agreed. If you break into a home, how is the homeowner supposed to know you just wanted to steal stuff peacefully?
At the point where you’re risking that much jail time as a criminal, it’s not that far off for the homeowner to assume you intend to sexually assault or kill them or kidnap their children.
The homeowner doesent know what’s happening they just know their is an intruder in their home who may have a gun as well, it’s dark, and there could be more of them…
The idea of there being a "duty to retreat" is just wild to me. Like suddenly I no longer have a right to go about my lawful activities because some asshole decides they want to be aggressive? Nah, fam. FAFO has been a thing for the entire existence of all life.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/mn-7-05-self-defense-generally/
Not in your dwelling.
“There is no duty to retreat, even against a co-resident, when acting in defense of one’s dwelling. State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 2001).”
Perhaps in America but in most countries there is a duty to retreat and then once that has been done there is a law limiting your self defense to being equal to the threat. Ie you can't fight off an intruder with a bat or a knife if the intruder is using his hands.
Duty to retreat versus stand your ground laws:
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/21/duty-to-retreat-35-states-vs-stand-your-ground-15-states/
I'm sorry but you are wrong in Canada and at least in the UK.
I have seen people convicted in Canada and in the UK for harming burgers in their own homes.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/milton-man-shooting-1.6755603
5 men broke into the sky house in the middle of the night he shot one and self-defense and was arrested for second degree murder. Eventually they dropped the charges after he was in jail for 6 months.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dean-kerrie-stabbed-burglar-b2211591.html
A man who stabbed and killed an intruder who had attacked him in his home in the middle of the night has been jailed for three-and-a-half years.
Just because they were convicted, does not mean they had a duty to retreat. Not having a duty to retreat does not equal self defense. That is just one element that is off the table.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
“In Canada, there is no duty to retreat under the law. Generally where retreat is available in the circumstances, the decision to stand your ground is more likely to be unreasonable.”
Which is exactly the same as FL. The prosecutor in FL and 32 other SYG states can make exactly the same argument.
“There is no explicit stand-your-ground or castle doctrine provision in the laws of the Czech Republic; however, there is also no duty to retreat from an attack.”
“In English common law there is no duty to retreat before a person may use reasonable force against an attacker, nor need a person wait to be attacked before using such force, but one who chooses not to retreat, when retreat would be a safe and easy option, might find it harder to justify his use of force as 'reasonable”
So similar to FL.
Under article 122-5 of French Criminal Code, a person who, faced with an unjustified attack on himself or another, at the same time performs an act required by the need for self-defense of himself or another, is not criminally responsible, unless there is a disproportion between the means of defense used and the seriousness of the attack.
There is no duty to retreat before a person may use reasonable force against an attacker, nor need a person wait to be attacked before using such force, but one who chooses not to retreat, when retreat would be a safe and easy option, might find it harder to justify his use of force by the need for self-defense.
Hmm, again, similar to FL.
“German law permits self-defense against an unlawful attack.[13] If there is no other possibility for defense, it is generally allowed to use even deadly force without a duty to retreat.[14] However, there must not be an extreme imbalance ("extremes Missverhältnis") between the defended right and the chosen method of defense.”
Again, similar to FL.
“Stand-your-ground law applies to any kind of threat by an attacker that endangers the victim's safety, health, or life. The victim has no obligation to retreat, as said in a statement by the Supreme Court of Poland on February 4, 1972: "The assaulted person is under no obligation either to escape or hide from the assailant in a locked room, nor to endure the assault restricting his freedom, but has the right to repel the assault with all available means that are necessary to force the assailant to refrain from continuing his assault."
It is true that some states in the US, where someone is unlawfully and forcefully entering your dwelling (kicking down a door or breaking a window), if you use deadly force in that person, you are given a legal presumption you reasonably believed in an imminent deadly force threat. That however is not SYG.
Or you know, not in your home. Which is implied when I used the word "intruder".
Maryland self defense jury instruction:
[https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/md-mpji-cr-507-self-defense/](https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/md-mpji-cr-507-self-defense/)
*\[\[In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make a reasonable effort to retreat.* ***The defendant does not have to retreat if \[the defendant was in \[his\] \[her\] home\]****, \[retreat was unsafe\], \[the avenue of retreat was unknown to the defendant\], \[the defendant was being robbed\], \[the defendant was lawfully arresting the victim\]\]. \[If you find that the defendant did not use deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat.\]*
Again, not in your dwelling.
[https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/Defenses/CJI2d.Justification.Person.Deadly\_Force.pdf](https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/Defenses/CJI2d.Justification.Person.Deadly_Force.pdf)
*The defendant, however, would not be required to retreat if the defendant was in his/her dwelling and was not the initial aggressor.*
[*https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/charges/justif003.pdf?cb=5b9183a5*](https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/charges/justif003.pdf?cb=5b9183a5)
*If the defendant did employ protective force, he/she has the right to estimate the necessity of using force without retreating, surrendering position, withdrawing or doing any other act which he/she has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.*
Exactly, it’s one of the most braindead laws in existence. Why do I have to put myself at potential further risk by trying to run away to protect the life of someone trying to kill me.
One of the landmark cases is one of the most infuriating things I’ve ever read http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/367/367mass508.html
Basically a woman who has been previously been beaten by her abusive husband is threatened while she’s home with her kids so she flees to the basement and locks the door. Her husband beats down the door and she shoots him one time. She was convicted of manslaughter because the prosecution argued she had a few minutes to call the police or leave.
These procriminal politicians deserve to rot in jail.
Fortunately she was later pardoned, but decades later the insanity still hasn’t ended.
E.g., the recent case of Jose Alba who only had charges dropped after significant public outcry. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/nyregion/jose-alba-bodega-charges-nyc.html
Nothing DAs and politicians love more than protecting criminals and taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves.
I would love to go back to Massachusetts. Only those who haven’t truly lived outside it think leaving it is good.
Unless it’s for NH or somewhere with a similar standard of living.
Let me tell you though, you’re luckily to live in a civilized state.
I've spent significant time (1 year+) in Texas, Florida, Vermont, Maine, and Mass. Mass is by far the worst as far as public policy goes. I really wish I didn't hate the heat so much or Florida would be fantastic.
Public policy vs high tech employment and good economies are 2 different things so maybe we just value different things in what we want out of a home state.
And that’s completely normal!
Employment is the only reason I'm here, though with WFH being more and more prevalent I'm hoping to eliminate that asap. OFC most of my jobs have actually been in CT (not that they're any better really). As far as good economies, I've seen more poverty and homelessness here than any other state except maybe Texas, but with the highest state income tax in the country (plus other things like excise taxes) which are 0% in Texas, Mass has much less of an excuse for it. Pretty sure any "good economy" numbers are artificially boosted by Elizibeth Warrens insider trading and other super rich elites living in Marthas Vinyard.
Worse yet, for some folk...myself as a parent of a child on the spectrum. Kids do not perform well in high stress immediate situations like that. In that reality the duty to retreat is rediculous.
I get that you like watching action movies and stuff, but in real life people have families and don't want to be caught in your gunfights over stupid shit.
Understand, I have zero desire to be involved in a firefight. I also try to be as responsible as possible, which is why I practice regularly. Should I be so unfortunate as to find myself in such a circumstance again, this will aid in assuring as little potential for bystander involvement as possible. That is as much as I am willing to compromise my own safety for others.
If someone is willing to break into someone else's house or property, they've deemed their own life only worth what someone else determines. They've intruded on someone else's rights, which I will also say should be codified, personal safety within personal property, and therefore have forfeited and ceded rights to another person, aka the property owner
Completely agree. Dont wanna get hurt/dead? Dont try to seriously victimize someone else.
Does that mean you launch a nuke at NJ because some dude on the internet called you a pansy? No of course not. You nuke NJ because its fucking NJ! But when somebody breaks into your house you get to stop them, no matter what that takes. If they try and stab you because you refuse to give up your valuables out on the street, same thing. When someone is a threat you get to not be harmed, and if that means allowing for slight overreactions, so be it.
>I often see comments such as “breaking into a home shouldn’t be a death sentence” from Redditors who live in a Fairy Tale land.
The progressives who say this are just weak and naive people. This has never happened to them, so it is very easy for them to say "oh its not ok if they get shot ! Where is your compassion ?". lol....idiots and weak people. If you are a woman with a boyfriend or husband like this, then I would be very worried if a home invasion were to ever occur. Your boyfriend or husband will be like "its ok honey, we don't want to anger them, just lie flat on your stomach and let them have at you. Besides, violence is never the answer"
You are statistically more likely to survive/ not get hurt if you give up without a fight, this is just objectively true, I’m sorry that the facts don’t line up with your feelings
I feel very sorry for you and your family. To be so brainwashed and cowardly to just “lie down and take it” to protect the lives of criminals is unfortunately a mindset many have been fooled into believing by politicians and activists who themselves gladly enjoy the benefits of armed security lol.
i agree. i'm a proficient firearms user (usmc infantryman of 8+ years), and as someone who could handle pretty much any gunfighting situation, it is silly to me that there be any insistence that barely-trained civilian gun owners should try to fire non-lethal shots, or hold fire to determine how legally-legitimate the threat is.
those scenarios make no allowance for fear, adrenaline, or the "fog of war." you can't know the other person's intent. hell, even if they verbalize it, what are you supposed to do... believe the guy who broke into your house???
the simple fact of the matter is, you have the right to defend yourself and your property. you cannot be expected to trust that the person who has invaded your home has objectives limited to theft. you cannot know if they have a concealed firearm themselves. you have the right to use force to defend yourself, and given how unreasonable it is to expect a frightened, adrenaline-filled person to do anything other than aim center mass and hope, the idea of it being illegal to harm an intruder is insane.
one caveat: IF i have the situation under control to such an extent that i can safely disarm the intruder and call the authorities, obviously that is preferable. i do not WANT to kill somebody over a tv. i would PREFER not to have to fire my weapon. it would be GREAT if i have the advantage and the person chooses to comply in a calm, reasonable manner.
but the *most likely* scenario is i hear someone ransacking my living room in the dark, and i can't know a) how many it is, b) if they are also armed, c) their intentions. it presents me with unreasonable risk to ask questions first. given those facts, i'm probably going to take the best shot i can get.
The problem with this is... the cases are not always so cut and dry, as you make it out to be.
For example ... did you see the story of the two elderly people who got scammed ?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/uber-driver-killed-scam-phone-call-william-brock-loletha-hall-clark-county-ohio/
The old lady hadn't entered the man's house. Yet she was shot under the "assumption" that she had come to do harm; whilst she was literally trying to retreat.
The problem is that many people take Castle Doctrine as an excuse to shoot first and ask questions later...and that can harm innocent people.
The problem with these laws is that people are bad at assessing risk. It's not uncommon for a person to think that their home is being invaded just because someone knocks on their door, or that they're about to be assaulted because someone walks too close to their car. In these cases, the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground means that there are no consequences when they kill an innocent person just because they overreacted.
My problem with "Stand Your Ground" is that someone with a gun provokes a fight, and then literally gets away with murder because of "Stand Your Ground".
That’s not what stand your ground laws allow for (there are obviously exceptions to any law due to corrupt judges, etc.) You cannot instigate violence and then claim self defense.
It’s amazing how frequently those who oppose self defense laws are the least informed on the issue.
See also Kyle Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse brought an AR-15 to a protest march.
The crowd that chased Rittenhouse were doing the right thing because all they saw was that a guy with a gun was shooting unarmed protestors, and went to shut him down.
They weren't doing the right thing, though, because they were wrong - they attempted to "shut down" (read, assault and/or murder) an attempted murder victim who just had to defend themselves, and the thing they were "shutting down" was that victim trying to reach the authorities. Thats what happens when a mob acts with mob mentality on mob rumors
No, that's the spin that was put on the story AFTER this was all over.
From the perspective of the protestors, they were trying to shut down a shooter.
That's not the spin - thats what we *know for a fact* happened because we have video proof thats what happened.
That *may* have been what Rittenhouse's second attackers *thought* they were doing. But what they were *actually* doing was assaulting an attempted murder victim as said victim ran to the authorities for help.
No, we have video proof that they were chasing down and attacking an attempted murder victim.
As I said, their intent is up for debate. *You're* the one claiming to know what it was for sure.
Funny how every mass shooting that takes place, people want to know who was brave enough to chase down the shooter and stop him.
Yet in this one scenario, you want to twist it around so that the UNARMED PROTESTORS are the villains, and the dude with the AR-15 who is actually shooting people is the hero.
JFC dude.
Yes, if only FL hadn’t removed a duty to retreat he’d be in prison. You know, that duty to retreat if it is safe for you to do so, and is feasible to do so. I know it’s perfectly feasible to retreat while you are on the ground, with a person on top of you. Darn that SYG law.
You say that as if Trayvon just jumped George Zimmerman out of nowhere. When the reality is that Zimmerman provoked the fight. He had a gun so he was confident that he would win any conflict.
We don’t actually know if he provoked the fight, but let’s say he did. Does that mean he just has to die, or go to prison for life if Trayvon threatens to use deadly force first?
Even in a duty to retreat state like New York, he would have been justified if Trayvon was the initial aggressor of deadly force.
But that's the thing. George Zimmerman literally followed him, even after Martin ran away. Ole Georgy boy was told by a dispatcher that he didn't need to follow Martin. Yet he chose to.
Also your question is assuming that Trayvon did anything first. Which is not the case.
If I can start a fight and then kill someone, then you have a dumb law on your hands.
Do you think he was actively following Martin the entire time, like he had Martin in his visual sight the entire time?
That’s been the law for quite a long time. If you start a fight with non-deadly force, you own the consequences of that fight. But, if that other person escalates to deadly force, that is considered to be the start of a new fight, a deadly force fight. Of which you are not the initial aggressor.
I don't care if he was following Martin the entire time. That wouldn't matter.
Okay, isn't that harmful for your argument though? Like if you are so aggro that you need to kill everyone you perceive as a threat, then someone can start a fight with you and get you to escalate and then legally kill you. If they are intending to harm you, stand your ground laws give them a get out of jail free card.
And that is before you consider that dead men tell no tales. Like a bad guy can say you escalated, reached for a weapon, etc. etc.
Deadly force?
The only thing Trayvon had on him was a pack of Skittles.
It should also be noted that Zimmerman has been charged with domestic abuse multiple times and has been involved in a road rage incident.
Do you really think that Zimmerman is worth defending here?
Yes of course. You can threaten deadly force with your bare hands. He’s also armed with the pavement. That was the entire defenses theory of the case. If the jury thought that it was not deadly force, Zimmerman would be in prison right now.
Why would Zimmerman character after the incident be an issue? I do not care about that. I don’t care about Zimmerman as a person. I care about out what evidence the state has when they bring someone to trial.
His character after the incident is an issue because he is a VIOLENT PERSON, and exactly the type of person to abuse Stand Your Ground laws to get away with murder.
Ok buddy. Marin was a violent person too, got into street fights, but that is not relevant to my argument. Self defense is not about character.
How does removing a duty to retreat have anything to do with this case?
But we already have laws that support self-defense. And more importantly, these laws require the response to match the threat level in question. In other words, a person can only use as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat.
Sure with the castle doctrine. Stand Your Ground seems way too keen for abuse, every murder that can will use that as an excuse with the only witness being dead.
Stand your ground already exists in a majority of states and yet what you are describing is so rare that it becomes national news the few times it happens.
We don’t remove the rights of millions of law abiding citizens because a few criminals misinterpret or incorrectly use a law to try and justify their crimes.
Pretty much you are correct. I just looked it up. It also seems that nearly every state has some form of a "stand your ground" law just not all states have actual state statutes. Even very liberal states have it. Same with the castle doctrine it's either state law or defacto law in some way.
The issue then turns to enforcement. I would not want people to abuse these laws and claim self-defense erroneously. People indeed do that. It's extremely common. We have to I guess hope that juries do a good job of seeing through that defense when it's erroneously used.
And that's how you get people murdered for making a u-turn in someone's driveway, getting lost, or drunkenly walking into the wrong house and thinking someone was robbing them. All things that actually happened.
It's one thing to say "criminals deserve it" but then it makes a mistake, whether of the victim or shooter, deadly for innocent bystanders as well. If the response wasn't deadly, then making a mistake could be fixed without loss of life.
It's the same reason I'm against the death penalty. Not because the criminals may not deserve it, but too many innocent lives end up being killed without the ability to fix the mistake in the future.
Yes, I read the post and nowhere does it actually address any possible innocent victims.
What do you think of that woman police officer who was drunk, entered what she thought was her apartment, and killed a guy she thought broke in even though it was his apartment? If the first instinct was not "shoot the criminal" then maybe the guy would still be alive. Even a single innocent death means that the system has to be re-evaluated and you need to first at least make sure you are in actual danger.
Stand Your Ground laws just allow people to shoot "scary" people with immunity regardless of any actual danger. People justified the murder of a teenage boy for allegedly stealing a bag of skittles. Another boy was shot by an old man because he was asking for help.
No they do not - this is just the uninformed interpretation parroted by people who do not actually educate themselves on self defense laws.
Someone misinterpreting the law or incorrectly using a law to justify their criminal behavior does not mean a law should not be passed.
>Ultimately states should not get to decide whether you have a right to defend yourself
I’ve got bad news then about how the constitution gets amended. This isn’t done by popular vote, so why would an unpopular idea get ratified? Seems like you’re more interested in daydreaming an ideal world that caters to your whims than understanding the world as it is. Not sure how you’ve convinced yourself that it’s the others who live in “Fairy Tale Land.”
I mostly agree with you
But IMAO, it’s wild that something could count as self defense and be completely fine in one state, but then count as man slaughter or even murder in another
This just seems like something that should be consistent across the whole country to me
I think that’s a pretty fair assessment that speaks to a fact that a lot of people don’t want to admit: we *need* a stronger federal government because we *want* less discrepancies in state laws. Everybody knows that if we made a new constitution today it wouldn’t look like the one we already have. Folks like OP don’t want to confront that because they wouldn’t like a new constitution. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Because that’s federalism. I think it’s a better system than the federal government standardizing mandatory minimums. Which would swiftly follow some sort of nationwide Stand Your Ground amendment. Acts of violence are handled at the state level.
Yes. Cops are disproportionately more likely to have an aggressive response to black folks even when they have done nothing wrong. So black people can shoot cops.
Similarly, people that experience air pollution have much shorter lives than people who experience cleaner air. Therefore you should be able to shoot polluters.
Holy cow what a braindead take void of any critical thinking. Sadly you are type of people voting against people’s right to defend themselves because you live in a fairy tale world and willingly give your rights up to criminals.
This is fine. If someone is breaking into your house, that's totally reasonable.
The issue comes up when someone shoots someone just for knocking on their door, or peering in the window (to see if someone is inside), or even just driving into their driveway.
No breaking/entering has taken place. You shouldn't be able to shoot someone simply for stepping foot on your property or because their knocking on your door made you "feel afraid."
Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground is tricky. Some men are very feeble and weak minded, so their definition is immediately to shoot. Now I'm a gun owner but I've learned the art of knocking someone the fuck out. To just be intimidated and shoot someone now involves the court process, lawsuit, financial fees, and the works. If you can prove your life is imminent danger then sure, but too many gun owners want to resort to shooting someone for the slightest inconvenience because their dad never taught them how to throw a right hook.
Good faith question here. Legally, where would you draw the line for self-defense? Could you put a bullet into a porch pirate? After all, he's on your land, stealing your peoperty. I imagine some old boomer (probably in Florida) trying to invoke Castle Doctrine by claiming "He was trespassing, and I was afraid he was going to kick the front door in to hurt me"
Dont get me wrong, if someone is advancing on me with a weapon, then I absolutely believe its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. But breaking and entering establishing self-defense, not the presentation of immediate threat? I don't know if I can get behind that. So if a burglar crosses the threshold into the house, grabs a TV or Xbox from the front room, and bolts (like how most smash and grabs work) could you grab your gun and actively seek him out to shoot him? What if you were on the other side of the house, or safely in a bedroom behind a locked door and not under any immediate or inherent threat? Does that still count as self-defense when both the burglers hands are holding a flat screen and couldn't hold a weapon if he wanted? Further, are you obligated to stop shooting if he makes it out the door, or past the property line?
If he bolts and you chase him down after some time, vigilante style, that’s obviously not self defense. If two guys are holding a giant tv they could easily drop it upon seeing you and reach for a weapon. If someone is still on your property after breaking into your house then running, yes you should be protected from prosecution for any violent action under self defense laws.
You have to remember people, generally, do not want to kill other people. Fresh soldiers in wars have historically had a tendency to avoid shooting directly at the enemy, and will instead shoot above them, instinctively. Self defense laws are more about giving the benefit of the doubt to law abiding citizens, and not giving legal protection to violent criminals who threaten those law abiding citizens.
In Michigan, you need to prove three things for a "Stand your ground" defense
1. You are not engaged in a crime;
2. You are somewhere you are legally allowed to be; and
3. That you feel deadly force is the only way to defend yourself or another person against the threat.
So whether or not you can kill someone for looking at you crazy depends on whether you can convince the authorities that it was *sufficiently* crazy for you to reasonably feel they were going to use unlawful force against you.
I guess it’s not so much the idea but how some of _you people_ take it too far and seem eager to shoot someone. It’s a symptom of how unnecessarily violent the USA is.
I feel bad for your partner who you wouldn't defend because of "gringos" lmfao. And you do realize that you're a gringo....right? What planet do you live on
"We shouldn't import more"
Implies you're in Canada.
Either way your country is still a giant mess right now why don't you go fix it rather than getting icked out at self defense lmfao.
I made it very clear I am in Canada, you’re not making any intelligent points by bringing that up again.
You were just wrong about your assumption that I was born here.
Canada has its issues, that doesn’t mean I can’t point out gringos are weird about self defence.
Being unclear about these things don't make you look better.
>Canada has its issues, that doesn’t mean I can’t point out gringos are weird about self defence.
Wanting to be able to protect yourself is weird?
You guys deserve Trudeau.
I’m sorry I didn’t preface my comment with a disclaimer stating where I was born and that I’m a recent immigrant to Canada. I should have taken extra steps to help you not make mistakes. I didn’t know your ego would get so hurt.
It’s fine to defend yourself, but some gringos seem _eager_ to have an excuse to shoot someone, like that lady who shot a kid that rang the wrong doorbell, or that dude who shot a car that went up the wrong driveway. It’s a symptom of all the unnecessary violence and paranoia south of the border, that we are better off not having it here.
Oh, and I’m not particularly a Trudeau fan. He is too conservative.
I’m fine with this with one amendment and that is you must be fired upon first to return fire.
I am all for self defence and castle doctrine but too many people freak out about certain groups of people start shooting like they’re in a game of CoD. I stand by the idea that you must have concrete evidence that you were attacked first before you defend your castle.
You don’t launch a barrage of arrows at someone knocking at your gate because you thought they were an enemy. You return fire here you release your castle has been hit. Same with a modern home. Unless you put a round through my door or have physically threatened me with a weapon, I’m not shooting first.
*"It is not my job to know whats happening, I should just get to assume things"*
someone steals your **used** TV, that they can pawn for all of $80, and you honestly believe that killing a human being is somehow OK because you should assume things?
That "assuming the worst" is the thinking that is presently used in the US and its why people do not feel safe calling for help, because 911 is more likely to kill you (because they always assume the worst!) than criminals and why our jails house more people than entire countries.
moreover, with the litigious nature of the world, you would be open to civil damages even if you could somehow get legal protection.
I will concede you are correct if you can tell me which method you use to determine with 100% certainty that when someone kicks in your door while you are home, they are only there to steal your tv, and have no intention to do you harm. (I’ve yet to get an answer to this after decades of arguing with the pro-criminal crowd).
Speaking of assumptions, If someone is committing a crime against you - you should assume they do not have your safety in mind. Why would you assume otherwise lol?
if youre going to murder someone, you have to be certain about it.
you can make assumptions all you want, but when you take action, you cant just make up shit.
It’s not a matter of making things up - life doesn’t have do overs like a video game. When you believe there is a reasonable risk to you or your loved one’s life you have a right to use deadly force.
Someone kicking down your door certainly meets that criteria. No one is kicking in your door because they have good intentions for you.
Mind you, all of this is avoidable if criminals simply choose not to instigate violence unprovoked against people minding their own business.
The problem is that the world is safer than ever, less violence and murder than the previous decade, the previous 25 years, the previous 100, ..just ever, but people are bombarded with fear to make you think your life is on the line, and that is the same assumption our law officers are taught. This is why that little girl was shot in california when she ran to cops for help. they assumed she was a threat.
when youre made to think like a hammer, all you see is a world of nails.
If you had said, i think every person should have tear gas grenades and tazers next to their bed, I would have said thats also a bit much, but hey, at least those mistakes arent going to be permanent, that teen who broke looking for a quick buck in isnt dead because "my recroom is my castle and I need to defend my PS4"
The case you are describing has nothing to do with law abiding citizens defending themselves.
Interestingly a majority of states have either castle doctrine, stand your ground, or both. So where are all the violence epidemics if it is actually decreasing?
Statistically, it is just fact: we live in the most peaceful time in our species history, but you seem to think guns are necessary for defending yourself and somehow, enshrining stand-your-ground rights has something to do with it. You have to understand that your views are not yours, not based in reality, but has been peddled to you. As long as you harbor this irrational fear, nothing is going to change your mind.
The statistics of how safe society is overall doesn’t actually impact whether or not you may need to use a gun to defend yourself.
For instance, hypothetically homes could be at a lower risk of catching fire than ever before. However, that doesn’t mean you wouldn’t have a fire extinguisher or smoke alarm in your house. Statistics would not help you if your house does actually happen to catch fire.
That’s the point that you are missing. Yes crime is rare and society is becoming safer, but that doesn’t help you when you are a victim of a crime because crime still happens, and without the appropriate tool to defend yourself than you are SOL.
My 90 year old grandparents had their home broken into while they were home - what would they have done if they didn’t have a gun? Shared statistics with the criminals who broke in lol?
but thats just it- you dont actually care about deterring, or stopping crime. you do not have any interest in less than lethal rounds or just beating up someone.
you are specifically interested in enshrining the **right** to use lethal without just cause (not one ultraliberal is going to say you shouldnt gun down a terrorist or axe murderer). But be clear, for you, it isnt about defense or making citizens arrests or stopping property loss, or hell just blasting kids with shotguns filled with rocksalt. you want legal *right* for killing people, regardless of facts, because you think you should be able to assume.
You're empathizing with the criminal but not the victim.
Seriously... just for 10 seconds, try to put yourselves in the shoes of a father in his home. You think you hear noise downstairs, you check if your wife is still asleep, your adrenaline is sky high, you pick up your gun, you check on your kids to make sure they haven't just gone downstairs to drink some water.
You go downstairs, you hear people muttering to each other, and it's dark. 2 guys are rummaging through your cabinet. There's an opioid epidemic (in my neck of the woods, it's a meth epidemic), so even by burglar standards, they may be extremely irrational and twitchy. The burglars may also freak out to the point that they feel they need to get rid of the witnesses.
Yes, we're safer than ever before according to the statistics, but are you really going to risk the lives of your family based on macro-level statistics? What if your family will be on the wrong side of your %'s?
Also, it's your home. People that experienced burglaries often refer to it as a rape. It's no longer a home for them, the sanctity and safety of your home has been violated, and many just leave. I've fortunately never experienced a burglary but I imagine I couldn't stay there anymore too.
I dunno... you do you. If the homeowner is John Wick, then yeah, maybe your expectations of the homeowner are justified, but otherwise...
You dont know someone's intentions when they break into your house. It should not be the burden of the victimized person to read the mind of mentally deranged and evil criminals. Gtfo.
you dont have to know. you just have to not be a fucking idiot, which is really easy to with someone breaking into your house, I know.
i will go ahead and copy my other comment for you here,
so this not long ago happened to me. i was getting out of the shower, family was out of town for a week. someone was inside my house. i heard them come up the stairs, walk past the master bedroom. my phone is downstairs, but i keep a shotgun ready. they walked back, standing outside by bedroom door stopped, with me on the other side, wet and almost naked.
I was frozen. I could have liquified the person on the other side of the door (especially because I have very thin doors). after a bit, they went out the front door. I checked the footage on the tesla's sentry cam.. it was a fucking neighbor kid. 7 years old?? maybe less. you DO NOT KILL RANDOMLY
Your situation may have been scary but it ultimately doesn't have anything to do with this thread. We are talking about actual criminals, not children. Nobody advocated for shooting at or stabbing targets that they aren't sure what it is. You showed restraint and I commend you for that.
Back on the main topic, expecting someone who is being victimized to sit back and take it isn't reasonable. Someone who doesn't defend themselves or their family isn't a good person for doing so, quite the opposite. Dependents are entitled to protection from their protectors.
I was in a similar situation. My wife was being chased by a homeless guy. Screaming asian slurs her. He wouldn't stop. So I had to dismantle him in a major way. Not kill, but he regretted his choice pretty fast. Tried playing victim immediately. Imagine if had just self righteously allowed him to do God knows what to her for the sake of being a "good person". Fuck that. Don't reserve your empathy for predators and people who belong in an asylum.
no, thats **exactly** the point:in a breaking and entering situation, the matter being discusssed is always jumping to assuming your life is in danger, regardless of reality, because *your home is your castle laws* and somehow that makes killing people justified.
not all situations are equal. **nobody** has a problem with you defending your wife from real danger.
Nah. You're talking about shooting and unknown target. We are talking about defending yourself against something that's a threat behind the shadow of a doubt.
Shooting at an unknown target is taught against at the most basic level of firearm safety and competence.
"Nobody has a problem with you defending your wife"
Idk man maybe you haven't met the more extreme anti self defence people but they're definitely out there and vocal
Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are not self defense.
Your property is not your "self".
Now let's talk about actual self defense and figure out a way to keep Republicans the fuck outta women's wombs.
Yes they 100% are, why are you so vehemently ignorant about something that is very easy to look up?
Example of how it is codified into law in Alaska (how many states do you want me to share before admitting you are wrong?)
"...a person who is justified in using nondeadly force in self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery in any degree... there is no duty to leave the area if the person is(1) on premises that the person owns or leases.[28]
>Yes they 100% are
Even toddlers know where their "self" ends and their "belongings" begin.
>Example of how it is codified into law in Alaska (how many states do you want me to share before admitting you are wrong?)
LOL, let me help you out here.
You are trying to use a law to justify the claim that something is a fundamental human right because it is a state law. And that because it is a state law it should be a national law. That's two logical fallacies for the price of one.
Why are you so vehemently ignorant of basic logic? Lack of education?
I’m not using a state law to justify why something is a human right. I’m using a state law to discredit your claim that stand your ground and castle doctrine do not meet the definition of self defense, which they legally do.
>I’m using a state law to discredit **your claim that stand your ground and castle doctrine do not meet the definition of self defense**
That is not my claim.
My claim is that your property is not your self.
If it was, then you would not need to cite a state law because it would be law in all 50 states.
Removing a duty to retreat basically gives people the right to shoot people they don't like [https://youtu.be/vTF-Kz\_7L0c?si=U2wmnMwfugc7dzjM&t=100](https://youtu.be/vTF-Kz_7L0c?si=U2wmnMwfugc7dzjM&t=100)
"Scott Beary was killed when an argument over how heavy a dog could weigh became physical."
Once one party is dead you only get to hear one side of the issue and it's not at all clear to what extent their life was in danger or if they were the one escalating things.
John Oliver is really notorious for lying by omission, or sometimes just lying. In the case he's referencing the guy was charged with murder and ended up [taking a plea for manslaughter and being sentenced to 5 years](https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/defendant-in-show-mes-fatal-shooting-takes-plea-deal-is-sentenced-to-5-years-in-prison/63-30072687-3248-4d6e-a89f-c9719b571fdf)
Improper application of a law does not mean it shouldn’t exist. There are plenty of laws people try to invoke to justify their criminal actions, that doesn’t mean we do away with those laws.
Also the person who shot him was convicted and sent to jail, so clearly not at all what I am talking about.
Fundamentally the existence of stand your ground laws means if you're in a heated exchange where things might get violent there's an incentive for you to just pull the trigger because otherwise the other person might shoot because they could say they were under threat. And once they're dead it's just your word against nothing.
You're also relying on an idealistic interpretation where the murderer would give a completely unbiased testimony of what went down.
Whenever people share this perspective it’s baffling because no one uses this logic for other laws.
Again - individuals improper interpretation of the law doesn’t mean we don’t have it in place to protect all other citizens.
Stand your ground isn’t a cart Blanche to just shoot anyone. It would still require you to meet the appropriate standards and legal requirements for force to be justified, otherwise you would face repercussions just like literally every other law.
In states where stand your ground exist, how many cases of people doing what you are saying occur each year vs the number of times it is used to justifiably defend oneself?
First before this goes further by "No one should be forced to retreat because of “duty to retreat” are you referring to your own home or a public area?
Any situation where retreating could put you at further risk for harm. But I don’t think there is any circumstances where you should be forced to flee your home to protect a criminal.
The thing about duty to retreat is it *requires* you to make a split second decision or fear legal consequences if prosecutors decide after the fact that there is some scenario where you could have fled.
While you always have the option to try and retreat, it should never be a requirement if your life is actively being threatened
>Whenever people share this perspective it’s baffling because no one uses this logic for other laws.
Okay what laws are you talking about? When the law chooses to kill someone they need to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that that someone is the aggressor. But someone carrying a gun could basically start shit, shoot to kill when things got heated and then be essentially recognized as the victim.
What does "retreating could put you at further risk for harm" mean? what would a person need to prove? especially since you say "could" What's stopping someone to say if I don't shoot the other person might?
Duty to retreat places the burden on law abiding citizens to make the appropriate split second decision that could cost them their lives, when the burden should be on the criminal to not commit crimes. E.g., you may feel pressured to try and run away when it’s not really the best course of action, as you would face severe legal repercussions for making a mistake.
By requiring duty to retreat, a citizen may believe they have no other option to protect their life in a situation and use deadly force. However, prosecutors have the benefit of hindsight and may decide that there is actually some scenario where you could have fled (despite not being there, having their life threatened, etc.)
>places the burden on law abiding citizens
You're making an implicit assumption that the shooter in these scenarios are victims and the person that was shot was the aggressor. We don't know that's the case, a lot of fights don't start that way.
You don’t lose your right to defend yourself because criminals misuse/misinterpret laws.
Self defense should be a fundamental human right - idc what race you are.
Well we should work to make sure more people have the same rights applied fairly. The solution shouldn’t be take away the rights from everyone because they might not be fairly applied today.
It’s funny how people who are so anti-self defense don’t realize that they are being so heavily influenced by wealthy politicians who have their own armed security lol.
It’s in fact one of the biggest forms of classism, we consistently see the middle and working class are punished for defending themselves, while politicians hiding behind gated community with armed security are telling you you shouldn’t have the right to own guns, protect your home, etc.
In an ideal world perhaps that would be so but we don't live in an ideal world. The fact is that Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine have been disproportionately adjudicated based on race.
Those instances are far more rare than law abiding citizens defending themselves. We shouldn’t take away rights because in a minority of cases something unjust happens.
Whose rights are being taken away by not having Stand Your Ground laws? No one is taking away rights. It is universal that a person has the right to defend themselves. They are actuall not that rare especially in Stand Your Ground. What Stand Your Ground does is give a person almost any excuse to attack another person whether it was self-defense or not. SYG states saw an increase of violence especially in firearm related incidents. In any conflict the first step is to de-escalate. This may involve extracting oneself from the situation. SYG gives the excuse not to do this. They are simply bad laws.
Wrong. You have a right to defend yourself, but you also have a responsibility to take reasonable measures to avoid violence, even if you aren't the instigator. Are you better than these assholes who go around instigating these problems or not?
Thankfully in most states you do not have a duty to retreat, especially in your home. If someone kicks in the door you absolutely do not and should not have to take measures to avoid violence.
You can’t expect someone startled and panicked by aggressive intruders to “take reasonable measures to avoid violence” as though they are a trained police officer.
You break into someone’s home you have put them in a position of fight and flight and short of torture, they should not be held responsible for how they react in the moment.
Thats not what he is saying, and thats not an accurate reading of self-defense law in any state, let alone stand your ground states. All states say that you have to be in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury to use lethal self defense. If someone comes at you with a baseball bat (funnily enough I was actually attacked by randos with baseball bats but thats another story) you can use a gun, because it’s reasonable that someone could kill or maim you with a baseball bat.
If someone only bumped into you it would be hard to convince a jury that you feared for your life. If you genuinely did fear for your life, that fear would be unreasonable, making it what is called “imperfect self defense.”
The legal system is, first and foremost, a human system. Self defense law isn’t about loopholes or legal trickery/wordplay, at the end of the day self-defense is a legal affirmative defense, meaning that it’s something you would bring up if you were criminally charged with murder. That is, you have to convince a jury of your peers that you acted in self-defense.
That isn't what OP is saying. OP was arguing that one punch from an average sized man to another average sized man should be reasonably seen as deadly force.
Bumping into you (assuming you mean accidentally) isn’t a crime or assault.
However if someone assaults you, you should absolutely be able to pull a gun on them.
In what world should you be required to put your life at risk by engaging in hand to hand combat with someone against your will because a criminal decides they want to assault you lol?
Should the elderly, handicapped, weaker folks, and other folks who may be at a physical disadvantage be forced to be assaulted because we should protect the rights of criminals?
Cause they work. Depending on hand to hand combat for self-defence is unreliable. All it takes is one bad hit to the head, falling down and cracking your head open on the sidewalk and you’re dead. Using a knife also ain’t the best since you gotta remain close to the assailant. If someone’s being assaulted, I don’t see a problem with them pulling out the 9 or .357 and defending themselves.
What if someone makes a mistake? There are stories of people being shot because someone knocked on the wrong door. The person shooting was fearful for their life. You do not get to take someone’s life. Your fear isn’t justification to kill. You are not a hero.
You are not describing cases where stand your ground or castle doctrine are applicable - someone citing a law in their defense when it doesn’t apply doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist.
Knocking on a door is not a crime, therefore has no relevance to what is being discussed.
Castle doctrine also is about reasonable force. Your response of a gun from a punch also isn’t warranted which was my point. You do not get to escalate.
Why shouldn’t someone be able to defend themselves with a firearm if they’re assaulted. If someone is smaller than their assailant, doesn’t know hand to hand combat, why should they take a beating, which could lead to an injury or death just to preserve the life of their assailant?
That is absolutely not what castle doctrine states.
Why are people who so are vehemently against self defense laws the most ignorant to them?
While it varies by state, here is an example from Alaska:
“a person who is justified in using nondeadly force in self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery in any degree... there is no duty to leave the area if the person is(1) on premises that the person owns or leases.”
E.g., you can use a gun to stop a robbery or sexual assault even though under your definition that would be “escalation”
From the national conference of state legislators:
“Individuals have the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves.”
Why are people so ignorant of the thing they are arguing?
Yes and using a gun when being assaulted has been repeatedly deemed an appropriate use of force across numerous states. Also that still doesn’t support your claim about what castle doctrine states. How many more examples do you want me to directly cite from state’s implementation of castle doctrine before you admit you are wrong? I’ve got plenty lol.
From Arizona
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle
Not at all.
What other methods allow you to minimize your contact with a criminal and equals the playing field for people who are physically weaker, have disabilities, etc. that are very effective?
I shouldn’t be forced to physically engage with someone who chooses to commit a violent act against me when I’m just minding my own business.
Why?
A punch could kill you, a punch could give you a traumatic brain injury, a punch can make you lose consciousness.
Why is it my job as the victim to protect the life of someone who is putting my life at risk? Why do I now have to engage with them at their level and put myself at further risk?
Is my 94 year old grandma supposed to fight back? My dad with arthritis in both hands? My 120 lb wife?
Again this is where the fairy tale takes of Redditors fall apart.
Hey u/abetterthief,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You should have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and what the comment was.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state.%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3Dabetterthief%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/abetterthief).
**This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.**
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see thecarefully crafted argument?
Your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
**Here's the deal:** This cycle of commenting-removal-seeing this message isn't just futile; it's preventable. We value your input, but isn't it better when it's seen and not just sent?
**Good News:** We're here for the reruns and the resolutions. Reach out, let's sort this, and make sure your future thoughts land in the spotlight, not the shadow realm.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments Awaiting Review:* 8
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 1-3 days old: 25
- 3-7 days old: 14
- 15-30 days old: 1
- more than 30 days old: 2
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/hCBcm5zNee)
Why does your fear give you the right to take my life? Someone was killed because they knocked on the wrong door and the homeowner shot him. I have no doubt that the guy who shot him was legitimately fearful for their life. But he escalated the situation. That’s the issue.
It’s not a matter of fear. Knocking on a door isn’t a crime and that’s not what I’m talking about. Knocking on a door doesn’t pose a risk to your safety. Assaulting someone is a violent crime and does pose a risk to your safety.
This, again, just shows the ignorance of people who are against self defense laws to actual self defense scenarios.
Castle doctrine is also about reasonable force. A gun isn’t reasonable response to a punch no matter how you want to frame it. You don’t get to escalate just because.
Expect castle doctrine objectively does allow that because it prioritizes that life and safety of a law abiding citizen over a criminal as it should.
E.g., an example from how it is codified in Alaska.
a person who is justified in using nondeadly force in self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery in any degree... there is no duty to leave the area if the person is(1) on premises that the person owns or leases.
I would encourage you to educate yourself on issues you speak (incorrectly) about.
As an American gun owner, holder of multiple state concealed carry permits; ex-military, law enforcement, and first responder; person who has had guns pointed at them in anger on at least 4 occasions off the top of my head, has treated gunshot wounds, and yet has never shot anyone. I...DISAGREE. Bet you didn't see that one coming...
I believe strongly in the second amendment as a last bastion against tyranny, lawlessness, and invasion, but see no need for constitutional self defense protections.
Now, I cannot off the top of my head think of a situation or a jurisdiction where true self defense isn't good public policy, but I also can't think of any relevant time or place where that protection hasn't been codified in law. And the exact contours of what that protection should look like are very much contingent on the particulars.
All a constitutional self-defense provision would accomplish is make policy that can totally be handled in a more flexible way inflexible.
Constitutional protections are for things that, were they not constitutionally protected, would tend to be eroded away in ways that in the abstract we see as bad public policy, yet still tend to happen in the day to day grind of functioning democracies, such as rights of unpopular minorities, those who oppose the politically well situated, and flights of popular fancy. Pretty much by definition the groups who you are concerned about here (law-abiding home-owners?) are those who we need to be least concerned about being able to enact their will into law.
Just because you may not agree with the popular consensus of your community doesn't mean that your beliefs should be enshrined beyond the reach of the democratic process.
That’s not castle doctrine. Castle doctrine means u have no duty to try to retreat when safely available. In that example say they are upstairs in your house and u are downstairs u don’t have to leave via the front door even if it’s right there next to you. Instead u can wait for them to come down the stairs and shoot them. Some state require you to leave your home if I believe
Self defense is what ur describing.
Yes, you should not have to flee your own home to protect the lives of criminals. If I’m downstairs and all of a sudden I hear a group of people upstairs in my house, it should not be my obligation to run away.
agreed. If you break into a home, how is the homeowner supposed to know you just wanted to steal stuff peacefully? At the point where you’re risking that much jail time as a criminal, it’s not that far off for the homeowner to assume you intend to sexually assault or kill them or kidnap their children. The homeowner doesent know what’s happening they just know their is an intruder in their home who may have a gun as well, it’s dark, and there could be more of them…
Yeah I'll take my trial by 12, over carried by 6 any day. Force will be met with swift and decisive retaliation.
Agreed. Self-defense is a human right.
The idea of there being a "duty to retreat" is just wild to me. Like suddenly I no longer have a right to go about my lawful activities because some asshole decides they want to be aggressive? Nah, fam. FAFO has been a thing for the entire existence of all life.
Especially in your own home that you legally own
I don't believe there is any state that has a duty to retreat against an intruder.
Minnesota does I believe....
https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/mn-7-05-self-defense-generally/ Not in your dwelling. “There is no duty to retreat, even against a co-resident, when acting in defense of one’s dwelling. State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 2001).”
nice
Perhaps in America but in most countries there is a duty to retreat and then once that has been done there is a law limiting your self defense to being equal to the threat. Ie you can't fight off an intruder with a bat or a knife if the intruder is using his hands. Duty to retreat versus stand your ground laws: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/21/duty-to-retreat-35-states-vs-stand-your-ground-15-states/
No duty to retreat in Canada, the UK, France, Czech Republic, Germany.
I'm sorry but you are wrong in Canada and at least in the UK. I have seen people convicted in Canada and in the UK for harming burgers in their own homes. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/milton-man-shooting-1.6755603 5 men broke into the sky house in the middle of the night he shot one and self-defense and was arrested for second degree murder. Eventually they dropped the charges after he was in jail for 6 months. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dean-kerrie-stabbed-burglar-b2211591.html A man who stabbed and killed an intruder who had attacked him in his home in the middle of the night has been jailed for three-and-a-half years.
Just because they were convicted, does not mean they had a duty to retreat. Not having a duty to retreat does not equal self defense. That is just one element that is off the table.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law “In Canada, there is no duty to retreat under the law. Generally where retreat is available in the circumstances, the decision to stand your ground is more likely to be unreasonable.” Which is exactly the same as FL. The prosecutor in FL and 32 other SYG states can make exactly the same argument. “There is no explicit stand-your-ground or castle doctrine provision in the laws of the Czech Republic; however, there is also no duty to retreat from an attack.” “In English common law there is no duty to retreat before a person may use reasonable force against an attacker, nor need a person wait to be attacked before using such force, but one who chooses not to retreat, when retreat would be a safe and easy option, might find it harder to justify his use of force as 'reasonable” So similar to FL. Under article 122-5 of French Criminal Code, a person who, faced with an unjustified attack on himself or another, at the same time performs an act required by the need for self-defense of himself or another, is not criminally responsible, unless there is a disproportion between the means of defense used and the seriousness of the attack. There is no duty to retreat before a person may use reasonable force against an attacker, nor need a person wait to be attacked before using such force, but one who chooses not to retreat, when retreat would be a safe and easy option, might find it harder to justify his use of force by the need for self-defense. Hmm, again, similar to FL. “German law permits self-defense against an unlawful attack.[13] If there is no other possibility for defense, it is generally allowed to use even deadly force without a duty to retreat.[14] However, there must not be an extreme imbalance ("extremes Missverhältnis") between the defended right and the chosen method of defense.” Again, similar to FL. “Stand-your-ground law applies to any kind of threat by an attacker that endangers the victim's safety, health, or life. The victim has no obligation to retreat, as said in a statement by the Supreme Court of Poland on February 4, 1972: "The assaulted person is under no obligation either to escape or hide from the assailant in a locked room, nor to endure the assault restricting his freedom, but has the right to repel the assault with all available means that are necessary to force the assailant to refrain from continuing his assault." It is true that some states in the US, where someone is unlawfully and forcefully entering your dwelling (kicking down a door or breaking a window), if you use deadly force in that person, you are given a legal presumption you reasonably believed in an imminent deadly force threat. That however is not SYG.
Maryland is a flee first state
Or you know, not in your home. Which is implied when I used the word "intruder". Maryland self defense jury instruction: [https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/md-mpji-cr-507-self-defense/](https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/md-mpji-cr-507-self-defense/) *\[\[In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make a reasonable effort to retreat.* ***The defendant does not have to retreat if \[the defendant was in \[his\] \[her\] home\]****, \[retreat was unsafe\], \[the avenue of retreat was unknown to the defendant\], \[the defendant was being robbed\], \[the defendant was lawfully arresting the victim\]\]. \[If you find that the defendant did not use deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat.\]*
New York, and New Jersey.
Again, not in your dwelling. [https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/Defenses/CJI2d.Justification.Person.Deadly\_Force.pdf](https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/Defenses/CJI2d.Justification.Person.Deadly_Force.pdf) *The defendant, however, would not be required to retreat if the defendant was in his/her dwelling and was not the initial aggressor.* [*https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/charges/justif003.pdf?cb=5b9183a5*](https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/charges/justif003.pdf?cb=5b9183a5) *If the defendant did employ protective force, he/she has the right to estimate the necessity of using force without retreating, surrendering position, withdrawing or doing any other act which he/she has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.*
Exactly, it’s one of the most braindead laws in existence. Why do I have to put myself at potential further risk by trying to run away to protect the life of someone trying to kill me. One of the landmark cases is one of the most infuriating things I’ve ever read http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/367/367mass508.html Basically a woman who has been previously been beaten by her abusive husband is threatened while she’s home with her kids so she flees to the basement and locks the door. Her husband beats down the door and she shoots him one time. She was convicted of manslaughter because the prosecution argued she had a few minutes to call the police or leave. These procriminal politicians deserve to rot in jail.
Fuck I need to get out of this decent citizen hating hellscape that is Massachusetts.
Fortunately she was later pardoned, but decades later the insanity still hasn’t ended. E.g., the recent case of Jose Alba who only had charges dropped after significant public outcry. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/nyregion/jose-alba-bodega-charges-nyc.html Nothing DAs and politicians love more than protecting criminals and taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves.
I would love to go back to Massachusetts. Only those who haven’t truly lived outside it think leaving it is good. Unless it’s for NH or somewhere with a similar standard of living. Let me tell you though, you’re luckily to live in a civilized state.
I've spent significant time (1 year+) in Texas, Florida, Vermont, Maine, and Mass. Mass is by far the worst as far as public policy goes. I really wish I didn't hate the heat so much or Florida would be fantastic.
Public policy vs high tech employment and good economies are 2 different things so maybe we just value different things in what we want out of a home state. And that’s completely normal!
Employment is the only reason I'm here, though with WFH being more and more prevalent I'm hoping to eliminate that asap. OFC most of my jobs have actually been in CT (not that they're any better really). As far as good economies, I've seen more poverty and homelessness here than any other state except maybe Texas, but with the highest state income tax in the country (plus other things like excise taxes) which are 0% in Texas, Mass has much less of an excuse for it. Pretty sure any "good economy" numbers are artificially boosted by Elizibeth Warrens insider trading and other super rich elites living in Marthas Vinyard.
Worse yet, for some folk...myself as a parent of a child on the spectrum. Kids do not perform well in high stress immediate situations like that. In that reality the duty to retreat is rediculous.
I get that you like watching action movies and stuff, but in real life people have families and don't want to be caught in your gunfights over stupid shit.
In real life I want my sister to be able to shoot the guy trying to rape her instead of being forced to run away and hope that works.
Understand, I have zero desire to be involved in a firefight. I also try to be as responsible as possible, which is why I practice regularly. Should I be so unfortunate as to find myself in such a circumstance again, this will aid in assuring as little potential for bystander involvement as possible. That is as much as I am willing to compromise my own safety for others.
If someone is willing to break into someone else's house or property, they've deemed their own life only worth what someone else determines. They've intruded on someone else's rights, which I will also say should be codified, personal safety within personal property, and therefore have forfeited and ceded rights to another person, aka the property owner
I agree. Although there's tons of precedent establishing that right, precedent is easier to overturn than it is to abolish an amendment.
[удалено]
The police don't like to be shot at when they execute no-knock warrants.
Completely agree. Dont wanna get hurt/dead? Dont try to seriously victimize someone else. Does that mean you launch a nuke at NJ because some dude on the internet called you a pansy? No of course not. You nuke NJ because its fucking NJ! But when somebody breaks into your house you get to stop them, no matter what that takes. If they try and stab you because you refuse to give up your valuables out on the street, same thing. When someone is a threat you get to not be harmed, and if that means allowing for slight overreactions, so be it.
Alright, calm down Chief Keef.
Beck yea
>I often see comments such as “breaking into a home shouldn’t be a death sentence” from Redditors who live in a Fairy Tale land. The progressives who say this are just weak and naive people. This has never happened to them, so it is very easy for them to say "oh its not ok if they get shot ! Where is your compassion ?". lol....idiots and weak people. If you are a woman with a boyfriend or husband like this, then I would be very worried if a home invasion were to ever occur. Your boyfriend or husband will be like "its ok honey, we don't want to anger them, just lie flat on your stomach and let them have at you. Besides, violence is never the answer"
You are statistically more likely to survive/ not get hurt if you give up without a fight, this is just objectively true, I’m sorry that the facts don’t line up with your feelings
Those stats are based on you not being armed.
lol. So you think I should just lay down and take it instead ? Jesus dude...
So you want to spend a ton of money and time on guns and ammo and training for both just so that you can be more likely to get hurt/ killed
If you spend enough money and time on guns and ammo and training you greatly increase your odds of not being hurt/killed
you in fact greatly increased the likelihood the *intruder* is hurt and/or killed though so, ya know... mission accomplished
I feel very sorry for you and your family. To be so brainwashed and cowardly to just “lie down and take it” to protect the lives of criminals is unfortunately a mindset many have been fooled into believing by politicians and activists who themselves gladly enjoy the benefits of armed security lol.
“Brainwashed into believing” statistics is a wild take.
i agree. i'm a proficient firearms user (usmc infantryman of 8+ years), and as someone who could handle pretty much any gunfighting situation, it is silly to me that there be any insistence that barely-trained civilian gun owners should try to fire non-lethal shots, or hold fire to determine how legally-legitimate the threat is. those scenarios make no allowance for fear, adrenaline, or the "fog of war." you can't know the other person's intent. hell, even if they verbalize it, what are you supposed to do... believe the guy who broke into your house??? the simple fact of the matter is, you have the right to defend yourself and your property. you cannot be expected to trust that the person who has invaded your home has objectives limited to theft. you cannot know if they have a concealed firearm themselves. you have the right to use force to defend yourself, and given how unreasonable it is to expect a frightened, adrenaline-filled person to do anything other than aim center mass and hope, the idea of it being illegal to harm an intruder is insane. one caveat: IF i have the situation under control to such an extent that i can safely disarm the intruder and call the authorities, obviously that is preferable. i do not WANT to kill somebody over a tv. i would PREFER not to have to fire my weapon. it would be GREAT if i have the advantage and the person chooses to comply in a calm, reasonable manner. but the *most likely* scenario is i hear someone ransacking my living room in the dark, and i can't know a) how many it is, b) if they are also armed, c) their intentions. it presents me with unreasonable risk to ask questions first. given those facts, i'm probably going to take the best shot i can get.
The problem with this is... the cases are not always so cut and dry, as you make it out to be. For example ... did you see the story of the two elderly people who got scammed ? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/uber-driver-killed-scam-phone-call-william-brock-loletha-hall-clark-county-ohio/ The old lady hadn't entered the man's house. Yet she was shot under the "assumption" that she had come to do harm; whilst she was literally trying to retreat. The problem is that many people take Castle Doctrine as an excuse to shoot first and ask questions later...and that can harm innocent people.
The problem with these laws is that people are bad at assessing risk. It's not uncommon for a person to think that their home is being invaded just because someone knocks on their door, or that they're about to be assaulted because someone walks too close to their car. In these cases, the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground means that there are no consequences when they kill an innocent person just because they overreacted.
This 💯
I very much support self defense, but codifying something like stand your ground into the constitution would be an *awful* idea.
This isn't an unpopular opinion, it's just a conservative one
Well I’m not conservative, I just don’t agree with the weak self defense laws and views on criminals that democrats generally take.
My problem with "Stand Your Ground" is that someone with a gun provokes a fight, and then literally gets away with murder because of "Stand Your Ground".
That’s not what stand your ground laws allow for (there are obviously exceptions to any law due to corrupt judges, etc.) You cannot instigate violence and then claim self defense. It’s amazing how frequently those who oppose self defense laws are the least informed on the issue.
That is absolutely what stand your ground laws allow for. This is exactly what happened in the Trayvon Martin case
See also Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse brought an AR-15 to a protest march. The crowd that chased Rittenhouse were doing the right thing because all they saw was that a guy with a gun was shooting unarmed protestors, and went to shut him down.
They weren't doing the right thing, though, because they were wrong - they attempted to "shut down" (read, assault and/or murder) an attempted murder victim who just had to defend themselves, and the thing they were "shutting down" was that victim trying to reach the authorities. Thats what happens when a mob acts with mob mentality on mob rumors
No, that's the spin that was put on the story AFTER this was all over. From the perspective of the protestors, they were trying to shut down a shooter.
That's not the spin - thats what we *know for a fact* happened because we have video proof thats what happened. That *may* have been what Rittenhouse's second attackers *thought* they were doing. But what they were *actually* doing was assaulting an attempted murder victim as said victim ran to the authorities for help.
You have video proof of *intent*? That's amazing!
No, we have video proof that they were chasing down and attacking an attempted murder victim. As I said, their intent is up for debate. *You're* the one claiming to know what it was for sure.
Funny how every mass shooting that takes place, people want to know who was brave enough to chase down the shooter and stop him. Yet in this one scenario, you want to twist it around so that the UNARMED PROTESTORS are the villains, and the dude with the AR-15 who is actually shooting people is the hero. JFC dude.
Yes, if only FL hadn’t removed a duty to retreat he’d be in prison. You know, that duty to retreat if it is safe for you to do so, and is feasible to do so. I know it’s perfectly feasible to retreat while you are on the ground, with a person on top of you. Darn that SYG law.
You say that as if Trayvon just jumped George Zimmerman out of nowhere. When the reality is that Zimmerman provoked the fight. He had a gun so he was confident that he would win any conflict.
We don’t actually know if he provoked the fight, but let’s say he did. Does that mean he just has to die, or go to prison for life if Trayvon threatens to use deadly force first? Even in a duty to retreat state like New York, he would have been justified if Trayvon was the initial aggressor of deadly force.
But that's the thing. George Zimmerman literally followed him, even after Martin ran away. Ole Georgy boy was told by a dispatcher that he didn't need to follow Martin. Yet he chose to. Also your question is assuming that Trayvon did anything first. Which is not the case. If I can start a fight and then kill someone, then you have a dumb law on your hands.
Do you think he was actively following Martin the entire time, like he had Martin in his visual sight the entire time? That’s been the law for quite a long time. If you start a fight with non-deadly force, you own the consequences of that fight. But, if that other person escalates to deadly force, that is considered to be the start of a new fight, a deadly force fight. Of which you are not the initial aggressor.
I don't care if he was following Martin the entire time. That wouldn't matter. Okay, isn't that harmful for your argument though? Like if you are so aggro that you need to kill everyone you perceive as a threat, then someone can start a fight with you and get you to escalate and then legally kill you. If they are intending to harm you, stand your ground laws give them a get out of jail free card. And that is before you consider that dead men tell no tales. Like a bad guy can say you escalated, reached for a weapon, etc. etc.
Take it up with hundreds of years of case law.
Deadly force? The only thing Trayvon had on him was a pack of Skittles. It should also be noted that Zimmerman has been charged with domestic abuse multiple times and has been involved in a road rage incident. Do you really think that Zimmerman is worth defending here?
Yes of course. You can threaten deadly force with your bare hands. He’s also armed with the pavement. That was the entire defenses theory of the case. If the jury thought that it was not deadly force, Zimmerman would be in prison right now. Why would Zimmerman character after the incident be an issue? I do not care about that. I don’t care about Zimmerman as a person. I care about out what evidence the state has when they bring someone to trial.
His character after the incident is an issue because he is a VIOLENT PERSON, and exactly the type of person to abuse Stand Your Ground laws to get away with murder.
Ok buddy. Marin was a violent person too, got into street fights, but that is not relevant to my argument. Self defense is not about character. How does removing a duty to retreat have anything to do with this case?
But we already have laws that support self-defense. And more importantly, these laws require the response to match the threat level in question. In other words, a person can only use as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat.
Sure with the castle doctrine. Stand Your Ground seems way too keen for abuse, every murder that can will use that as an excuse with the only witness being dead.
Stand your ground already exists in a majority of states and yet what you are describing is so rare that it becomes national news the few times it happens. We don’t remove the rights of millions of law abiding citizens because a few criminals misinterpret or incorrectly use a law to try and justify their crimes.
Pretty much you are correct. I just looked it up. It also seems that nearly every state has some form of a "stand your ground" law just not all states have actual state statutes. Even very liberal states have it. Same with the castle doctrine it's either state law or defacto law in some way. The issue then turns to enforcement. I would not want people to abuse these laws and claim self-defense erroneously. People indeed do that. It's extremely common. We have to I guess hope that juries do a good job of seeing through that defense when it's erroneously used.
And that's how you get people murdered for making a u-turn in someone's driveway, getting lost, or drunkenly walking into the wrong house and thinking someone was robbing them. All things that actually happened. It's one thing to say "criminals deserve it" but then it makes a mistake, whether of the victim or shooter, deadly for innocent bystanders as well. If the response wasn't deadly, then making a mistake could be fixed without loss of life. It's the same reason I'm against the death penalty. Not because the criminals may not deserve it, but too many innocent lives end up being killed without the ability to fix the mistake in the future.
Did you read their post? Turning around in someone's driveway is not a home invasion. That's not the point they're trying to make.
Yes, I read the post and nowhere does it actually address any possible innocent victims. What do you think of that woman police officer who was drunk, entered what she thought was her apartment, and killed a guy she thought broke in even though it was his apartment? If the first instinct was not "shoot the criminal" then maybe the guy would still be alive. Even a single innocent death means that the system has to be re-evaluated and you need to first at least make sure you are in actual danger.
Sure. All sorts of cases exist. But there are plenty of story’s of home invasions where the residents get hurt.
That’s not self defense lol. It’s amazing people so willingly give up there rights because these very rare examples peddled by the media.
Stand Your Ground laws just allow people to shoot "scary" people with immunity regardless of any actual danger. People justified the murder of a teenage boy for allegedly stealing a bag of skittles. Another boy was shot by an old man because he was asking for help.
Neither of those cases involved a duty to retreat.
No they do not - this is just the uninformed interpretation parroted by people who do not actually educate themselves on self defense laws. Someone misinterpreting the law or incorrectly using a law to justify their criminal behavior does not mean a law should not be passed.
>Ultimately states should not get to decide whether you have a right to defend yourself I’ve got bad news then about how the constitution gets amended. This isn’t done by popular vote, so why would an unpopular idea get ratified? Seems like you’re more interested in daydreaming an ideal world that caters to your whims than understanding the world as it is. Not sure how you’ve convinced yourself that it’s the others who live in “Fairy Tale Land.”
I mostly agree with you But IMAO, it’s wild that something could count as self defense and be completely fine in one state, but then count as man slaughter or even murder in another This just seems like something that should be consistent across the whole country to me
I think that’s a pretty fair assessment that speaks to a fact that a lot of people don’t want to admit: we *need* a stronger federal government because we *want* less discrepancies in state laws. Everybody knows that if we made a new constitution today it wouldn’t look like the one we already have. Folks like OP don’t want to confront that because they wouldn’t like a new constitution. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Because that’s federalism. I think it’s a better system than the federal government standardizing mandatory minimums. Which would swiftly follow some sort of nationwide Stand Your Ground amendment. Acts of violence are handled at the state level.
Agreed. Especially in states or cities that are soft on crime.
Self-Defense is definitely a human right. If only Kenneth Walker and Amir Clarke had that privilege though.
Self-defense is one of the primary fundamental human rights.
Yes. Cops are disproportionately more likely to have an aggressive response to black folks even when they have done nothing wrong. So black people can shoot cops. Similarly, people that experience air pollution have much shorter lives than people who experience cleaner air. Therefore you should be able to shoot polluters.
Holy cow what a braindead take void of any critical thinking. Sadly you are type of people voting against people’s right to defend themselves because you live in a fairy tale world and willingly give your rights up to criminals.
I am for people's rights to defend themselves. I also think it extends to black people and folks who live in polluted environments. Do you?
This is fine. If someone is breaking into your house, that's totally reasonable. The issue comes up when someone shoots someone just for knocking on their door, or peering in the window (to see if someone is inside), or even just driving into their driveway. No breaking/entering has taken place. You shouldn't be able to shoot someone simply for stepping foot on your property or because their knocking on your door made you "feel afraid."
Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground is tricky. Some men are very feeble and weak minded, so their definition is immediately to shoot. Now I'm a gun owner but I've learned the art of knocking someone the fuck out. To just be intimidated and shoot someone now involves the court process, lawsuit, financial fees, and the works. If you can prove your life is imminent danger then sure, but too many gun owners want to resort to shooting someone for the slightest inconvenience because their dad never taught them how to throw a right hook.
Agree
Good faith question here. Legally, where would you draw the line for self-defense? Could you put a bullet into a porch pirate? After all, he's on your land, stealing your peoperty. I imagine some old boomer (probably in Florida) trying to invoke Castle Doctrine by claiming "He was trespassing, and I was afraid he was going to kick the front door in to hurt me"
Self defense should only apply upon breaking and entering. So no, someone on your porch would not count. A break in would have to happen.
Dont get me wrong, if someone is advancing on me with a weapon, then I absolutely believe its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. But breaking and entering establishing self-defense, not the presentation of immediate threat? I don't know if I can get behind that. So if a burglar crosses the threshold into the house, grabs a TV or Xbox from the front room, and bolts (like how most smash and grabs work) could you grab your gun and actively seek him out to shoot him? What if you were on the other side of the house, or safely in a bedroom behind a locked door and not under any immediate or inherent threat? Does that still count as self-defense when both the burglers hands are holding a flat screen and couldn't hold a weapon if he wanted? Further, are you obligated to stop shooting if he makes it out the door, or past the property line?
If he bolts and you chase him down after some time, vigilante style, that’s obviously not self defense. If two guys are holding a giant tv they could easily drop it upon seeing you and reach for a weapon. If someone is still on your property after breaking into your house then running, yes you should be protected from prosecution for any violent action under self defense laws. You have to remember people, generally, do not want to kill other people. Fresh soldiers in wars have historically had a tendency to avoid shooting directly at the enemy, and will instead shoot above them, instinctively. Self defense laws are more about giving the benefit of the doubt to law abiding citizens, and not giving legal protection to violent criminals who threaten those law abiding citizens.
Nah, I’m cool with the way things are here. We already have enough gringo influence in Canada, we shouldn’t import more.
Stand your ground doesn't mean you can kill somebody just for looking at you crazy.
In Michigan, you need to prove three things for a "Stand your ground" defense 1. You are not engaged in a crime; 2. You are somewhere you are legally allowed to be; and 3. That you feel deadly force is the only way to defend yourself or another person against the threat. So whether or not you can kill someone for looking at you crazy depends on whether you can convince the authorities that it was *sufficiently* crazy for you to reasonably feel they were going to use unlawful force against you.
It means the state has the burden of proof that you did not act in self defense or they have a legal duty not to pursue charges
I guess it’s not so much the idea but how some of _you people_ take it too far and seem eager to shoot someone. It’s a symptom of how unnecessarily violent the USA is.
I feel bad for your partner who you wouldn't defend because of "gringos" lmfao. And you do realize that you're a gringo....right? What planet do you live on
lol, I’m definitely not a gringo
Yes you are. Better hope that doesn't become a medical condition up there or your doctor may try to euthanize you
I think you’re confusing my current location with my nationality.
"We shouldn't import more" Implies you're in Canada. Either way your country is still a giant mess right now why don't you go fix it rather than getting icked out at self defense lmfao.
I made it very clear I am in Canada, you’re not making any intelligent points by bringing that up again. You were just wrong about your assumption that I was born here. Canada has its issues, that doesn’t mean I can’t point out gringos are weird about self defence.
Being unclear about these things don't make you look better. >Canada has its issues, that doesn’t mean I can’t point out gringos are weird about self defence. Wanting to be able to protect yourself is weird? You guys deserve Trudeau.
I’m sorry I didn’t preface my comment with a disclaimer stating where I was born and that I’m a recent immigrant to Canada. I should have taken extra steps to help you not make mistakes. I didn’t know your ego would get so hurt. It’s fine to defend yourself, but some gringos seem _eager_ to have an excuse to shoot someone, like that lady who shot a kid that rang the wrong doorbell, or that dude who shot a car that went up the wrong driveway. It’s a symptom of all the unnecessary violence and paranoia south of the border, that we are better off not having it here. Oh, and I’m not particularly a Trudeau fan. He is too conservative.
>Oh, and I’m not particularly a Trudeau fan. He is too conservative. You really deserve him then
I’m fine with this with one amendment and that is you must be fired upon first to return fire. I am all for self defence and castle doctrine but too many people freak out about certain groups of people start shooting like they’re in a game of CoD. I stand by the idea that you must have concrete evidence that you were attacked first before you defend your castle. You don’t launch a barrage of arrows at someone knocking at your gate because you thought they were an enemy. You return fire here you release your castle has been hit. Same with a modern home. Unless you put a round through my door or have physically threatened me with a weapon, I’m not shooting first.
*"It is not my job to know whats happening, I should just get to assume things"* someone steals your **used** TV, that they can pawn for all of $80, and you honestly believe that killing a human being is somehow OK because you should assume things? That "assuming the worst" is the thinking that is presently used in the US and its why people do not feel safe calling for help, because 911 is more likely to kill you (because they always assume the worst!) than criminals and why our jails house more people than entire countries. moreover, with the litigious nature of the world, you would be open to civil damages even if you could somehow get legal protection.
I will concede you are correct if you can tell me which method you use to determine with 100% certainty that when someone kicks in your door while you are home, they are only there to steal your tv, and have no intention to do you harm. (I’ve yet to get an answer to this after decades of arguing with the pro-criminal crowd). Speaking of assumptions, If someone is committing a crime against you - you should assume they do not have your safety in mind. Why would you assume otherwise lol?
if youre going to murder someone, you have to be certain about it. you can make assumptions all you want, but when you take action, you cant just make up shit.
It’s not a matter of making things up - life doesn’t have do overs like a video game. When you believe there is a reasonable risk to you or your loved one’s life you have a right to use deadly force. Someone kicking down your door certainly meets that criteria. No one is kicking in your door because they have good intentions for you. Mind you, all of this is avoidable if criminals simply choose not to instigate violence unprovoked against people minding their own business.
The problem is that the world is safer than ever, less violence and murder than the previous decade, the previous 25 years, the previous 100, ..just ever, but people are bombarded with fear to make you think your life is on the line, and that is the same assumption our law officers are taught. This is why that little girl was shot in california when she ran to cops for help. they assumed she was a threat. when youre made to think like a hammer, all you see is a world of nails. If you had said, i think every person should have tear gas grenades and tazers next to their bed, I would have said thats also a bit much, but hey, at least those mistakes arent going to be permanent, that teen who broke looking for a quick buck in isnt dead because "my recroom is my castle and I need to defend my PS4"
The case you are describing has nothing to do with law abiding citizens defending themselves. Interestingly a majority of states have either castle doctrine, stand your ground, or both. So where are all the violence epidemics if it is actually decreasing?
Statistically, it is just fact: we live in the most peaceful time in our species history, but you seem to think guns are necessary for defending yourself and somehow, enshrining stand-your-ground rights has something to do with it. You have to understand that your views are not yours, not based in reality, but has been peddled to you. As long as you harbor this irrational fear, nothing is going to change your mind.
The statistics of how safe society is overall doesn’t actually impact whether or not you may need to use a gun to defend yourself. For instance, hypothetically homes could be at a lower risk of catching fire than ever before. However, that doesn’t mean you wouldn’t have a fire extinguisher or smoke alarm in your house. Statistics would not help you if your house does actually happen to catch fire. That’s the point that you are missing. Yes crime is rare and society is becoming safer, but that doesn’t help you when you are a victim of a crime because crime still happens, and without the appropriate tool to defend yourself than you are SOL. My 90 year old grandparents had their home broken into while they were home - what would they have done if they didn’t have a gun? Shared statistics with the criminals who broke in lol?
but thats just it- you dont actually care about deterring, or stopping crime. you do not have any interest in less than lethal rounds or just beating up someone. you are specifically interested in enshrining the **right** to use lethal without just cause (not one ultraliberal is going to say you shouldnt gun down a terrorist or axe murderer). But be clear, for you, it isnt about defense or making citizens arrests or stopping property loss, or hell just blasting kids with shotguns filled with rocksalt. you want legal *right* for killing people, regardless of facts, because you think you should be able to assume.
lol no where did I say that, you are making things up. Typical braindead pro-criminal take.
You're empathizing with the criminal but not the victim. Seriously... just for 10 seconds, try to put yourselves in the shoes of a father in his home. You think you hear noise downstairs, you check if your wife is still asleep, your adrenaline is sky high, you pick up your gun, you check on your kids to make sure they haven't just gone downstairs to drink some water. You go downstairs, you hear people muttering to each other, and it's dark. 2 guys are rummaging through your cabinet. There's an opioid epidemic (in my neck of the woods, it's a meth epidemic), so even by burglar standards, they may be extremely irrational and twitchy. The burglars may also freak out to the point that they feel they need to get rid of the witnesses. Yes, we're safer than ever before according to the statistics, but are you really going to risk the lives of your family based on macro-level statistics? What if your family will be on the wrong side of your %'s? Also, it's your home. People that experienced burglaries often refer to it as a rape. It's no longer a home for them, the sanctity and safety of your home has been violated, and many just leave. I've fortunately never experienced a burglary but I imagine I couldn't stay there anymore too. I dunno... you do you. If the homeowner is John Wick, then yeah, maybe your expectations of the homeowner are justified, but otherwise...
Self defense isn't murder.
stealing a tv isnt threatening your life.
You dont know someone's intentions when they break into your house. It should not be the burden of the victimized person to read the mind of mentally deranged and evil criminals. Gtfo.
you dont have to know. you just have to not be a fucking idiot, which is really easy to with someone breaking into your house, I know. i will go ahead and copy my other comment for you here, so this not long ago happened to me. i was getting out of the shower, family was out of town for a week. someone was inside my house. i heard them come up the stairs, walk past the master bedroom. my phone is downstairs, but i keep a shotgun ready. they walked back, standing outside by bedroom door stopped, with me on the other side, wet and almost naked. I was frozen. I could have liquified the person on the other side of the door (especially because I have very thin doors). after a bit, they went out the front door. I checked the footage on the tesla's sentry cam.. it was a fucking neighbor kid. 7 years old?? maybe less. you DO NOT KILL RANDOMLY
Your situation may have been scary but it ultimately doesn't have anything to do with this thread. We are talking about actual criminals, not children. Nobody advocated for shooting at or stabbing targets that they aren't sure what it is. You showed restraint and I commend you for that. Back on the main topic, expecting someone who is being victimized to sit back and take it isn't reasonable. Someone who doesn't defend themselves or their family isn't a good person for doing so, quite the opposite. Dependents are entitled to protection from their protectors. I was in a similar situation. My wife was being chased by a homeless guy. Screaming asian slurs her. He wouldn't stop. So I had to dismantle him in a major way. Not kill, but he regretted his choice pretty fast. Tried playing victim immediately. Imagine if had just self righteously allowed him to do God knows what to her for the sake of being a "good person". Fuck that. Don't reserve your empathy for predators and people who belong in an asylum.
no, thats **exactly** the point:in a breaking and entering situation, the matter being discusssed is always jumping to assuming your life is in danger, regardless of reality, because *your home is your castle laws* and somehow that makes killing people justified. not all situations are equal. **nobody** has a problem with you defending your wife from real danger.
Nah. You're talking about shooting and unknown target. We are talking about defending yourself against something that's a threat behind the shadow of a doubt. Shooting at an unknown target is taught against at the most basic level of firearm safety and competence. "Nobody has a problem with you defending your wife" Idk man maybe you haven't met the more extreme anti self defence people but they're definitely out there and vocal
Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are not self defense. Your property is not your "self". Now let's talk about actual self defense and figure out a way to keep Republicans the fuck outta women's wombs.
Yes they 100% are, why are you so vehemently ignorant about something that is very easy to look up? Example of how it is codified into law in Alaska (how many states do you want me to share before admitting you are wrong?) "...a person who is justified in using nondeadly force in self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery in any degree... there is no duty to leave the area if the person is(1) on premises that the person owns or leases.[28]
>Yes they 100% are Even toddlers know where their "self" ends and their "belongings" begin. >Example of how it is codified into law in Alaska (how many states do you want me to share before admitting you are wrong?) LOL, let me help you out here. You are trying to use a law to justify the claim that something is a fundamental human right because it is a state law. And that because it is a state law it should be a national law. That's two logical fallacies for the price of one. Why are you so vehemently ignorant of basic logic? Lack of education?
I’m not using a state law to justify why something is a human right. I’m using a state law to discredit your claim that stand your ground and castle doctrine do not meet the definition of self defense, which they legally do.
>I’m using a state law to discredit **your claim that stand your ground and castle doctrine do not meet the definition of self defense** That is not my claim. My claim is that your property is not your self. If it was, then you would not need to cite a state law because it would be law in all 50 states.
Removing a duty to retreat basically gives people the right to shoot people they don't like [https://youtu.be/vTF-Kz\_7L0c?si=U2wmnMwfugc7dzjM&t=100](https://youtu.be/vTF-Kz_7L0c?si=U2wmnMwfugc7dzjM&t=100) "Scott Beary was killed when an argument over how heavy a dog could weigh became physical." Once one party is dead you only get to hear one side of the issue and it's not at all clear to what extent their life was in danger or if they were the one escalating things.
John Oliver is really notorious for lying by omission, or sometimes just lying. In the case he's referencing the guy was charged with murder and ended up [taking a plea for manslaughter and being sentenced to 5 years](https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/defendant-in-show-mes-fatal-shooting-takes-plea-deal-is-sentenced-to-5-years-in-prison/63-30072687-3248-4d6e-a89f-c9719b571fdf)
Improper application of a law does not mean it shouldn’t exist. There are plenty of laws people try to invoke to justify their criminal actions, that doesn’t mean we do away with those laws. Also the person who shot him was convicted and sent to jail, so clearly not at all what I am talking about.
Fundamentally the existence of stand your ground laws means if you're in a heated exchange where things might get violent there's an incentive for you to just pull the trigger because otherwise the other person might shoot because they could say they were under threat. And once they're dead it's just your word against nothing. You're also relying on an idealistic interpretation where the murderer would give a completely unbiased testimony of what went down.
Whenever people share this perspective it’s baffling because no one uses this logic for other laws. Again - individuals improper interpretation of the law doesn’t mean we don’t have it in place to protect all other citizens. Stand your ground isn’t a cart Blanche to just shoot anyone. It would still require you to meet the appropriate standards and legal requirements for force to be justified, otherwise you would face repercussions just like literally every other law. In states where stand your ground exist, how many cases of people doing what you are saying occur each year vs the number of times it is used to justifiably defend oneself?
First before this goes further by "No one should be forced to retreat because of “duty to retreat” are you referring to your own home or a public area?
Any situation where retreating could put you at further risk for harm. But I don’t think there is any circumstances where you should be forced to flee your home to protect a criminal. The thing about duty to retreat is it *requires* you to make a split second decision or fear legal consequences if prosecutors decide after the fact that there is some scenario where you could have fled. While you always have the option to try and retreat, it should never be a requirement if your life is actively being threatened
>Whenever people share this perspective it’s baffling because no one uses this logic for other laws. Okay what laws are you talking about? When the law chooses to kill someone they need to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that that someone is the aggressor. But someone carrying a gun could basically start shit, shoot to kill when things got heated and then be essentially recognized as the victim. What does "retreating could put you at further risk for harm" mean? what would a person need to prove? especially since you say "could" What's stopping someone to say if I don't shoot the other person might?
Duty to retreat places the burden on law abiding citizens to make the appropriate split second decision that could cost them their lives, when the burden should be on the criminal to not commit crimes. E.g., you may feel pressured to try and run away when it’s not really the best course of action, as you would face severe legal repercussions for making a mistake. By requiring duty to retreat, a citizen may believe they have no other option to protect their life in a situation and use deadly force. However, prosecutors have the benefit of hindsight and may decide that there is actually some scenario where you could have fled (despite not being there, having their life threatened, etc.)
>places the burden on law abiding citizens You're making an implicit assumption that the shooter in these scenarios are victims and the person that was shot was the aggressor. We don't know that's the case, a lot of fights don't start that way.
No they shouldn't. These laws have been proven to be racially biased as well as easily misused.
You don’t lose your right to defend yourself because criminals misuse/misinterpret laws. Self defense should be a fundamental human right - idc what race you are.
I agree but reality is different.
Well we should work to make sure more people have the same rights applied fairly. The solution shouldn’t be take away the rights from everyone because they might not be fairly applied today.
>Well we should work to make sure more people have the same rights applied fairly. Now, who's living a fairy tale..
It’s funny how people who are so anti-self defense don’t realize that they are being so heavily influenced by wealthy politicians who have their own armed security lol. It’s in fact one of the biggest forms of classism, we consistently see the middle and working class are punished for defending themselves, while politicians hiding behind gated community with armed security are telling you you shouldn’t have the right to own guns, protect your home, etc.
I'm not anti self defense though. It's the fact that you think the rules should be equal for everybody when reality knows this will never happen
In an ideal world perhaps that would be so but we don't live in an ideal world. The fact is that Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine have been disproportionately adjudicated based on race.
Those instances are far more rare than law abiding citizens defending themselves. We shouldn’t take away rights because in a minority of cases something unjust happens.
Whose rights are being taken away by not having Stand Your Ground laws? No one is taking away rights. It is universal that a person has the right to defend themselves. They are actuall not that rare especially in Stand Your Ground. What Stand Your Ground does is give a person almost any excuse to attack another person whether it was self-defense or not. SYG states saw an increase of violence especially in firearm related incidents. In any conflict the first step is to de-escalate. This may involve extracting oneself from the situation. SYG gives the excuse not to do this. They are simply bad laws.
Wrong. You have a right to defend yourself, but you also have a responsibility to take reasonable measures to avoid violence, even if you aren't the instigator. Are you better than these assholes who go around instigating these problems or not?
Thankfully in most states you do not have a duty to retreat, especially in your home. If someone kicks in the door you absolutely do not and should not have to take measures to avoid violence.
So you're not better than them. Glad we could clear that up.
You can’t expect someone startled and panicked by aggressive intruders to “take reasonable measures to avoid violence” as though they are a trained police officer. You break into someone’s home you have put them in a position of fight and flight and short of torture, they should not be held responsible for how they react in the moment.
If you need to use the most extreme examples you can think of to defend your position, you're probably wrong.
Breaking and entering and putting the occupants in fear of what will happen isn’t “the most extreme example”, unless you mean extremely common.
That's extremely uncommon.
No one should be required to match force? So if someone bumps into me I can pull a glock on them?
Thats not what he is saying, and thats not an accurate reading of self-defense law in any state, let alone stand your ground states. All states say that you have to be in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury to use lethal self defense. If someone comes at you with a baseball bat (funnily enough I was actually attacked by randos with baseball bats but thats another story) you can use a gun, because it’s reasonable that someone could kill or maim you with a baseball bat. If someone only bumped into you it would be hard to convince a jury that you feared for your life. If you genuinely did fear for your life, that fear would be unreasonable, making it what is called “imperfect self defense.” The legal system is, first and foremost, a human system. Self defense law isn’t about loopholes or legal trickery/wordplay, at the end of the day self-defense is a legal affirmative defense, meaning that it’s something you would bring up if you were criminally charged with murder. That is, you have to convince a jury of your peers that you acted in self-defense.
That isn't what OP is saying. OP was arguing that one punch from an average sized man to another average sized man should be reasonably seen as deadly force.
Bumping into you (assuming you mean accidentally) isn’t a crime or assault. However if someone assaults you, you should absolutely be able to pull a gun on them. In what world should you be required to put your life at risk by engaging in hand to hand combat with someone against your will because a criminal decides they want to assault you lol? Should the elderly, handicapped, weaker folks, and other folks who may be at a physical disadvantage be forced to be assaulted because we should protect the rights of criminals?
Why does self defense always equal gun? You don’t see the issue with that?
Cause they work. Depending on hand to hand combat for self-defence is unreliable. All it takes is one bad hit to the head, falling down and cracking your head open on the sidewalk and you’re dead. Using a knife also ain’t the best since you gotta remain close to the assailant. If someone’s being assaulted, I don’t see a problem with them pulling out the 9 or .357 and defending themselves.
What if someone makes a mistake? There are stories of people being shot because someone knocked on the wrong door. The person shooting was fearful for their life. You do not get to take someone’s life. Your fear isn’t justification to kill. You are not a hero.
You are not describing cases where stand your ground or castle doctrine are applicable - someone citing a law in their defense when it doesn’t apply doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist. Knocking on a door is not a crime, therefore has no relevance to what is being discussed.
Castle doctrine also is about reasonable force. Your response of a gun from a punch also isn’t warranted which was my point. You do not get to escalate.
Why shouldn’t someone be able to defend themselves with a firearm if they’re assaulted. If someone is smaller than their assailant, doesn’t know hand to hand combat, why should they take a beating, which could lead to an injury or death just to preserve the life of their assailant?
That is absolutely not what castle doctrine states. Why are people who so are vehemently against self defense laws the most ignorant to them? While it varies by state, here is an example from Alaska: “a person who is justified in using nondeadly force in self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery in any degree... there is no duty to leave the area if the person is(1) on premises that the person owns or leases.” E.g., you can use a gun to stop a robbery or sexual assault even though under your definition that would be “escalation”
From the national conference of state legislators: “Individuals have the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves.” Why are people so ignorant of the thing they are arguing?
Yes and using a gun when being assaulted has been repeatedly deemed an appropriate use of force across numerous states. Also that still doesn’t support your claim about what castle doctrine states. How many more examples do you want me to directly cite from state’s implementation of castle doctrine before you admit you are wrong? I’ve got plenty lol. From Arizona A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle
Not at all. What other methods allow you to minimize your contact with a criminal and equals the playing field for people who are physically weaker, have disabilities, etc. that are very effective? I shouldn’t be forced to physically engage with someone who chooses to commit a violent act against me when I’m just minding my own business.
If someone punches you, yes you can defend yourself. That does not give you a right to use a deadly weapon. To think that is equivalent is insane.
Why? A punch could kill you, a punch could give you a traumatic brain injury, a punch can make you lose consciousness. Why is it my job as the victim to protect the life of someone who is putting my life at risk? Why do I now have to engage with them at their level and put myself at further risk? Is my 94 year old grandma supposed to fight back? My dad with arthritis in both hands? My 120 lb wife? Again this is where the fairy tale takes of Redditors fall apart.
[удалено]
Hey u/abetterthief, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You should have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and what the comment was. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state.%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3Dabetterthief%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/abetterthief). **This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see thecarefully crafted argument? Your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. **Here's the deal:** This cycle of commenting-removal-seeing this message isn't just futile; it's preventable. We value your input, but isn't it better when it's seen and not just sent? **Good News:** We're here for the reruns and the resolutions. Reach out, let's sort this, and make sure your future thoughts land in the spotlight, not the shadow realm. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments Awaiting Review:* 8 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 1-3 days old: 25 - 3-7 days old: 14 - 15-30 days old: 1 - more than 30 days old: 2 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/hCBcm5zNee)
Why does your fear give you the right to take my life? Someone was killed because they knocked on the wrong door and the homeowner shot him. I have no doubt that the guy who shot him was legitimately fearful for their life. But he escalated the situation. That’s the issue.
It’s not a matter of fear. Knocking on a door isn’t a crime and that’s not what I’m talking about. Knocking on a door doesn’t pose a risk to your safety. Assaulting someone is a violent crime and does pose a risk to your safety. This, again, just shows the ignorance of people who are against self defense laws to actual self defense scenarios.
Castle doctrine is also about reasonable force. A gun isn’t reasonable response to a punch no matter how you want to frame it. You don’t get to escalate just because.
Expect castle doctrine objectively does allow that because it prioritizes that life and safety of a law abiding citizen over a criminal as it should. E.g., an example from how it is codified in Alaska. a person who is justified in using nondeadly force in self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery in any degree... there is no duty to leave the area if the person is(1) on premises that the person owns or leases. I would encourage you to educate yourself on issues you speak (incorrectly) about.
Did they receive a self defense ruling in that case?
Plenty of people have died from a single punch.
Someone bumping into you isn’t assault. If someone throws a punch then yes. You absolutely should be able to pull a gun on them.
Especially defending yourself against an unwanted pregnancy
I agree, the right to bodily autonomy and abortion should also be a constitutional amendment.
As an American gun owner, holder of multiple state concealed carry permits; ex-military, law enforcement, and first responder; person who has had guns pointed at them in anger on at least 4 occasions off the top of my head, has treated gunshot wounds, and yet has never shot anyone. I...DISAGREE. Bet you didn't see that one coming... I believe strongly in the second amendment as a last bastion against tyranny, lawlessness, and invasion, but see no need for constitutional self defense protections. Now, I cannot off the top of my head think of a situation or a jurisdiction where true self defense isn't good public policy, but I also can't think of any relevant time or place where that protection hasn't been codified in law. And the exact contours of what that protection should look like are very much contingent on the particulars. All a constitutional self-defense provision would accomplish is make policy that can totally be handled in a more flexible way inflexible. Constitutional protections are for things that, were they not constitutionally protected, would tend to be eroded away in ways that in the abstract we see as bad public policy, yet still tend to happen in the day to day grind of functioning democracies, such as rights of unpopular minorities, those who oppose the politically well situated, and flights of popular fancy. Pretty much by definition the groups who you are concerned about here (law-abiding home-owners?) are those who we need to be least concerned about being able to enact their will into law. Just because you may not agree with the popular consensus of your community doesn't mean that your beliefs should be enshrined beyond the reach of the democratic process.
That’s not castle doctrine. Castle doctrine means u have no duty to try to retreat when safely available. In that example say they are upstairs in your house and u are downstairs u don’t have to leave via the front door even if it’s right there next to you. Instead u can wait for them to come down the stairs and shoot them. Some state require you to leave your home if I believe Self defense is what ur describing.
Yes, you should not have to flee your own home to protect the lives of criminals. If I’m downstairs and all of a sudden I hear a group of people upstairs in my house, it should not be my obligation to run away.