This is why stand your ground laws can’t realistically exist in places that aren’t sparsely populated. Because someone will read “defend your property and life with force if necessary” as “act as a raging lunatic and attempt to shoot anyone who comes at the door because it’s legal to do so if you claim you were defending your property, even though there was no indication of actual imminent danger to property or people”.
In my country we don’t have stand your ground laws. You can only defend yourself in case of an attack, but not drive away a thief. You’re supposed to run and call the police, but I keep wondering if a legal framework like the US where you weren’t legally punished for attacking a thief in your house wouldn’t be fairer but then there’s news like this.
This has absolutely nothing to do with “Stand Your Ground”. SYG only applies when you or someone else are in real and imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death, neither of which were true in this case. That’s why the guy was arrested and has been charged with a number of serious offenses. He’s going to end up in prison.
Since you aren’t from the United States I should also tell you that SYG isn’t a National thing, its only legal in the States in that have passed laws allowing it.
I keep wondering if a legal framework like the US where you weren’t legally punished by attacking a thief in your house wouldn’t be fairer but then there’s news like this.
That’s called “Castle Doctrine” and like SYG it isn’t National. It only exists in the States that have passed a law to allow it.
It CAN work but there’s at least a few States that have Castle Doctrine and a Duty to Retreat so you end up having to flee a home invader until or unless you have no other choice.
I wasn’t necessarily thinking the law would protect the person who did this, but pondering if the existence of that legal framework does not create the impression that this is acceptable, even though it isn’t and that’s not what the law is.
And also, i do understand this isn’t applied everywhere in the US, but to me I see the US as a country. As a foreigner it’s probably very unlikely I’m going to refer to it as the law from Connecticut or whatever. I just know this law exists in the US and to be fair I’m not really that interested in knowing specifically where and the nuances of state to state legislation.
But nevertheless i thank you for clarifying the difference between Stand your ground and Castle doctrine and reminding me that it’s not a national thing.
You are acting as if it were actually complicated. Requiring no duty to retreat makes perfect sense in your own home. The law most sane places says you have to be in a situation where a reasonable person would be in fear for life or bodily injury.
Note “reasonable person” is a common legal standard. A reasonable person doesn’t think someone outside is automatically a threat. People who shiit then ask questions go to jail.
Why should someone who is already breaking the law also enjoy the power of legal coercion to force you from a place you had the legal right to be, though?
“Well, we don’t want the situation to escalate. Someone could get hurt.” Why should the law protect only the welfare of criminals? Of the person actively breaking the law?
The issue with “Stand your Ground” laws is that the alternative is nonsensical if your view expands to include the rights and welfare of people who act consistent with the law.
The problem is people applying laws like castle doctrine outside of situations that they were intended for… then shitty judges allow it to be applied outside of those situations… resulting in these random ass killings for people knocking on doors. It’s messed up and horrible.
But at the same time a few years ago a family near my friends house had someone break in, killed the two parents and then chased down the son and killed him in the woods. The young man tried to retreat and was killed anyway. THEN they robbed the house. They were looking for stuff to steal and sell for drugs. Then they set the house on fire.
If someone is legitimately breaking into your house you should be able to defend yourself if you can’t get away. It doesn’t need to be a gun, but you should not go to jail for hurting someone who is in your house who is not supposed to be there.
There’s no way to tell if that person is just a burglar or might fucking kill you over your stuff. What are you supposed to do? Ask them? “Excuse me criminal, are you the murderous type or just a burglar?”
Obviously leave if you can, but this case shows running away doesn’t always work. That poor family.
You should be able to use reasonable force. If you’re trying to subdue a homicidal maniac then you can choke them unconscious or knock them unconscious or kill them if that’s all you have means to do. But if you just have someone who wants to be rude and yell in your face, then you don’t have a right to kill them.
I think it depends on who causes the confrontation and who is escalating the situation to different levels of violence.
Also, I think there’s different ways to interpret stand your ground as a concept. You can stand your ground and use reasonable force to secure your safety. You should not be able to stand your ground and murder someone so as not to inconvenience yourself if you don’t want to take a step back or move out of someone’s way for example.
Any amount of force that stops an attacker is reasonable, by definition. The only one who should have a legal obligation of care for the welfare of the lawbreaker is the one breaking the law.
But if you just have someone who wants to be rude and yell in your face
But it depends what they’re yelling. If they’re yelling “I’m five seconds from killing you!” then you do have a right to use whatever force is available to you to stop them, and that might very well mean their death; there actually aren’t any safe, harmless, perfectly non-lethal means of disabling an agitated, adrenaline-fueled human being.
If that’s something that you don’t want to happen to you, then don’t go into public space and assault the people there. It’s actually pretty easy to avoid.
This is why stand your ground laws can’t realistically exist in places that aren’t sparsely populated. Because someone will read “defend your property and life with force if necessary” as “act as a raging lunatic and attempt to shoot anyone who comes at the door because it’s legal to do so if you claim you were defending your property, even though there was no indication of actual imminent danger to property or people”.
In my country we don’t have stand your ground laws. You can only defend yourself in case of an attack, but not drive away a thief. You’re supposed to run and call the police, but I keep wondering if a legal framework like the US where you weren’t legally punished for attacking a thief in your house wouldn’t be fairer but then there’s news like this.
This has absolutely nothing to do with “Stand Your Ground”. SYG only applies when you or someone else are in real and imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death, neither of which were true in this case. That’s why the guy was arrested and has been charged with a number of serious offenses. He’s going to end up in prison.
Since you aren’t from the United States I should also tell you that SYG isn’t a National thing, its only legal in the States in that have passed laws allowing it.
That’s called “Castle Doctrine” and like SYG it isn’t National. It only exists in the States that have passed a law to allow it.
It CAN work but there’s at least a few States that have Castle Doctrine and a Duty to Retreat so you end up having to flee a home invader until or unless you have no other choice.
We have a make my day law in CO but it only applies inside your house
That’s such a sad way to put it; and yet still so accurate when it comes to these POSs.
Worked great for Zimmerman.
I wasn’t necessarily thinking the law would protect the person who did this, but pondering if the existence of that legal framework does not create the impression that this is acceptable, even though it isn’t and that’s not what the law is.
And also, i do understand this isn’t applied everywhere in the US, but to me I see the US as a country. As a foreigner it’s probably very unlikely I’m going to refer to it as the law from Connecticut or whatever. I just know this law exists in the US and to be fair I’m not really that interested in knowing specifically where and the nuances of state to state legislation.
But nevertheless i thank you for clarifying the difference between Stand your ground and Castle doctrine and reminding me that it’s not a national thing.
You are acting as if it were actually complicated. Requiring no duty to retreat makes perfect sense in your own home. The law most sane places says you have to be in a situation where a reasonable person would be in fear for life or bodily injury.
Note “reasonable person” is a common legal standard. A reasonable person doesn’t think someone outside is automatically a threat. People who shiit then ask questions go to jail.
Why should someone who is already breaking the law also enjoy the power of legal coercion to force you from a place you had the legal right to be, though?
“Well, we don’t want the situation to escalate. Someone could get hurt.” Why should the law protect only the welfare of criminals? Of the person actively breaking the law?
The issue with “Stand your Ground” laws is that the alternative is nonsensical if your view expands to include the rights and welfare of people who act consistent with the law.
Removed by mod
I can’t imagine how that fucking matters
That’s a you problem.
Thats obvious to everyone here you cant lmao
No
Because human life is more valuable than things.
The problem is people applying laws like castle doctrine outside of situations that they were intended for… then shitty judges allow it to be applied outside of those situations… resulting in these random ass killings for people knocking on doors. It’s messed up and horrible.
But at the same time a few years ago a family near my friends house had someone break in, killed the two parents and then chased down the son and killed him in the woods. The young man tried to retreat and was killed anyway. THEN they robbed the house. They were looking for stuff to steal and sell for drugs. Then they set the house on fire.
https://www.courant.com/2018/05/14/details-emerge-of-brutality-in-deaths-of-griswold-family-members/
If someone is legitimately breaking into your house you should be able to defend yourself if you can’t get away. It doesn’t need to be a gun, but you should not go to jail for hurting someone who is in your house who is not supposed to be there.
There’s no way to tell if that person is just a burglar or might fucking kill you over your stuff. What are you supposed to do? Ask them? “Excuse me criminal, are you the murderous type or just a burglar?”
Obviously leave if you can, but this case shows running away doesn’t always work. That poor family.
Human rights are more valuable than human life.
Removed by mod
You are, because they died for those rights. And it’s a good thing they did because they’d be ashamed of how little you think of their sacrifice.
Removed by mod
LOL perfect
deleted by creator
You’re saying no one ever dies that others might live?
deleted by creator
You’re the one that brought it up, though. I’ve been talking about rights the whole time.
You should be able to use reasonable force. If you’re trying to subdue a homicidal maniac then you can choke them unconscious or knock them unconscious or kill them if that’s all you have means to do. But if you just have someone who wants to be rude and yell in your face, then you don’t have a right to kill them.
I think it depends on who causes the confrontation and who is escalating the situation to different levels of violence.
Also, I think there’s different ways to interpret stand your ground as a concept. You can stand your ground and use reasonable force to secure your safety. You should not be able to stand your ground and murder someone so as not to inconvenience yourself if you don’t want to take a step back or move out of someone’s way for example.
Any amount of force that stops an attacker is reasonable, by definition. The only one who should have a legal obligation of care for the welfare of the lawbreaker is the one breaking the law.
But it depends what they’re yelling. If they’re yelling “I’m five seconds from killing you!” then you do have a right to use whatever force is available to you to stop them, and that might very well mean their death; there actually aren’t any safe, harmless, perfectly non-lethal means of disabling an agitated, adrenaline-fueled human being.
If that’s something that you don’t want to happen to you, then don’t go into public space and assault the people there. It’s actually pretty easy to avoid.
Who was attacking who when two kids were sitting in their car?
No answer required, FYI.
Where was the car?
It doesn’t matter. No place would justify murder.
It’s not unreasonable that you might need to shoot someone who’s attacking you with a car
So you agree that that place is irrelevant, it’s actions that matter.