep burgalizing & killing.

You'd be okay with this?

Aerissa_Jade · Accepted Answer

Nope they do not. There have been cases of people who were attacked by a criminal and shot them in self defense but then later on got convicted of killing them, because they were required to flee.

They were required to turn their back on someone who would of KILLED THEM had they done so.

Stand your ground merely says, you do not have to attempt to flee to save the life of a criminal.

Criminals forfeit their life soon as they choose to do the crime. They should all be blood eagled in my book.

To be a bit more compassionate, they can be given a knife and allowed to end their own life, OR be blood eagled as a humane way of dying. This way they get to decide.

I have zero care for criminals, I hate people who care more about criminals than victims.

100% of concern should go the victims and 0% should go to the criminal.

Paul_in_Indy · Answer

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are attacked, you are in no position to compromise or “back down.” That’s not relevant to a question of self-defense, at all. If I display a deadly weapon and the attacker is not deterred by that, do you think that I can say, “you know what? let’s just negotiate a compromise?”

There is nothing macho about defending yourself. Likewise, flight is not a compromise. There is a time to run, certainly, but there is also a time to fight.

And machismo has nothing to do with it.

Levin · Answer

I mean, taking a life is a grave thing. And it seems some people won't set aside their egos to prevent that. Like they self righteously want to prove their point, even though it's over a triviality. Is having your wallet stolen worth someone dying over? These are material objects. And as scummy as these people are in the moment, they still have a family.

However, I don't want to be black and white about this. Obviously, these people shouldn't be engaging in these crimes or on your property.

Though there are differences between self-defense, and some kind of self-righteous retribution - that you crossed someone's ego. It seems when you hear Americans talk about this they often fall into the latter camp.

libsaretards · Answer

No, it does not. If I am just minding my own business and a criminal starts being an idiot, why should I have to stop what I am doing for them? Why should I be forced to back down to spare his life when he introduced deadly force first? How many people will he hurt if I let him get away? Criminals should NEVER get to have their way at the expense of law-abiding citizens.

If I lose and die in the conflict, at least it is my choice and the criminal WILL have a wound that will hamper any future criminal activity until he heals and there will be evidence as a result of our conflict.. If I win, I deny the criminal whatever he was doing and he is no longer a threat.

At the end of the day, stand your ground is about having the freedom to choose your response to a situation vs. dealing with some "duty to retreat" bullshit that is not realistic and only allows one option and does not allow concessions for if retreat is not available.

Kiran_Yagami · Answer

Why do you have to retreat? Isn't that just cowardism bullshit? A "stand your ground" law does not force you to shoot your attacker, however a "duty to retreat" law forces you to run from your attacker. The law should not outright dictate your response to a threat. That should be up to you, as the one being threatened and the one who's life is potentially in danger. At least "stand your ground" laws give you options. You can retreat or confront. "Duty to retreat" laws don't.

Fuentes · Answer

California has a stand your ground law but ours is only for physical altercations therefore I can legally beat the dog shit out of someone if they try me I don't have to walk off & I wouldn't.

In FL, I never agreed with the Trayvon Martin death as a unarmed kid was just walking to the store & back. I fail to see a threat of a unarmed child with no intentions on robbing anyone.

Just cause you feel threatened doesn't mean you can be a Maniac, 5150s should not have weapons period.

HighValue · Answer

I prefer Idaho's laws. If someone breaks in your house, even unarmed, you get to kill them. If they try to steal your car, you get to kill them. Just leave people alone and don't be a criminal and there is no problem. Mess with the wrong people and die. As it should be.

normalice · Answer

You're not allowed to advance on people but the idea is you're allowed to stand up to precisely the machismo sort of person who is trying to advance on you. That's the theory, anyway. In practice it seems to be mostly interpreted as legalizing letting someone's feelings determine whether or not someone else lives or dies.

NostalgiaSenpi · Answer

It's ridiculous that it had to be a law passed in the first place. You shouldn't have to retreat or back down in the event that someone happens to attack you. The very idea that you have to back down in order to ensure a criminal's safety is ensured is ludicrous. Don't do the crime if you're not prepared for the consequences.

Adam1978 · Answer

No we shouldn't have gun in hands of civilians. The only place you need to hold your ground is in your home. So we need to remove fatalities in crimes. We must assume killing is bad and whoever does it should be punished unless there is evidence to the contrary. Since you can't question the dead.

888theGreat · Answer

You have two choices , kill they SOB and live , then go to prison if you are a white male the rest of your life or not kill the SOB and he kills you. Pretty much your two choices if you live in Democratically ran city. Even if SOB breaks in your home and has a weapon.

UncleBilll · Answer

If you enter my property unannounced, and through a locked door, window or gate, in the middle of the nite, you will hear one shot, a groan, then a thud of your body hitting the ground. There will be no discussion, no debate, no second chances. Another words, if take a chance of not making it home. Possession is 9/10th of the law they say.. Keep your mitts and your body away from something that's not yours and worked hard for.. that includes catalytic converters or a power tool.

loveslongnails · Answer

If you initiate aggression, that's not standing your ground. If someone comes at me with a knife, or a bat, or a weapon, then I can pull out my gun and defend myself. That's what it means to me. I'd probably not shoot to kill if I could avoid it.

Surely · Answer

I think that you should be saying that a Victim doesn’t have to retreat and not using the term Shooter doesn’t have to retreat.
Even though the Victim will probably be one of or the shooter.
In unconfirmed studies. More violence is stopping by the presence of a firearm without a shot being fired. Then someone actually pulling the trigger! So yes! There are compromises and people walking ( running) away.

Avicenna · Answer

Well, it stems from the Castle Doctrine. Think about it like this- if someone breaks into your house to rape your wife, should you be required to run away and let her get raped rather than shooting the rapist who's already in your house?

Stoner710 · Answer

No someone break into my house ima shoot them. What am I supposed to do let them rob me? Rape my wife? Kidnap my kids I know in Oregon that’s exactly what you’re supposed to do or wait until Rober shoot first. By that time I could be dead

Juxtapose · Answer

I have a right to defend myself and I don't have to flee from somebody if they are attacking me. I am allowed to respond in kind with as much force as necessary.

That is a natural right, I don't need the government to give me that right.

jshm2 · Answer

Not really. But it's abused that way.  The most dangerous animal in America is other Americans. So stands to reason, you shoot them first, reason later.

LazerBean · Answer

Imagine being angry that people are allowed to defend themselves.

Guy13 · Answer

Self defense is a right and yes it requires balls not to role over and concede to the violent leftists.

genericname85 · Answer

i feel way too much around the legality of shooting someone is focused on "how the shooter felt when he shot". that really shouldn't matter at all. cause nobody can deny or verify how someone felt.

Adaeva · Answer

That is good. Don't let someone take what is yours and eliminate undesirables that are harmful to society.

msc545 · Answer

Problem with running away or walking away trying to get away at all is that you're very likely to get shot in the back. You probably are better off shooting the person that's after you and that's what the stand your ground law is all about

Sevenpointfive · Answer

if you want to be a dumbass and go up to someone with a gun then R. I. P. that's your own damn fault

Anonymous · Answer

I’ll never understand why you have such a raging hard on to keep women and disabled people unarmed. Nevermind. I think I’m starting to get the picture. Sicko.

Fireguy17 · Answer

when you are backed into a corner and have no other choice but them or me, it will be them every time.

LiamJHayden · Answer

No. First of all, it requires an imminent threat of harm. Second, in the moment as the intended victim it is not always easy to see if a safe retreat is possible.

Guanfei · Answer

Guns are the greatest equalizer ever made. No matter your sex, or color, or size, if you get shot you die. And everyone can hold a gun.

Sargentcaptain · Answer

What is it with leftists and their desire for people to be disarmed and defenseless?

exitseven · Answer

No, but when you face someone you have to assume that he is armed and one of you will be dead.

Exterminatore · Answer

No. Should we allow the violent criminal to dictate what we do? Should we be required to run from them? That just gives them more power.

KrakenAttackin · Answer

How about don't break into people's homes and don't try to rob people. If you do, you risk being sent out on a platter.

Dargil · Answer

Threaten to rape an armed female and find out!!!

najekim · Answer

Using your firearm should be the last thing if other options don't work when seriously threatened.

ChefPapiChulo · Answer

just like all laws there are loopholes that can be used by the wrong people. one example is kyle rittenhouse.

gorydetails · Answer

IF you don't fuck around you won't have a chance to find out.

Anonymous · Answer

What do you want to do? Call the police and hope you're still alive when they arrive?

MuskratLove · Answer

Don't get married and have kids.

WowwGirl · Answer

Stand your ground = man down

Luopio27 · Answer

Those pics cheered me up.  Ask him :)

Anonymous · Answer

Nah--it seems pretty reasonable to me.

Kingofkings1992 · Answer

Omg. No has the time or crayons for you.

Does Stand-Your-Ground Law equal machismo bullsh*t?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Is masculinity synonymous with law and order?

Does Stand-Your-Ground Law equal machismo bullsh*t?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Is masculinity synonymous with law and order?

We're glad to see you liked this post.