The violence has already occurred well before the implementation/actual need for the law.
the intent of the law was that a person should not have to run for their life when threatened when on their own property.
I don't believe the purpose of the law was to encourage violence though. I think it was originally put in place to avoid punishment for a would-be victim who decided killing the offender would end the danger to himself quicker than attempting to retreat.No it's a horrible law that encourages more violence and unless there are witnesses it's almost impossible to prove a crime was committed.
It's a short sighted law and should be repealed but won't because the gun lobby will spin it into some kind of anti gun movement.
I don't believe the purpose of the law was to encourage violence though. I think it was originally put in place to avoid punishment for a would-be victim who decided killing the offender would end the danger to himself quicker than attempting to retreat.
And in a case where a mugging occurs, or another such crime, does the potential victim have an obligation to avoid lethal force where retreat options exist, regardless of efficiency in either option.
Also there should be no reason one should have to retreat one's home or vehicle.
'On their own property' is the 'castle doctrine'. 'Stand your ground' is about when you are not on your own property as well.
You should place a little more care in your counter-argument. At this point, I can point out a fair number of laws and measures put into (and remain in) place that have resulted in unintended consequences, and by your argument, any law is irrelevant if unintended consequences occur.The purpose of the law is irrelevant if the outcome of the law has un intended consequences.
You should place a little more care in your counter-argument. At this point, I can point out a fair number of laws and measures put into (and remain in) place that have resulted in unintended consequences, and by your argument, any law is irrelevant if unintended consequences occur.
Smart phones are not so smart when auto spelling is done without wanting it to be doneI can't understand you first point.
Edit: you fixed it!!
So if someone is pounding on you should do what exactly? If you see or think someone is going to pull a gun or knife on you what do you do?
If you pull a gun on me and I don't think my chances of running away are good I'm going to attack you with everything I got. If you still shoot me am I now to blame? How would you prove a dead guy was fearing for his life and not the orher way around?
Imagine a kid burglarizing your home is caught, and unarmed immediately surrenders. Then you start torturing him as punishment, finally killing him slowly and painfully. That ok?
To repeat:
There are limits.
Imagine a kid burglarizing your home is caught, and unarmed immediately surrenders. Then you start torturing him as punishment, finally killing him slowly and painfully. That ok?
Problem is is that many are lumping Castle Doctrine / SYG together.
I can guarantee if SYG gets illegalized you will see a big Castle Doctrine case involving the most outrangeous and racially charged version of it.
The agenda with the Martin case was one to remove the ability for an average citizen to defend themselves.
He's right. He's not arguing the law is "irrelevant" because of unintended consequences, he's arguing that the consequences matter as to whether it's a good law.
Texas doesn't have a SYG law, they have wording that is common to other state's SYG wording incorporated in the Castle Doctrine law. The big difference between Texas' Castle Doctrine and Florida's Justified Use of Force statute is in Texas some one who provokes* force can claim self defense.
*Provocation is a physical act/actions and not words.
Attacking a person who has a weapon does not seem as logical as running away from that person.
Except, as I stated, the person felt running away was not an option (I prefer not to be shot in the back).
Was there a need for you to attack; Up to that point, based on your scenario, no.
Having a weapon does not force the need to attack to neutral the weapon.
The attack comes when there is no other choice and/or are cornered.
Other choice is subjective to common sense.
One reason why the laws are worded so loosely; because flexibility is allowed to analyze the situation
Looking at states with a Duty to Retreat law, there seems to be little difference in wording compared to Stand Your Ground, and in some cases is only slightly more stringent as far as self defence is concered. I doubt repealing the Stand your Ground law will accomplish anything except a little more court time for those claiming self defence.