Poll: Do you agree with the Stand Your Ground Laws
Yes. They are good self-defense laws
No. They are unnecessary and often abused and misused
Unsure. (Comment)
[Show Results]
 
Stand your ground laws
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2013, 05:41 AM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(19-07-2013 05:40 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 05:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, actually I do have some idea, based on other sudden, dangerous events where I reacted calmly and rationally combined with training and forethought.

So you have returned fire while under fire?

I have reacted to emergency. You are now being willfully obtuse.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 05:43 AM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(19-07-2013 05:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 05:40 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  So you have returned fire while under fire?

I have reacted to emergency. You are now being willfully obtuse.

No, I asked if you have ever been under fire. You have not.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 05:44 AM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2013 06:38 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Stand your ground laws
(19-07-2013 05:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 05:39 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  What they don't tell you is that the majority of the violence is criminal-on-criminal.

Red herring.

It is not a red herring when I point out that you won't be attacked by a violent criminal. You are concerned about burglary, statistics show that an overwhelming majority of burglars are non-violent. It is logically inconsistent to fret over something so unlikely, yet you continuously do things everyday that threaten your life even more.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 06:13 AM
RE: Stand your ground laws
Illogica Humano at his worst.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
19-07-2013, 06:37 AM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(19-07-2013 06:13 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Illogica Humano at his worst.

If this is my worst, then I am far superior to you.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 07:25 AM
RE: Stand your ground laws
Wait, back the truck up. Did Chas shoot a dude?? Sweeeeeet.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 06:01 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
Quote:I think it will get thrown out on appeals.

It's Florida. Don't count on the courts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
23-07-2013, 02:06 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(18-07-2013 09:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  [SNIPPED]The Stand Your Ground Laws are morally reprehensible. They allow you to preemptively attack someone under the guise of feeling "threatened." Rubbish I say.

Stand Your Ground does NOT give you the right to preemption, there must be extenuating circumstances which convey a threat. Stand Your Ground is antithetical to Duty to Retreat.

We can examine this by taking the same scenario and applying both concepts to it and see what the outcomes are.

Scenario - Joe and Alan do not know or recognize each other. Joe is walking down the street, legally entitled to be where he is doing what he is doing. Alan is walking along the same sidewalk but in the opposite direction. As Joe and Alan near each other they happen to look at each other momentarily as people do in this type of scenario. Joe decides, for whatever reason, that he doesn't like the way Alan looked at him and says "What's your problem?" Alan doesn't have a problem and says "Nothing." Joe believes that Alan is lying (he isn't) and escalates the situation by saying, "You'd better get out of here before you get hurt."

Stand Your Ground - Alan has done nothing wrong and is legally allowed to be on the sidewalk. The confrontation was created by Joe, not Alan. Under Stand Your Ground Alan's right to be on the sidewalk is being improperly challenged by Joe. Since Alan has a right to be there he is justified in standing his ground - he is there legally, did not provoke a confrontation, and there is no justification for Joe to say he shouldn't be there and to imply harm to Alan. The burden of responsibility is on Joe for creating the situation.

Duty to Retreat - Alan has done nothing wrong and is legally allowed to be on the sidewalk. The confrontation was created by Joe, not Alan. Under Duty to Retreat Alan would be required to extricate himself from the situation which creates two problems:
1) Alan would be required to deny himself the right to be where he was.
2) This creates burden of responsibility on Alan, the victim in this scenario, who has done nothing wrong. Joe has effectively created a requirement for Alan to deny himself his rights. Put another way, Joe's right to be on the sidewalk now exceed's Alan's because Alan now has a duty to retreat because of the situation which conflicts with his right to be on the sidewalk.

The Duty to Retreat is truly reprehensible, as is requires self-denial of rights and imposes a burden on the victim based on the actions of the perpetrator.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes joshChase's post
23-07-2013, 02:09 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
Joe and Alan are both idiots. Being told to get off the streets doesn't mean you should be able to attack someone. Words have consequences but someone should be able to kill because of words?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
23-07-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 02:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Joe and Alan are both idiots. Being told to get off the streets doesn't mean you should be able to attack someone. Words have consequences but someone should be able to kill because of words?

It was a simplified example of why Stand Your Ground is a more moral position that Duty to Retreat. No one has stated that either is within their rights to attack given the scenario described.

To the second point - words have consequences, on this we agree. However it is the context of the words and the actions surrounding them which brings us to the issue to utilization of force. That is outside the scope of Stand Your Ground and moves in the right to self defense. If we extend the scenario and Joe were to say ""You'd better get out of here or I will stab you" and then produces a knife, Alan is justified in taking forceful action to prevent harm to his person. If Alan had a condition where he physically cannot run, what option does he have? Joe has created the situation, Alan has been thrust into it through no malice or fault of his own and now his life is demonstrably in danger. What would you do if you were Alan? Let Joe stab you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: