To think the 'stand your ground' law in America is horrendous.(182 Posts)
I hope we never adopt that law which has led to an 8% increase in homicides in some American states.
So what we should stand back and let these criminals break into our homes and take what they like without being able to do anything?
Yes voter as a life is worth more than possessions. Some of the examples on the programme are not even that simple and the person shot was not even breaking into anywhere.
They become as the Panorama programme says 'judge, jury and executioner'.
voter the programme on at the moment had the example of a man who saw someone breaking into his neighbour's house. He called 911, was told by the operator to stay inside, told the operator "I know the law has changed, i've got a shotgun, I'm going out". He went outside and shot and killed the 2 men who were totally unarmed.
So: he wasn't protecting his own home; he wasn't in any danger (a. it was someone else's empty house and b. they were unarmed); he was told by law enforcement to stay inside his own home and let them deal with it.
The two men were shot in the back as they ran away. The shooter faced NO PENALTY AT ALL because of the Stand Your Ground law.
Completely unacceptable IMO, and a completely different scenario to armed burglars entering your own property where you might need to defend yourself
I'm all for defending your property, inside or out. But because of the instance nowaynohow described, the Stand Your Ground law is scarily flawed.
I do not like the legal carrying of weapons, concealed or otherwise. If you carry a gun, you're more likely to use a gun. In situations you may not even think to use one if you didn't have a licence.
If someone broke into my house whilst I was in it, I wouldn't have time to understand 'reasonable force' I would beat them with a Wii remote until they stop moving, which would probably be excessive.
And I think there was an example if a young black lad who took a wrong shortcut home into a gated community (had to go up to ds in the middle if it)
It's a different culture in the US. Not everywhere is gun crazy but the laws allow for firearms use.
I would be concerned that similar laws in the UK would mean an intruder would be more likely to carry a weapon than they are now - criminals (whether career burglars or drug addicts looking to make cash quickly) aren't stupid; they weigh up the risks & know that if they are caught then the sentences are harsher if they are carrying a weapon.
But if criminals they know that their lives are at risk on entering a property then they will start to always carry weapons & may well be likely to use a weapon first if there's an encounter.
I would find it hard to have the will to attack an intruder with a weapon unless they tried to hurt an animal or another person - i could throw some plates at them quite happily though.
Just a thought but maybe it will put off all potential burglars? Perhaps it is they who ought to be considering their victims and deciding against ruining people's lives by breaking in, stealing and wrecking homes. Why are people so quick to jump to the defence of criminals? I say if you don't want trouble, don't go looking for it.
Trayvon Martin didn't go looking for trouble Babymamaroon. His crime was being black and teenaged and therefore looking like trouble. The laws helped create a culture where George Zimmerman immediately resorted to violence to 'protect' property that wasn't in any danger.
Shrug, don't break into people's houses and then you won't get shot for breaking into their house.
Newsflash, not every country has the same culture as the UK, this doesn't make them wrong and you right. If you don't like America's laws, don't live in America.
Personally, I find the passivity displayed by many UK citizens a bit shocking, but hey it isn't my country so it isn't actually my business.
well if theyre not breaking in anywhere thats totally wrong! But if theyre in your house especially if theyre upstairs i think everyone has the right to defend their family and possessions that people have worked hard for, and not let some scumbag take them away from you. They shouldnt be in YOUR house in the first place, they make that choice they take the chance of being injured or worse killed if someone decides to stand up to them! Do you think they would think twice about coming at you with a knife or gun if you tried to stop them? The answer is no they wouldnt.
It's just legalised murder in many cases. No, I don't like America's laws and I won't be living there.
In principle, I agree with the basics of this law. People should be able to defend their property and their family with whatever they want to. After all, an intruder isn't at risk unless he's intruding. But the reality is that more people will die, and they won't all be guilty of a crime. I just can't go along with that.
Youllaugh- I don't know the details of his specific sorry case and I'm not saying he remotely warranted being shot, but I really can't help but wonder what he was doing if he wasn't up to no good? Generally most sane people don't go out to shoot unless they feel threatened in some way. I don't own a gun and wouldn't have a clue how to use it but I do take comfort in being able to legally defend my home with a reasonable force. I think this argument is not clean cut from either viewpoint. The only solution is for people to be self aware and take care of themselves i.e if I don't want to rile people I'm not going to loiter around properties where I don't live or am not visiting for example...
What was he doing? Walking back to hid dads flat in a gated community after visiting a store to get sweets for him and his sister.
His crime was he was black and wearing a hoody!
Have a Google then. Has main crime seems to be not walking fast enough for a rainy night.
If there were higher penalties for criminal damage than murder, in any country, there'd rightfully be outrage. That's wrong. People are more important than property.
So why shouldn't the same rule apply in reverse? Life is more important than property. So shooting someone for committing property crime is wrong.
From what I understood in the Panorama programme was that Trayvon Martin was staying with his father who lived in the gated community. So he had every right to be there.
I agree with the stand your ground laws. All they say is that if you think you're in danger, you don't have to wait to be attacked or try to run away first if you decide that the best self defence in the circumstances is for you to fight, I.e. stand your ground.
If someone breaks into your House, how do you know whether they're there to steal your TV or rape your wife and daughters and burn them alive. Google 'Petit family Conneticut home invasion.'
And please don't comment on the Trayvon Martin case when you so obviously know nothing about the other side of the story. Zimmerman reported that Martin attacked him first and was on top of him, beating him and slammimg his head into the ground. He shot him in self defence. Zimmerman had a deep gash on the back of his head and TWO eye witnesses have testified that they saw Zimmerman on his back on the ground and Martin punching him.
And those sweet photos of Martin were taken when he was 14. At the age of 18 he was over 6ft and had just been suspended from school when he was found with burglary equipment and expensive jewellery in his bag.
He also went by the Twitter name of NoLimitNigga and boasted on Twitter about beating up a bus driver and threatened a girl he referred to as 'bitch' with an automatic pistol.
It's not the stand your ground law I have a problem with it's their gun laws.
"Yes voter as a life is worth more than possessions."
to some. To me my possessions are worth more than a burglars life if they were to put me in a situation whereby the use of force was the only way to stop them taking my things, then if the force necessary to stop them was fatal I'd use it.
This si highly unlikely because I value my life more than my property so I wouldn't take the risk, but not due to the value of the burglars life.
As for the stand your ground law, I'm not informed enough on it to have a strong opinion, I agree that there should be no duty to retreat but the situation described above seems completely unjustifiable, however that is one instance being described on an anonymous forum and it would appear to be gleaned from a tv show so it's not exactly enough to form a proper opinion either (no offence to the poster, just that any post on discussions like these are open to interpretation or spin)
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.