General Discussion

spin

(17,493 posts)

47. True. However ...

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 04:52 PM

Mar 2012

why would I believe that a person who had broken into my home while I was present had no intention of harming me or other members of my family? He could simply wait until the house was unoccupied and then break in and take whatever he wanted.

That doesn't mean that I would blow the intruder away just because he was in my home. If he followed my instructions he would simply have to wait until the police arrived to cuff and stuff him. If I confronted him and he turned and ran out a door, I would not chase or shoot him. If he turned his back and did not run, I would suspect he was trying to access a weapon. I would order him to not turn toward me and move left or right to a different location in the room. If he didn't obey my instructions I would shoot him before he shot me. (Hopefully.)

Why should I have to retreat in such a situation? If I did so, the intruder might run up the stairs to the second story of my home and threaten other members of my family.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Self-defense: Duty to retreat or Stand your ground [View all] Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #1

it never fails to amaze me that, as you state, even on DU DrDan Mar 2012 #3

DU is just as susceptible to right wing propaganda as other sites/populations Doctor_J Mar 2012 #6

Many posters in the gungeon who support concealed carry and gun rights ... spin Mar 2012 #46

Deadly Force is not OK in defense of property. CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #7

not to some here DrDan Mar 2012 #29

I am taking a legal class CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #39

a burglar entering your house in Florida gives you the right to use deadly force DrDan Mar 2012 #40

True. However ... spin Mar 2012 #47

perhaps you would not "chase or shoot him" - that does not hold true for everyone else with a gun DrDan Mar 2012 #54

"In fear" is the key dmkinsey Mar 2012 #41

You forgot two very important words ... spin Mar 2012 #49

I couldn't find what you quoted here. Union Scribe Mar 2012 #11

This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #21

It isn't my fault that what you put in quotes Union Scribe Mar 2012 #36

Only what they said in my class. CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #50

k&r, n/t appal_jack Mar 2012 #2

Great post alcibiades_mystery Mar 2012 #4

Zimmerman wasn't "standing his ground" by any definition anyway Doctor_J Mar 2012 #5

"standing one's ground" generally refers to someone in their home or other place they have a right Romulox Mar 2012 #8

Unfortunately, Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 #12

From your OP: "What if Trayvon was standing his ground?" nt Romulox Mar 2012 #15

Unfortunately I think the prefered solution to the NRA would Doctor_J Mar 2012 #17

He didn't have a gun. Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 #19

Having a gun isn't a required precondition for self defense. At any rate, *you* posted the article, Romulox Mar 2012 #20

No, it isn't. Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 #24

Absolutely. Even more confusingly, it's possible for *both* parties to be Romulox Mar 2012 #28

Agree with you 100%. DLevine Mar 2012 #9

Because he's dead zipplewrath Mar 2012 #10

Zimmerman chases down an unarmed man and kills him. DLevine Mar 2012 #13

Prove it zipplewrath Mar 2012 #18

Maybe it's just me. DLevine Mar 2012 #22

Depends upon the state zipplewrath Mar 2012 #25

The 911 call that Zimmerman himself made is evidence that he chased Martin. He admits it. yardwork Mar 2012 #31

Pretty obvious to me too zipplewrath Mar 2012 #34

I don't know. Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 #14

I hope the police can use cell phone positioning data to determine Zimmerman's JoePhilly Mar 2012 #16

Zimmerman told the emergency dispatcher that he was chasing the "suspect." yardwork Mar 2012 #32

I hope that toasts him. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #44

When conservative controlled governments put weapons in the hands of unstable violent morons.... Evasporque Mar 2012 #23

It seems to me that the reasoning behind LuvNewcastle Mar 2012 #26

It expands the doctrine of Castle Law. Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 #30

One of the gungeon denizens told me the other day this has "nothing to do Doctor_J Mar 2012 #33

Common sense is also rare against among anti-gun people. I have seen both over react. Logical Mar 2012 #45

I basically agree ... spin Mar 2012 #51

Why did police automatically assume Martin was the aggressor? Cali_Democrat Mar 2012 #27

What makes you think they did? zipplewrath Mar 2012 #35

Except that the Sanford police have been caught in several lies about this so far. yardwork Mar 2012 #37

With any luck at all COLGATE4 Mar 2012 #38

becasue Zimmerman was standing his ground, not the black guy librechik Mar 2012 #42

"Stand Your Ground" does not apply when you start the confrontation. L0oniX Mar 2012 #43

While I think this POS's actions fail to even meet the meager Stand Your Ground requirements... Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2012 #48

Agree on both points. Rhiannon12866 Mar 2012 #52

Which one looks dangerous to you? SomethingFishy Mar 2012 #53