Stand Your Ground Laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shakuhachi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I live in AZ and it is a stand your ground. In the countless self defense gun trainings I have done it is always advised to swallow your pride and do what you can to avoid violent conflict. In most cases you can defuse most tension with a “I am sorry…my bad!” And then go on your merry way. No harm no foul. But, if it ever surmounts to lethal force, follow your training (use loud verbal commands, when you call 911 leave phone on and set down that they can hear your efforts to diffuse, watch your backdrop, and if you have to shoot - shoot to kill! Always) This maime them crap is for fools. In too many states the judiciary has been corrupted to the point an aggressor can try to sue you when all is said and done. He cant if hes dead. Not talking tough but this has been advised both from professional trainers and clergy.
 
Last edited:
A person always has the innate human right to defend his life, the lives of those under his charge, and his property. Even to the point of lethal force. Except states run by Democrats. The people there have acquiesced their responsibility to defending freedom to leftist tyrants.
 
AUGUSTINE1102 said:
A person always has the innate human right to defend his life,
Click to expand...
Yes…
the lives of those under his charge,
Click to expand...
Yes …
and his property.
Click to expand...
What? Is that what the law says? So, if some guy runs off with your wallet, you can shoot him in the back?

Or more likely you mean if he enters your home. What if you could safely escape or shelter in place?

I’m just wondering about the morality of protecting mere property by killing.
 
Last edited:
Over a wallet? No. Over a home? Of course. If somebody’s standing outside my property and actively attempting to burn it down, I’m going to put a stop to it, whether I’m in the home or not. Is that not justified? Or would the moral thing to do be to stand back, say “pretty please don’t do that” then shrug in disappointment as my life goes up in smoke?

Attacks on property, past a certain point, ARE attacks on life.

Not to mention how the example you noted involves a threat that’s already gone, as the thief is actively fleeing.
 
Last edited:
RWZiller said:
Attacks on property, past a certain point, ARE attacks on life.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but no. This is inordinate attachment to material goods.

The Church says one may kill to save a life. Period.

Someone could burn your house down and, in most circumstances, your life goes on. Rebuild the house. Claim it on insurance if you can.

When we start redefining self-defense to mean killing a person to protect one’s property, honor, or power, we go against basic morality and Church teaching.
 
aitapyh said:
No stand your ground laws…retreat is the law…unless, and this should be obvious, you are under immanent threat of death or sever bodily harm.
Click to expand...
Nope. Stand your Ground gives that license to kill when your life is threatened. Duty to Retreat means you must take any available escape options before considering force.
 
Exactly. That’s stupid.

I don’t want to be shoved in prison because I wasn’t thinking about the door behind me and to the left, I was thinking about the man approaching me with a knife. I want to have reasonable restrictions on when I can defend myself but if someone threatens me or my family, the first thing I’m doing if they don’t stop when I draw is making sure they’re going to threaten nobody ever again, whatever that takes.
 
Last edited:
ZemD said:
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.
Click to expand...
You don’t need “stand your ground” laws to allow the use of deadly force for self defense. The right to self-defense when necessary to protect one’s life is already provided for in most self-defense laws. What “stand your ground” laws add is the right to use deadly force when the only thing that is threatened is one’s pride. If you are confronted, (like, say in a road rage incident), when it is clearly possible to retreat without any loss of life, what is the need for a stand your ground law there? Isn’t it better to encourage de-escalation of such confrontations than to give them an excuse to progress?
 
Last edited:
AUGUSTINE1102 said:
I live in AZ and it is a stand your ground. In the countless self defense gun trainings I have done it is always advised to swallow your pride and do what you can to avoid violent conflict. In most cases you can defuse most tension with a “I am sorry…my bad!” And then go on your merry way. No harm no foul. But, if it ever surmounts to lethal force, follow your training (use loud verbal commands, when you call 911 leave phone on and set down that they can hear your efforts to diffuse, watch your backdrop, and if you have to shoot - shoot to kill! Always) This maim them crap is for fools. In too many states the judiciary has been corrupted to the point an aggressor can try to sue you when all is said and done. He can’t if he’s dead. Not talking tough but this has been advised both from professional trainers and clergy.
Click to expand...
I am not going to risk running afoul of CAF guidelines by discussing the merits of “maim versus kill”, but I do have to say that killing an aggressor instead of just maiming him, because if he survives, he can sue you, is a sterling example of “the end justifies the means”. Besides, his family could always sue you for wrongful death.

I am already teaching my son the various rules and best practices of driving safety, and we have a problem locally of pedestrians walking along the side of the road at night, often in dark clothing that makes them difficult to spot and avoid. I have taught him that if you hit someone accidentally and kill them, not only would there be the horror of having caused the death of another (and a possible involuntary manslaughter conviction), but they’d probably have a family, and that family would have no compunction whatsoever in suing you for wrongful death, prevailing in court, and taking everything you have. My son stands to inherit a not-inconsiderable estate, and I’d hate to see him left destitute.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You don’t need “stand your ground” laws to allow the use of deadly force for self defense. The right to self-defense when necessary to protect one’s life is already provided for in most self-defense laws.
Click to expand...
False. Duty to Retreat puts undue burden on those defending themselves from threats by making them search, under penalty of law, for escape when the threat could be defused faster and with better outcome if one could simply deal with the threat at that moment.

Road rage is not covered under Stand your Ground. That’s ridiculous.
 
It almost sounded like you were in support of the Duty to Retreat, a position I wholeheartedly disagree with.
 
VonDerTann said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Well said, but I think you can tell the difference. You have determined that a human life is worth less than your daughter’s honor, liberty, and health. You’ll find no shortage of support for that value judgment. After all, you care much more for your daughter than some criminal. So do I. But God loves the criminal just as much as your daughter or mine. This is a mystery.
 
Last edited:
aitapyh said:
I was talking here about the laws in Nebraska where I live. There is no stand your ground law. Retreat is the law. You must retreat when it is feasible to do so. For instance, you cannot shoot a person approaching you with a knife if it is feasible to retreat through a door and lock it, or run away to safety. Of course these things can and inevitably often do become vague as to whats possible to do and you will be in court defending your decision with no promise of outcome.
Click to expand...
When we get to the point of having to flee our homes, rather than resist home invaders, that is the beginning of the end of our freedom.

I would look to the magisterium of the Church to provide some guidance on this matter, given their awareness that people in many countries and cultures have the means to protect their lives and property with force of arms.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Road rage is not covered under Stand your Ground. That’s ridiculous.
Click to expand...
It is not ridiculous. If someone thinks you cut them off and you are stopped at a light and if he gets out of his car and walks over to you and start yelling at you through the window, waving his fists around, you might very well be able to say you felt threatened that he was going to punch through your window and hurt you, so you “stand your ground” and shoot him first - instead of turning right and driving away.

Also, I don’t think Duty to Retreat would apply to a situation where the retreat was not obvious and could only be found with a Sherlock Holmes search.
 
Last edited:
I never said we should kill to protect honor or power.
I am not saying you should slaughter somebody because they damaged your property. I’m saying I have the right to use physical force to put a stop to their attempts to do me wrong. If they die as a consequence, it’s a tragedy, but that’s what happens when you play such games.

I don’t understand why debates like this always devolve to “so you’re saying you’d murder a man for [insert petty misunderstanding]?” It’s a shame.
 
Last edited:
And in that case, you would more likely than not be found guilty of assault or murder because there was no clear indication that your life was threatened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top