Tweet
Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...
SYG laws are simply an extension of the "castle doctrine" to areas outside your home. The appropriateness of those laws really depends upon the appropriateness of the extension of that right not to flee, or "retreat."
Personally, I've always thought it odd that the law was applied differently depending upon whether you were in your home, especially since that law was not based upon any sort of personal safety rationale or argument, but instead based upon archaic British property rights law that a man's home is his castle. But that said, it seems to me we've almost come full circle.
100-150 years ago it was probably much more likely that you'd see people "stand your ground" in areas outside the home, and be protected by the law of self defense. Then, as the nation became more populated and there were fewer confrontations between armed individuals, fleeing essentially became the only alternative for someone faced with mortal danger. Now, with the proliferation of people carrying weapons, those individuals are much more likely to be willing to stand and fight because they think they have a chance of prevailing in that fight.
I'm not a huge fan of forcing someone to decide whether they have to flee first, because I think that decision is way too subjective, and most likely to be second guessed by families of the person shot, the police and the prosecution, to say nothing of people like us.
On the other hand, I do not like the idea that SYG laws may cause a certain few individuals to feel empowered to go around acting like the jello sheriff, knowing that if things get out of hand they can always whip out the old Sig Sauer and start blasting away.
SYG laws are simply an extension of the "castle doctrine" to areas outside your home. The appropriateness of those laws really depends upon the appropriateness of the extension of that right not to flee, or "retreat."
Personally, I've always thought it odd that the law was applied differently depending upon whether you were in your home, especially since that law was not based upon any sort of personal safety rationale or argument, but instead based upon archaic British property rights law that a man's home is his castle. But that said, it seems to me we've almost come full circle.
100-150 years ago it was probably much more likely that you'd see people "stand your ground" in areas outside the home, and be protected by the law of self defense. Then, as the nation became more populated and there were fewer confrontations between armed individuals, fleeing essentially became the only alternative for someone faced with mortal danger. Now, with the proliferation of people carrying weapons, those individuals are much more likely to be willing to stand and fight because they think they have a chance of prevailing in that fight.
I'm not a huge fan of forcing someone to decide whether they have to flee first, because I think that decision is way too subjective, and most likely to be second guessed by families of the person shot, the police and the prosecution, to say nothing of people like us.
On the other hand, I do not like the idea that SYG laws may cause a certain few individuals to feel empowered to go around acting like the jello sheriff, knowing that if things get out of hand they can always whip out the old Sig Sauer and start blasting away.
Comment