Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,829 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Good/Bad/Unfair/Fair? this is not pertaining to the Zimmerman case, just in general of stand your ground laws and castle doctrines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
I personally think you should be allowed to stand your ground in a life or death case... what sucks, is that anymore, there are laws in some states that protect the aggressor/thief etc.. :( Someone I know, kept getting broke into. They always came in the same window..right above the trap door to the steps leading to the basement. Well, because he left the trap open (expecting the thief to come through that window and not realize), and the guy happen to break his leg falling through the floor into the basement... he was sued.. courts said pre planned so he was guilty..

Ehh.. I know that if anyone comes after me or my family, Im going to protect them with everything that I have.. law or not.. besides, if SHTF, do you really think the law is going to be coming after you if you HAVE to kill a few people while standing your ground? HELL NO.. there will be so much chaos if it comes down to that... they probably wont even know until things settle IF they settle..
My only question is this...

Have you guys decided what you will do once you have stood your ground? If there are casualties, I dont know if I want them stinking up my hall way/steps? lol
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
In your home, I think it's a no brainer. If you're in my house or on my property, and you are there illegally, or in the process of committing a crime in my house or on my property, then I consider you fair game and I should not be held criminally or civily liable for anything that occurs afterward. Your home is the one place that you should always be safe. However, the flip side is how many in the home shootings will take place because of an "argument" or some other dispute between family members or friends who were at one point, invited into the house, things went south, now the resident claims "Castle Doctrine"? Could get weird, but if it's a legitimate attack on your home, you should be able to do whatever you need to do.

In public, I think the "rules of engagement" should be pretty clearly defined, which for the most part, there is an acceptable level of response that we all deem reasonable and necessary. I do not think that someone should be required to retreat if they are lawfully someplace that they are allowed to be. Especially if being physcally confronted or threatened.

My concern is that some folks who may be a little less responsible, while in public, can turn a minor situation into something deadly and have it called justified. I think that if the investigation concludes that the use of deadly force was justified, then that person should be absolved from any criminal or civil liability. I can just envision a near miss in a parking lot somewhere, somebody responds with "hey, what the F is your problem buddy, you almost hit my kid" and next thing you know, rounds are being fired because the guy in the car felt "threatened" over what would have otherwise been a reactive verbal exchange and nothing more. In public, I think it opens up the possibility up for 1000's of scenarios that can go horribly wrong.

A good friend of mine was involved in an on-duty shooting not to long ago. The suspect died. He was cleared by the prosecutor and recently, his department. Now they face the possibility of a civil lawsuit. Anyone who takes the life of another, whether justified or not, potentially faces a civil lawsuit. And I don't think that's right, especially if it's justified.

So my take; Home: You're fair game if you're a bad guy, no questions asked. In Public: If you're cleared and it's deemed justified, you go on your merry way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,829 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I agree with both of you on protecting the home. And I have thought about situations where someone might have road rage and does a simple birdie in the air to the other driver and bullets are flying just because they felt threatened. I guess they need to define what "threatened" is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
ehh.. road rage would never be justified unless someone is chasing after you by car... but think about it.. there are already road rage related casualties. If someone came after me and would not cease and desist, I would defend myself... I always have my kids with me.. so there is no reason for ME to go after anyone unless I am threatened.. Im a live and let live type of person, but if I see a threat... Im calm, but deadly and I will have no remorse after.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
The idea that you have to run from a threat is a violation of the laws of nature. Running make you prey. You should not have to flee from anything an I have never seen a law that required it. They passed stand your ground laws to protect people form over zealous prosecutors with a political agenda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
survival said:
I agree with both of you on protecting the home. And I have thought about situations where someone might have road rage and does a simple birdie in the air to the other driver and bullets are flying just because they felt threatened. I guess they need to define what "threatened" is.
This is exactly the scenario that I could see this law coming to. I am more in favor of a "Castle Law" that allows you to protect your life, your family's life but only if they are really threatened and also your home and vehicle.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top