You can't just make blanket statements like that. Circumstances differ. Disparity of force. Old vs. young. I'm in a wheelchair due to surgical complications from surgery (which is still not completely healed) last OCTOBER. That push alone could have killed me.
Horseshit. First off there is no such thing as a SYG law. It is embedded into a larger self-defense law. SYG only even matters if the shoot itself is found to be justified. If the shoot is, in and of itself, justified, THEN SYG allows the shooter to not get charged anyway simply because they didn't flee first. That's it. If the shoot is no good to begin with, SYG doesn't even enter into the equation. This is partially the Sheriff's fault, because he cited SYG as the reason he didn't immediately arrest the shooter, during a press conference he probably should not have had in the first place. But he's well known for his anti-2A sentiments, so his doing so was a political stunt. He's also a lawyer, so he knows better. BUT, it also turns out that waiting to arrest is advantageous to any possible prosecution, because the State only has 180 days to bring a case to trial, but that clock doesn't start until an arrest is made.
One could reasonably argue that the immorality of the matter is putting the general populace at a legal disadvantage to the violent individual who would think nothing of hurting another person for no reason. Once an individual has made it clear that they intend to do violence, it is unreasonable to demand that the individual who is threatened face the threat of prosecution for not fleeing from the scene for whatever reason, either due to not realizing escape was possible at the time, or simply because they did not believe that escape was viable.
This duty to retreat does not apply to people in their own homes, at least not in all of the states mentioned here - see link below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castl...:Stand-your-ground_law_by_US_jurisdiction.svg
it is immoral to use deadly force against someone who is not using or threatening to use deadly force against you. shooting someone dead simply for invading your home should be prosecuted as murder.
Deadly force can constitute almost anything, considering just how many everyday incidents can turn deadly in an instant. A single punch to the face can kill a person, as can a fall from a standing position at ground level. These are things that a healthy, physically fit individual simply cannot grasp, as it defies their understanding of how the real world actually works. For what purpose? Why should the homeowner be held to a lower standard of regard than the individual who decided to invade? Why does the criminal get the benefit of the doubt?
He doesn't. His mere presence represents an obvious, if not necessarily actionable, threat to the resident. And while the intruder might only want a TV, the moment he threatens the resident, he opens the door for the use of deadly force.
When I was in law enforcement, we had a training class regarding those gray areas of defense. The instructor would stand with his back to us and his hands hidden and tell us to shoot him (Simunitions, not real ammo, obviously) if we saw anything that could be legitimate justification for deadly force. With only a couple of exceptions (me being one of them, but I'd had a lot of training already), the instructor was able to turn and fire an accurate shot that "killed" the trainee before the trainee could react. It was a valuable illustration of the realities of reaction time, that was repeated in some other "Force on Force" training classes I attended over the years. As one of my instructors so eloquently put it: "If you're a guy who finds an intruder in your house in the dark of night, you have all the backstory you need." and told us bluntly to shoot the intruder without hesitation; because verbally challenging the intruder - telling him "don't move!" or "show me your hands!" - was a good way to get yourself killed.
It is usually a good idea to withdraw from a threat even if you are going to shoot. You must keep your interval. Withdrawal to re-establish a safe interval and to give yourself room to work is essential. My own rules for shooting someone are quite strict. I would not do so unless they had a gun or knife out and were brandishing it. Guns belong in holsters. Knives belong in sheaths or in pockets. Brandishing one is a crime and a threat, and should be responded to with a well aimed gunshot.
Exactly. Getting behind cover as fast as you can is normally the first action in a safe strategy of survival.
I normally tell subjects, "keep your hands where I can see them please -- NO hands in pockets." If I am walking up to someone it is because they are doing something wrong. So the first thing I have to worry about is their hands. Normally I am wearing a plate-carrier bullet proof vest, so a gunfight with me would be to the disadvantage of the opponent.
The home involves "Castle Doctrine" not "Stand Your Ground". Stand Your Ground would be more likely in a place like a bar or a restaurant or a mall etc.
"Stand Your Ground" ONLY matters if the shoot (or other act of violence) is legally justified to begin with. As I've already said. And the only thing it says is that, assuming a shoot (or other act of violence) is legally justified to begin with, that you cannot catch a charge just because some lily-livered prosecutor thinks you had an opportunity to retreat first. But, you ARE right, that the two legal concepts are different things.
wrong. SYG and Castle Doctrine mean the same thing, just SYG expands Castle Doctrine to all public areas.
but you have no legal right to shoot an attacker who is retreating. you shoot a bad guy in the back you go to prison.
