Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Its been known for ages that poverty leads to crime. Someone who impoverished and hungry stealing food is a classic example. But not only that, an example where sometimes the thief is helped (such as someone offering to buy her family adequate food for the month amd assistance with obtaining employment and community resources), rather than punished, because many understand it to be and recognize it as a crime of survival and desperation.
As an affirmative defense it would be up to the defendant to prove that Stand Your Ground applied. A defendant does not automatically qualify for it.
The threshold for that is harrowingly low, to the point your life doesn't even have to be threatened. Basically you just need to feel threatened and then you are entitled to act in ways no reasonable person would.
Not reasonable to you.
I disagree. In fact the person in the video appeared to have a justified case for self defense not just for himself but for others as well. He could not shoot while he as near anyone, or when he was looking at him. If you check his shot the background was clear, it was one of the few angles where he could safely shoot the robber. When someone has a gun one has to assume that it is real. And a person with a real gun is a danger until he drives away in a case like this.
For stand your ground, it takes hardly a damn thing for a defendant to enact it. It's been successfully applied over arguments, when escape was very possible, and when no clear danger was even present (as in, the other person didn't even draw a weapon).
Reasonable people don't draw guns during arguments and start shooting. They don't kill people because someone is yelling at them. Of course other people see it different, these are the unreasonable people who have adequately demonstrated those laws are well abused and deadly.
That scenario isn't under discussion.
Same.
Shooting an armed robber is justified.
Do you have some examples? I am not fond of the law, it does not exist in my state. And I would say that one would not need to rely on it in this case.
'Stand Your Ground' laws are linked to an increase in U.S. homicides, study says
Some of those cases are rather poor. The Zimmerman and Rittenhouse cases are not the best examples to use. Both of them would have been found innocent stand your ground or no stand our ground. Zimmerman was attacked. He had broken off the chase and was no longer following Martin. Martin circled back and made the mistake of attacking what he thought was an unarmed man. Rittenhouse's case was also one of self defense. The law may have emboldened some people. The Arberry case may ben an example of that. But even that would have failed as a stand your ground case. You can stand your ground, but you cannot go looking for trouble. I would like to see what other professionals think of the studies done. Studies in the social sciences are nowhere near as objective as studies in the hard sciences or even medicine. And a lot of the cases should go to trial as murder cases. You should not just get to say "stand your ground". But right now I am unconvinced when biased examples are used to support the claims it does not look good for the person making the claims.
So, in other words, ignore most of the news items provided, ignore the racial discrepancies, and ignore the pros who studied this (like RAND) and found stand your ground has just gotten more people hurt and killed and not reduced crime.
No, you posted a hodge podge of poor arguments. You are arguing emotionally rather than rationally.
The cops say he's "wanted for questioning".
“Always” is a mighty strong word.
Well we can't have people defending themselves when their lives are threatened!!! Oh wait, we can. Never mind.
He, he continued to pose a deadly threat,