674
submitted 2 months ago by DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NeuronautML@lemmy.ml 42 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This is why stand your ground laws can't realistically exist in places that aren't sparsely populated. Because someone will read "defend your property and life with force if necessary" as "act as a raging lunatic and attempt to shoot anyone who comes at the door because it's legal to do so if you claim you were defending your property, even though there was no indication of actual imminent danger to property or people".

In my country we don't have stand your ground laws. You can only defend yourself in case of an attack, but not drive away a thief. You're supposed to run and call the police, but I keep wondering if a legal framework like the US where you weren't legally punished for attacking a thief in your house wouldn't be fairer but then there's news like this.

[-] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

You are acting as if it were actually complicated. Requiring no duty to retreat makes perfect sense in your own home. The law most sane places says you have to be in a situation where a reasonable person would be in fear for life or bodily injury.

Note "reasonable person" is a common legal standard. A reasonable person doesn't think someone outside is automatically a threat. People who shiit then ask questions go to jail.

[-] crashfrog@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago

Why should someone who is already breaking the law also enjoy the power of legal coercion to force you from a place you had the legal right to be, though?

“Well, we don’t want the situation to escalate. Someone could get hurt.” Why should the law protect only the welfare of criminals? Of the person actively breaking the law?

The issue with “Stand your Ground” laws is that the alternative is nonsensical if your view expands to include the rights and welfare of people who act consistent with the law.

[-] prole 13 points 2 months ago

Because human life is more valuable than things.

[-] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The problem is people applying laws like castle doctrine outside of situations that they were intended for.... then shitty judges allow it to be applied outside of those situations... resulting in these random ass killings for people knocking on doors. It's messed up and horrible.

But at the same time a few years ago a family near my friends house had someone break in, killed the two parents and then chased down the son and killed him in the woods. The young man tried to retreat and was killed anyway. THEN they robbed the house. They were looking for stuff to steal and sell for drugs. Then they set the house on fire.

https://www.courant.com/2018/05/14/details-emerge-of-brutality-in-deaths-of-griswold-family-members/

If someone is legitimately breaking into your house you should be able to defend yourself if you can't get away. It doesn't need to be a gun, but you should not go to jail for hurting someone who is in your house who is not supposed to be there.

There's no way to tell if that person is just a burglar or might fucking kill you over your stuff. What are you supposed to do? Ask them? "Excuse me criminal, are you the murderous type or just a burglar?"

Obviously leave if you can, but this case shows running away doesn't always work. That poor family.

[-] crashfrog@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

Human rights are more valuable than human life.

[-] gdog05@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Is that true? Interesting. I am sure the dead are enjoying all of their human rights to the fullest.

I am interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[-] crashfrog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

I am sure the dead are enjoying all of their human rights to the fullest.

You are, because they died for those rights. And it’s a good thing they did because they’d be ashamed of how little you think of their sacrifice.

[-] StrongHorseWeakNeigh@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's an interesting implication that there is no right to life.

[-] crashfrog@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

You’re saying no one ever dies that others might live?

[-] StrongHorseWeakNeigh@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

That doesn't apply to this situation or what you are saying at all.

[-] crashfrog@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

You’re the one that brought it up, though. I’ve been talking about rights the whole time.

[-] workerONE@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

You should be able to use reasonable force. If you're trying to subdue a homicidal maniac then you can choke them unconscious or knock them unconscious or kill them if that's all you have means to do. But if you just have someone who wants to be rude and yell in your face, then you don't have a right to kill them.

I think it depends on who causes the confrontation and who is escalating the situation to different levels of violence.

Also, I think there's different ways to interpret stand your ground as a concept. You can stand your ground and use reasonable force to secure your safety. You should not be able to stand your ground and murder someone so as not to inconvenience yourself if you don't want to take a step back or move out of someone's way for example.

[-] crashfrog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

You should be able to use reasonable force.

Any amount of force that stops an attacker is reasonable, by definition. The only one who should have a legal obligation of care for the welfare of the lawbreaker is the one breaking the law.

But if you just have someone who wants to be rude and yell in your face

But it depends what they’re yelling. If they’re yelling “I’m five seconds from killing you!” then you do have a right to use whatever force is available to you to stop them, and that might very well mean their death; there actually aren’t any safe, harmless, perfectly non-lethal means of disabling an agitated, adrenaline-fueled human being.

If that’s something that you don’t want to happen to you, then don’t go into public space and assault the people there. It’s actually pretty easy to avoid.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Who was attacking who when two kids were sitting in their car?

No answer required, FYI.

[-] crashfrog@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago
[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

It doesn't matter. No place would justify murder.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
674 points (100.0% liked)

News

23284 readers
3089 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS