User Tag List

View Poll Results: Are you concerned that stand your ground will be repealed?

Voters
6. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2 33.33%
  • No

    4 66.67%
First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 49

  1. #31
    ... Tyrinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    649 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gasoline View Post
    ok, i think we can agree that often times, there are people who make split second choices that they end up regretting later. often the case with cops who shoot children that they, thought as threatening. as a consequence, it has lead to grieving mothers and mourning families.

    not everyone is capable of making split second decisions, not every person is even tempered, not everyone is capable withholding bias. so a better alternative to standing your ground and shooting someone, who possibly does not deserve to be shot, would be to try and avoid a situation where there is confrontation. move your car somewhere away, if you dont feel safe. dont take the ally with the drug dealers, late at night. if you are being pursued than its understandable to stand your ground.
    This I can work with.

    Okay. I can agree that split second choices can lead to poor decisions, but we have to be specific here. Not being obligated to retreat is not the same as a free pass to kill anyone whom you consider a threat. However, I would argue that the inability to defend oneself could also lead to grieving families. I would wager that, even though a few police make mistakes and shoot someone who didn't deserve it, most police officers never make such a mistake. So, how do you determine whether or not a person would be able to successfully determine what is a legitimate threat and what isn't? This is something I can't answer, and I doubt you can either, so we'll have to leave this one up in the air.

    I have to agree with that first sentence of your second paragraph. Hell, I'm a great example of two out of three of those points. However, all self-defense revolves around lethal force being the last option when all else fails, and I believe that the stand your ground laws had that in mind as well. If they fail to convey that, then they need to be amended to make that more clear. The problem with self-defense is that outside of your own home (assuming castle doctrine applies where you live) you are put in extreme danger by the laws themselves. It is difficult for me to put into words right now, but basically, it is very easy to not meet self-defense criteria unless you keep your wits about you. This is conjecture, but I don't think that the moment that your life is being threatened is going to be the moment when you are going to have your clearest thinking.

    Much of what you state towards the end is common-sense. If you go down the dark alley with the drug dealers in it, you're asking for trouble, sure. However, the way I view this law is that if someone pulls a weapon on you, you should have the right to fight back immediately, without attempting other options, if fighting back immediately seems like the best option for preserving your own life. It should be noted that stand your ground doesn't only apply to lethal force.

    Honestly, to me, stand your ground laws seem like castle doctrine applied to locations other than your home, and many of the same arguments can be applied to both laws. I really don't think that the recent problems with stand your ground in Florida have been to due a problem with the law itself. I think that it is more due to the over-publicizing of people attempting to abuse a law that has every right to exist.

    Sorry in advance for any ambiguity or choppy thoughts.

    Edit: You should mark points that you edit in.
    ...

  2. #32
    Yup
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    Istj
    Posts
    1,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Putting unnecessary culpability on the would be victim is wrong. The one who is already under attack is expected to behave properly? Wrong.

    Taking away a provision to stand your ground is effectively GIVING extra rights TO THE ATTACKER


    social order is one of the reasons for laws, this law potentially may be contrary to this, if there is strong racial tension in that area.

  3. #33
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gasoline View Post
    social order is one of the reasons for laws, this law potentially may be contrary to this, if there is strong racial tension in that area.
    Explain.

  4. #34
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    I've always thought of defense framed towards balls-in efficiency. I dream of gouging eyes and smashing testicles.


    The law can go where it wants, I know where I'll stand.

  5. #35
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    I've always thought of defense framed towards balls-in efficiency. I dream of gouging eyes and smashing testicles.


    The law can go where it wants, I know where I'll stand.
    This is exactly why it was enacted. Nobody is thinking of doing the right thing when they are under assault from no fault of their own.

    Duty to retreat only serves to protect the attacker after the fact, and in some way gives them power to mess with you.

    Duty to retreat is the sort of thing that organized crime would push for.

  6. #36
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    This is exactly why it was enacted. Nobody is thinking of doing the right thing when they are under assault from no fault of their own.

    Duty to retreat only serves to protect the attacker after the fact, and in some way gives them power to mess with you.

    Duty to retreat is the sort of thing that organized crime would push for.

    The concept is actually making my stomach turn a little.


    Empowering the assailants indeed.

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    I've always thought of defense framed towards balls-in efficiency. I dream of gouging eyes and smashing testicles.


    The law can go where it wants, I know where I'll stand.
    I agree with that, to be honest sociological and psychological studies have shown that most unviolent people in violent situations are typified by a kind of "forward panick" and its not that moment that anyone is likely to be able to think I will execute the following moves or actions but not anything beyond a certain point, those that are capable of that sort of thing are those who're greater acquainted with violence and do not experience the same sorts of stress or emotional flooding in that situation, they are also those least likely to need defence codified in law because they are more likely to perpetraters of violence not victims.

    If you're thinking about legalities I dont think the situation is truly dire and you're not defending yourself in the same way.

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    The concept is actually making my stomach turn a little.


    Empowering the assailants indeed.
    Its already happened in the UK, its not been a good thing.

  9. #39
    Senior Member tinker683's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One View Post
    I live right next to you in Jacksonville, Florida, and you are a complete fool if you think this law being repealed is a good idea.
    I could give a shit what you think. It's a stupid law and unless you can show me an instance in which people have justifiably defending themselves under the auspices of this law, my mind isn't going to change. Seems to me its only served to give morons who have no business yielding a weapon (case in point: Treyvon and this case) some sort of defense for yielding their firearms irresponsibly. I'm in favor of the law being rewritten to force people to use their weapons more responsibly or being repealed altogether and newer law being put in its place.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One View Post
    Oh and just think, they will probably go after castle doctrine next if this gets repealed and you know what that means right? It means that if some guy has broken into your house and is robbing your house and you don't know whether they have a gun or not, if you shoot them it's murder. That's right, basic self defense turns into murder. I know innocent people that did nothing but protect their homes that are now in jail for murder for that.
    Slippery slope much?
    "The man who is swimming against the stream knows the strength of it."
    ― Woodrow Wilson

  10. #40
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Putting unnecessary culpability on the would be victim is wrong. The one who is already under attack is expected to behave properly? Wrong.

    Taking away a provision to stand your ground is effectively GIVING extra rights TO THE ATTACKER
    How do states without this law handle such situations? How many states have a law like this? Just curious -- until the Treyvon thing came up, I wasn't really aware of such laws.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. [Si] Your first Enemy?
    By JivinJeffJones in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 11-24-2013, 04:49 PM
  2. How old were you when you first heard about Myer-Briggs and, how old are you now?
    By ilikeitlikethat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 08-20-2012, 05:52 AM
  3. Replies: 196
    Last Post: 06-01-2009, 11:22 AM
  4. The Great Blog Transplant - Sign up now!
    By cafe in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-28-2007, 10:22 PM
  5. I'm here...now what?
    By Wolf in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 10:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO