Stand Your Ground Laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shakuhachi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Shakuhachi

Guest
Are you in a stand your ground state?
What do you think of these laws?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if it’s just for mobile users, but I can’t really see your image. If I scroll in to read the legend, I can’t read the text.
 
Last edited:
Looks good now. I am able to zoom in and read the small print.
 
Last edited:
How well does this law work in practice? I worry that it may do more harm than good, as it gives wanna-be heroes an excuse to kill needlessly.
 
Not in a stand your ground state.

I don’t think “stand your ground” laws are immoral.

If you are confronted with the threat of deadly force or deadly force you should be able to defend yourself whether in your home or in public. It would be best to leave the situation, but it is naive to think that would always be possible.
 
No one should be under any sort of obligation to retreat when confronted with force.
 
I live in a stand your ground state.
I’ve never really thought about it. I assume everyone has a right to defend oneself. I do not think a person has a moral right to hear a noise in his backyard and start spraying the area with bullets.
 
And then someone brought it up to me in the context of abortion and vital conflict. If a mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy ought she not have the right to defend herself? Questions too big for me.
 
“Turn the other cheek” has never been interpreted by the church as requiring pacifism in the face of force, especially, say, in the face of threats to one’s family.

I remember observing a debate some years ago on this forum. Person x advocated that “turn the other cheek” required pacifism. The pushback he got was that to him, there was literally no instance of ever using physical force that was morally allowable - including to prevent the Hypothetical rape of his own wife or daughter. As he had pointed out to him, not only did the church not preclude use of force to prevent such event, but, IIRC, neither does natural law imprinted on our hearts: we’re supposed to take action to stop that kind of event if we have the chance. Further, there are some - such as our children - to whom we owe a duty to keep safe, both legally and morally.

I also remember someone saying to person x that at some point “turn the other cheek” becomes indistinguishable from cowardice, and being a faithful catholic does not require us to exhibit cowardice in the face of evil we have the power to prevent.
 
Last edited:
I think they’re a good idea. My state of Ohio adopted a castle doctrine law in 2008 that expanded the right to use deadly force to defend a home or occupied vehicle. I feel that this is also a reasonable law.
 
I live in a stand your ground state. It is not a blanket law. Criteria has to be met in order for the law to apply. Reading the catechism and the law of double effect was helpful in forming my conscience on the matter.

From the catechism:

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
 
Shakuhachi said:
then how do we reconcile it with Jesus? Context?
Click to expand...
Do not seek revenge. Shooting the man trying to murder you or rape your daughter is not revenge. Stalking him in the night and killing him brutally afterwards is.

As for the OP, I live in a Stand Your Ground state and believe it’s a great thing. Don’t need to worry about being prosecuted because some jury months afterwards finds an escape I couldn’t in the moment.
 
Last edited:
VonDerTann said:
someone saying to person x that at some point “turn the other cheek” becomes indistinguishable from cowardice
Click to expand...
To say that moral choices are indistinguishable may reflect poorly on the one who cannot distinguish.
 
Eh, I don’t know: to me there is absolutely no difference between “I won’t stop a rape because I’m afraid” and “I won’t stop a rape because doing so would be wrong.” The person refusing/ declining to stop the rape is wrong regardless (either because of cowardice or because of a defective conscience) and the victim still gets raped.
 
Last edited:
How did the baby get there? Did the baby (in utero) sneak in there and then wage war or assault against the mom? Of course not. In 99.9% of pregnancies the baby is the result of a consensual agreement between the two parties that had sex. Rape/incest are extreme/exceptional cases that are very rare. We cannot argue from such oddities. A baby can cause conflict with the mothers body, but that is not an act of conscious aggression on the pet of the baby.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top