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 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-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
It is not a bad idea because even though it may be used in the wrong situation it can also be used in the right one. If in the future there is a case where a person kills a person for self-defense then when the case comes the person will need the self-defense law.
The stand your ground law is a type of self-defence law that gives individuals the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without any requirement to retreat from a dangerous situation. The stand your ground law protects people by providing rights to defend themselves legally. It is justified to be protection because not every victim has the chance to retreat from certain situations, no one should be forced by law to retreat when they are the victim at the time that the situation was initiated by the aggressor, the law should help the victim not the aggressor in all violent crime,
Mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mixmrow mixmrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mixmrow mixmrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mixmrow mixmrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mixmrow mixmrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix mrow mix
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
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
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.
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.