• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

You don't wish for that, I guarantee it. No matter how gooey of an gun-loving American you might imagine some of us to be.
You can only speak for yourself. But let's assume you are right. Many do seem to have very little regard for the people they are so willing to kill and the people that will be permanently harmed. I get wanting to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones. I don't get the failure to see these "lowlifes" as human beings with families of their own. I sincerely wonder sometimes how it ever happened that we established prohibitions of cruel and unusual punishment. Why shouldn't we do like the Saudi's and Iranians? Why can't we kill these "lowlifes"? There seems to me to be a disconnect here.
 
I cannot claim to know the minds of anyone else here on this forum. I can however explain my own propensities toward being prepared, and espousing my belief that smart, well meaning people should be armed. (on the flip of that I am not saying stupid people should not have the right to self defense, but clearly competence is important)

Since I was a little kid I have always had a fascination with guns. I never watched a lot of TV, or movies I was almost always outdoors, but I did worship the military, and police officers since I could even spell my name.
When I was 10 I started a military club.

So a real naive perspective was clearly my main focus for firearms for a long time. IMHO this is extremely dangerous. When a person believes what the filtered heroic accounts seen in the movies, or on TV, or from what he hears to be true without regard to the unfiltered and grisly facts it is a position of dangerous fascination, not practical application.

When I was 14 years old, my uncle decided to burst part of that bubble. He took me out and showed me the devastating power of firearms, and impressed on me the monumental importance of safety, and making sure you know what you are doing. Safety + competence.

Fast forward a few years and at 18 I went out hunting fairly often both with friends, family and strangers, I saw some with good safety, some with poor safety, and some who where frightening in there lack of safety.

Fast forward nearly a decade later, I woke up that morning, grabbed a cup of coffee and picked up the paper and about fell down. One of my closest friends was on the front page, it was a picture I knew well, it was from our prom. She had been killed where she worked at a local veterinary clinic. She opened up in the mornings and no one else was there. A man came in about 5AM, and beat her with a fire extinguisher and raped her.

It was a devastating loss. Even now nearly 5 years later I have a hard time thinking about it without becoming emotional. She was a very special person. So caring, so honest, so much more than so many others.

I began to study these kinds of situations, I wanted to understand how best to be ready if something like this ever occurred again. It literally meant more to me than anything else in my life to try to understand how smart, caring and capable people can learn to see these things coming and be prepared to prevent such a travesty from occurring, or be ready if it does. I realized that passion, and anger are the wrong emotions to have during such a situation, only training and skill are needed. I realized that police have been dealing with these kinds of encounters for as long as human beings have been policing themselves. I realized that there was no reason to reinvent the wheel. The force continuum is my standard.

Among all of my friends, and people I know I have always been the one to slow things down, to take time to understand, to try to diffuse a situation. I am always the last one to think violence is the answer. However in a situation where someone wants to kill, or maim you, and you can be certain of that, you should not hesitate to use deadly force.

As I studied I realized some core facts which have altered my position over time.

Fact #1, you never know the capability of a person who might do you wrong. Make no assumptions in this regard. In dangerous situations assumptions can get you killed.

Fact#2, you must be extremely safe, or else you could end up being a victim of your own carelessness. (this to me encompass both situational awareness and firearms safety.)

Fact#3, you could end up doing something illegal even if you have not harmed anyone due to self defense laws which restrict law abiding citizens capabilities.

Facts 1 and 2 where so ingrained from my time in martial arts, and from my safety training I had gone through with hunting and my uncle that they are completely uncontroversial.

Fact #3 made me angry. EXTREMELY angry, becuase I started to realize that innocent, caring, and compassionate people around the US who would never use a deadly tool like a firearms in anger would be restricted under the law in their ability to defend themselves.

I know my friend would have never used a gun in anger, but I also know if she had had one that day, she may very well be alive.
 
Last edited:
You can only speak for yourself. But let's assume you are right. Many do seem to have very little regard for the people they are so willing to kill and the people that will be permanently harmed. I get wanting to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones. I don't get the failure to see these "lowlifes" as human beings with families of their own. I sincerely wonder sometimes how it ever happened that we established prohibitions of cruel and unusual punishment. Why shouldn't we do like the Saudi's and Iranians? Why can't we kill these "lowlifes"? There seems to me to be a disconnect here.

Because if you kill them while they're in the act of burgling your home, the killing can be justified by your lack of awareness of the home invader's intentions and the blank canvass that gives for speculating on what they might do next.

That argument doesn't exist at trial.
 
I've a question that may or may not belong in a separate thread;

If it is acceptable to shoot a burglar in the act would it also be acceptable to shoot the burglar as punishment for committing a burglary after they've been convicted?
That's been asked and answered more than once in this thread.
 
If it is acceptable to shoot a burglar in the act would it also be acceptable to shoot the burglar as punishment for committing a burglary after they've been convicted?

Why not? They are lowlifes we are told time and time again. Do they suddenly become human at time of trial? Or is it that you are simply arguing in favor of self defense? Which BTW, no one I know of is arguing against. I'm arguing against the idea that one should leave his home to go outside and kill burglars (see OP). That I do not get.

ETA: Never mind.

Generally, it's not acceptable to shoot a burglar to protect property. It's certainly not ethical in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I think you will find that if you simply blow someone away if they broke into your house you will have a case to answer. That may turn out to be tough **** for you.

Here in the US, absolutely not.

You are allowed to protect your "castle" with any force necessary, up to and including deadly force.
 
In what state?

By "blow him away", do you mean engage in a gun fight where both of you might die? Or do you think you will obviously win all such events?

I don't know of any state in the USA that doesn't allow the protection of your "castle" with deadly force.
 
You can only speak for yourself. But let's assume you are right. Many do seem to have very little regard for the people they are so willing to kill and the people that will be permanently harmed. I get wanting to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones. I don't get the failure to see these "lowlifes" as human beings with families of their own. I sincerely wonder sometimes how it ever happened that we established prohibitions of cruel and unusual punishment. Why shouldn't we do like the Saudi's and Iranians? Why can't we kill these "lowlifes"? There seems to me to be a disconnect here.
There is a big difference between a person on trial for burglary and finding that same person in my home uninvited at say 3 A.M. He's turns and runs off with my laptop, I wouldn't be moved to shoot; if he drops the laptop and advances towards me, what am I to do? And I have just a second to decide.

Given my experience with this sort of thing, I would probably react in a manner favorable to me.

By the by, the guy who was willing to take my life for nothing had a mom and dad and sisters, all of whom cried at his funeral after he overdosed. They had no idea he was a drug-dealing wiseguy wannabe and to my knowledge their bubbles were never burst.

To them he was a loving son and brother, just troubled. To me, he was a scumbag.

It's a matter of perspective.
 
There are just too many unknown variables here for me to consider initiating violence.
As far as I'm concerned, and this is born up by a lot of data, anyone invading my home while I am there is already initiating violence by violating my right to personal security. How I deal with it will depend greatly on the circumstances; but I will always avail myself of whatever level of force I deem necessary to end the threat. I'm kind of annoyed that so many other self-defense advocates here express themselves in such unfortunate ways. The issue isn't about "blowing someone away", or using human beings for target practice. That is, IME, little more than emotionalism and bluster, regardless of how well-qualified someone may be to defend themselves. The actual issue is ending the threat.

Per the FBI's data, the vast majority of cases where firearms are used to defend against criminal attacks, they are never fired. The threat is ended by the criminal surrendering or fleeing; which is the ideal resolution. In the comparatively rare cases where criminals do not surrender or flee, then it is necessary to use more extreme force to end the threat of violence.

To take the local situation as an example, the gang that has been perpetrating the majority of the local burglaries and home-invasions, cases of the latter have been typically targeting the elderly or others unlikely to be able to defend themselves. Should I be the target of another home invasion, I fully expect that simply demonstrating the ability to defend myself with lethal force will be enough to end the threat, and no further action will need to be taken. However, I am prepared to use lethal force should the need arise.
 
There is a big difference between a person on trial for burglary and finding that same person in my home uninvited at say 3 A.M. He's turns and runs off with my laptop, I wouldn't be moved to shoot; if he drops the laptop and advances towards me, what am I to do? And I have just a second to decide.

Given my experience with this sort of thing, I would probably react in a manner favorable to me.
Self defense isn't at issue. If you are only arguing in the case of self defense then I withdraw my point about a burglars family.
 
Last edited:
As far as I'm concerned, and this is born up by a lot of data, anyone invading my home while I am there is already initiating violence by violating my right to personal security.

That's not violence, in my opinion. If you choose to define it as violence so you can reply with violence, then this is where the disconnect is, but breaking into someone's home does not fit the usually accepted definition of the term 'violence' in my dictionary.

How I deal with it will depend greatly on the circumstances; but I will always avail myself of whatever level of force I deem necessary to end the threat. I'm kind of annoyed that so many other self-defense advocates here express themselves in such unfortunate ways.

Thank you - I thought it was just me that didn't like the language used. It makes me think that people think they're living in a movie.

The issue isn't about "blowing someone away", or using human beings for target practice. That is, IME, little more than emotionalism and bluster, regardless of how well-qualified someone may be to defend themselves. The actual issue is ending the threat.

Per the FBI's data, the vast majority of cases where firearms are used to defend against criminal attacks, they are never fired. The threat is ended by the criminal surrendering or fleeing; which is the ideal resolution. In the comparatively rare cases where criminals do not surrender or flee, then it is necessary to use more extreme force to end the threat of violence.

To take the local situation as an example, the gang that has been perpetrating the majority of the local burglaries and home-invasions, cases of the latter have been typically targeting the elderly or others unlikely to be able to defend themselves. Should I be the target of another home invasion, I fully expect that simply demonstrating the ability to defend myself with lethal force will be enough to end the threat, and no further action will need to be taken. However, I am prepared to use lethal force should the need arise.

Thank you for your response. I can see that there are times where using a gun as either a weapon or threat is desirable, even necessary, but the impression I get from a few people here is that they go to violence as the first port of call, without a moments pause for other options. As I say, provided no threat is made to myself or my family, I'm quite happy for the incident to end without gunfire and with me not being able to watch TV.

The way I read others posts, they would, first and foremost, prefer a firefight to anything else. for me, violence is always the last resort.
 
Okay, brief question for all.

If your house were to be burgled would you prefer to be at home or out?
 
Thank you for your response. I can see that there are times where using a gun as either a weapon or threat is desirable, even necessary, but the impression I get from a few people here is that they go to violence as the first port of call, without a moments pause for other options. As I say, provided no threat is made to myself or my family, I'm quite happy for the incident to end without gunfire and with me not being able to watch TV.

The way I read others posts, they would, first and foremost, prefer a firefight to anything else. for me, violence is always the last resort.
I see this being stated. I wonder if you could be bothered to quote a bit and tell us how it makes you feel, and why?
 
Self defense isn't at issue.

How do you determine what's at issue when confronting a stranger in you house at 3 A.M.? Talk about a movie scenario. It happens nearly as fast as you can blink.
 
How do you determine what's at issue when confronting a stranger in you house at 3 A.M.? Talk about a movie scenario. It happens nearly as fast as you can blink.
Hmmmm.....

There is a big difference between a person on trial for burglary and finding that same person in my home uninvited at say 3 A.M. He's turns and runs off with my laptop, I wouldn't be moved to shoot; if he drops the laptop and advances towards me, what am I to do? And I have just a second to decide.
You would seem to agree with me. You drew a distinction, right?
 
Don't take this the wrong way, but you sound pretty ... unwise at best.

1. Many criminals have the same fascination you have with guns.
2. They don't have to worry about shooting their family members by mistake.
3. They are already breaking the law, so that doesn't stop them either.
4. The low life might not be alone.
5. I am not an expert but I believe that in Arizona, shooting someone in your home still exposes you to a civil "wrongful death" lawsuit.

Lastly... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

I cannot speak for Arizona, but I know for a fact that in Florida, you cannot be sued, nor can anyone be held liable for death if the use of deadly force was found to be legal and justified.

ETA: Just found it. You cannot be held liable in Arizona if you use self defense.
Arizona Title 13, Chp. 4

13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct
No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
 
Last edited:
I see this being stated. I wonder if you could be bothered to quote a bit and tell us how it makes you feel, and why?

I acknowledge the responsibility to do so, and I realise that my statement doesn't hold much water without it.

I don't have the time to go through the thread right now and do so, but I will try to take the time to do so.

Sorry.
 
I'd prefer to be home.

I'd prefer to be out.

My way has a 0% chance of me or my family being hurt during the burglary and a 0% chance of me shooting the burglar.

Your way has a >0% chance of you or your family being hurt during the burglary and a >0% chance of shooting the burglar.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom