Amazon.com Widgets
  • Kill at Will

    People often kill without even thinking about it. It's like, they see someone on their porch, unarmed and they think " hey, they're on my property, I shouldn't simply ask them to leave, I should just kill them, because hey, it's my right. That is not the way to do things. We don't need to shoot first and ask questions later, that's how people die. And immunity just means that you killed someone in cold blood and got away with it. That is not how I want to live.

  • The Stand your Ground Laws are Failed Policy

    The Stand your ground laws are based on a good principle. The idea is to protect women from being abused. Sadly, the interpretation of the law allows people like George Zimmerman to kill in cold blood and walk away free. The law needs to be revised or removed, because although it has a good premise, it's actual result is often negative.

  • 1-we have trained officers, 2-more innocent killers on the street, 3-many people are racially biased

    1-Trained officers can take care of these situations more controllably. 2-Because there isn't as much evidence, the killer will most likely get away innocent. 3-Many people are racially biased meaning that the people might be threatened and they might think this because of a person's race and so they will kill them based on their race.

  • Completely unnecessary, statistically irrelevant, and allows some murderers to get away.

    The stand your ground law was passed first in Florida during Jeb Bush's term as governor. The argument behind the law was that civilians have the right to use force rather than to evade or retreat when in danger. Proponents argue that it encourages self-defense and reduces the murder rate, critics point out that the law has been statistically irrelevant having no effect on murder rates and encourages violence. Is the law really necessary? Not really, self-defense is a good strategy in court this goes overboard.

  • A good idea in theory

    On paper it sounds good but it's easy to find loopholes, it needs a lot of revising as it would be hard to draw a line between innocent and guilty in trials. If you have any way to escape at all even just for a few seconds, do it, the police would probably show up by time you've ran to safety, if you have a way to escape but still chose to shoot, you're automatically guilty.

  • Vigilante Justice should have gone out with the Wild West

    We already have self defense laws and these laws provide an out for misunderstood threats. If a youngster takes a shortcut through someone's back yard, that person should be apprised of respecting private property - not murdered. A fair system of justice has the punishment fit the crime. This provides opportunity to mete out punishment that is extreme.

  • Easy to abuse

    To all the people voting no - this is not about people breaking into your house and trapping you in a corner. If you are unable to retreat from a violent confrontation then of course you should be able to defend yourself, but SYG gives people like Zimmerman a license to kill. If there are no witnesses around, anyone can initiate a fistfight, sustain some injuries then blow their opponent away, and say the dead guy started it.

  • Judge Jury Executioner

    When facing danger you're likely to encounter violent people who are unreasonable, against you for whatever reasons, or even insane. This makes the law unreasonable because you are encountering other who definitely do not have you're best interests at heart. The "Stand Your Ground' law makes one person Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

  • "Stand your Ground" isn't the same as defending your home.

    The idea behind a 'Stand Your Ground' law concerns the use of deadly force when a person might otherwise have the ability to retreat. I believe a person should have the right to use deadly force if cornered or to defend his or her own home or family, but if you have every option to escape a situation and opt to engage in violence anyway, then you are a vigilante and should be treated appropriately.

  • Silly Mistakes with Big consequences

    Some cases are complete accidents! A 71-year-old former police officer shot and killed a man in the movie theater after an argument over the man's texting. The former officer insisted that it was just self defense because the man threw a "mysterious object" at him. The "mysterious object" (according to witness) was actually popcorn. A silly mistake over texting and popcorn resulted in a man's death.

  • We need to protect ourself

    We should be able to protect ourself from any dangers, period. Imagine if a criminal broke into your house with a gun, he aims it at you. While your wife/husband is afraid to take out the madman because she/he could get in trouble, for defending you! I believe it should only be legal if the defender is being threatend ONLY, not tresspassing or stealing, of course this would lead up to killings with an 'innocent' trespasser. But the defense of a family should always come first.

  • Second Amendment Interpretation Ensures Protection of Life and Property

    The Second Amendment ensures Americans have the right to defend themselves. "Stand Your Ground" laws, or "castle doctrine" is necessary when authorities and police can't get to your home on time. However, there are limits. Vigilante justice can't be doled out. Protecting property should be defined as someone trespassing on property or threatening someone in a car. Going out and tracking someone down away from your own property is an extreme example of such laws gone horribly wrong.

  • Stand Your Ground

    The stand your ground law is an effective law that when backed up into a corner, you have the right to defend. Given this ability after all chance of avoidance from being pursued has been taken, i believe it should be legal for a man/woman to take matters into his/her own hands and defend their person purely for the matters of survival of their own being and, if able to, stop the pursuer enough to get away from harms way.

    Posted by: SYG
  • Outrageously bad idea

    Basing your motivation for murder on a subjective understanding of threat opens the door to a free reign on murder on those who are deemed threatening to those who have guns- we know who is deemed guilty a priori in the usa - and who is deemed innocent before proven guilty - stand your ground - a free reign institutionalized purge of people society does not like or tolerate - barbaric law -- I cannot believe anyone supports it

  • Stand your ground saves innocent lives.

    My argument is based on law abiding citizens. Anyone who is not a convicted felon has the right to defend themselves in the United States read the Constitution if you don't believe me I am tired of all these liberals saying that guns are the problem no guns in the wrong hands are the problems so maybe you should look at the gun dealers sellers instead of looking at responsible gun owners

  • Personal Defense !

    If someone were to come up to you on a side walk at night and said they wanted you to give them your money, or something to that affect, would you trust them to leave you alone once you get robbed? Or would you see the threat of potentially being murdered? If the robber is armed, are you going to just take the abuse? The simple, most logical answer is no. You wouldn't just take it. The laws are in place so people can defend themselves when there is no one there to aid them. On average, it takes 10-15 minutes for police to respond to a call. The robber would have been able to take your money, kill you, and disappear never to be seen again. Now, if you were being robbed and pulled out a gun and defended yourself, whether you shot him/her or killed them, you prevented yourself from being harmed. It is a matter of self-defense in a potential life-or-death scenario.

  • We have a right to be where we are

    In America we have a right to be in public places and we should not be forced elsewhere by anyone, whether it be a "bad guy", government, etc. Stand Your Ground laws don't enforce a right to kill. They enforce a right to be at a particular place in our free country. Someone who threatens your life should not be able to force you to move elsewhere or even retreat. That's not much different than kidnapping when you think about it. However, there should be more common rules to enforce these laws. For example, you must be justifiably in fear for life or limb for yourself or others. These laws are also coupled with typical state like-force type laws, so people shouldn't be able to shoot someone over a verbal threat. And with regard to racial issues, the law itself is impartial. The law is against criminals and for the rights of the common person to be where they are. It doesn't matter what color the criminal is or the defender. However, in reality it may be used more often by one race than another. This is a matter of education; not law. Teach people that they have a right to be in a certain place and that they have the ability to defend that right, and it doesn't matter what color they are. But take away that right due to lack of education or due to statistical characteristics of use of the law, and we break the foundation of freedom our country was built upon. Stand your ground laws should stand.

  • Stand Your Ground!

    Are rights to stand ground not only gives us the freedom to protect are selves but to have a secure comfort where ever we go. We should be able to feel safe in our Homeland. Due to the fact of increasing threats the use of personal defence can prove to be a vital and more amiable way.

  • Home is our Sanctuary

    Home is the one place where we feel safe and can escape temporarily from the problems of this world. When a stranger whose intent is unknown invades our safe haven, of course we should have the right to protect ourselves if the intruder has a weapon and we end up finding ourselves in danger in the one place we are supposed to feel safe.

  • Defending Yourself is not Vigilante Justice

    If a person intends to harm my family or myself I should have the right to defend myself. Defending oneself is not vigilante justice. Since when is justice only right after a person is harmed of killed. Since when is it justifiable to allow a person to commit a crime while a law abiding person could have prevented the action. Self defense, stand your ground each imply that you are not willing to be a victim to the criminal act of another person.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
momo2010 says2014-04-16T18:59:36.047
I'm happy there's no stand "your ground law"where I live . If there were I could be dead by now, since it has happened twice to me that I tried accidentally open the wrong apartment. Something like this happens easily when living in a huge apartment. Nobody should ever die or get seriously injured just because of such a mishap. You should really make sure if their is really a threat to you before shooting because it can really happen that someone enters someone else's property accidentally. As I said it happened at leas twice to me, it just did.

I also have one question for the ones who support the "stand you ground law" What would you do if a loved one of you entered accidentally a property he's not supposed to be and would get killed because of this law, and the shooter would be a free man? Would you still agree with this law?