As far as I'm aware state courts go by state laws unless they get appealed up to the supreme court or conflict the Constitution.
There's nothing proud about it. It's an incredibly traumatizing experience for those who do so out of necessity and not of insanity.
There's a reason why you never ask a soldier if they'd killed. It's not the sort of ordeal sane people look back on with anything but remorse.
i don't understand about what's so hard about not killing someone unless you absolutely, positively have no other option and your life is in imminent danger.
shooting the first thing that kicks through the door does not cover that.
It's a lot easier to justify lethal self-defense (both legally and morally) if the invader was making violent threats, behaving aggressively, or outright showing intent to kill, than it is to shoot someone based purely on the fact they broke in.
I'm not going to kill someone if they merely broke into my house.
But if I have family and kids, and the person is also brandishing a firearm? He's going down.
Also reading this thread has been quite a treat, specifically from Lankist, his arguments are always pretty funny.
During stressful confrontations, particularly when any party is moving, trained police officers have the accuracy of Hellen Keller. Police statistics back this up. You can multiple that by magnitudes for civilians. Also factor in that bullets fired which don't hit their intended targets keep going, and you've made an incredibly dangerous situation by opening fire.
It is incredibly difficult to hit a target when you're in a direct confrontation, let alone when you're on the defensive. Even at close range. When the adrenaline is pumping and someone is bearing down on you, you're WAY less accurate than you would think.
Soldiers are trained for years on weapons, and their shots fired / targets hit ratio in combat is STILL ludicrously low.
Accuracy is a crapshoot in direct confrontation. You can think of it hypothetically as being easy, but the reality is you probably wouldn't hit target five feet away with an entire clip if you aren't trained.
Hence why flight is almost universally preferable to fight when it comes to defensive use of firearms by civilians.
Human physiology under extreme duress is not adept at using firearms. Like, at all.
We're actually pretty shitty at using our own weapons when we most need them.
If you're saying the confrontation could have ended without death by one party leaving, you cannot then say it couldn't have been the other party. They stood their ground and defended themselves in exactly the same way the home owner did. You cannot champion one and vilify the other. They both did the same thing for fear of their lives.
Also wasn't the girl killed by her own friend by accident ? not sure who posted it and where, it's somewhere in the thread.
Likewise, if you know that a person's home you're about to enter most likely has military training and has been trained to shoot to kill, rather than Bubba in his pickup truck shooting beercans with the good ol' boys, then you're not going to fucking enter that home unless you have an army with you. I think simply having a stand your ground law isn't enough because most people that have a firearm don't know how to use it under stress or maintain it, hence all of the stories in the media about toddlers blowing their brains out with daddy's luger, and George Zimmerman.
"Shot And Killed While Robbing House" - In Texas.
"were trying to rob a home with at least five occupants" - In TEXAS
"The paper was told that Hidic may have known the occupants of the home, and may have tried to rob them previously"
"Hidic's death and the revelations about her crime have left her Facebook friends with a mixture of emotion." - Not her real friends. Her facebook friends.
She could've been murdered, she could've been killed in self defense, but she should've seen some sort of gun coming. Honestly, I don't see why anyone gives a fuck.
This flaw is accounted for by every state with stand your ground laws.
You need to have the legal right to be doing what you are doing and to be where you are supposed to be, for stand your ground to even begin to apply.
So if you are, for instance, mugging someone, you might have a legal right to be on the street, but you do not have the legal right to threaten other folks in order to force them to give you their possessions.
Or if you are breaking into a home, you lack both the legal right to be on the property, and the legal right to break and enter the premises.
Stand your ground would most certainly not apply to the assailant in either case. Therefore they are the party that needs to flee. They have, through their actions which violate the law, brought about these circumstances and it is therefore their lives that are legally on the line and their duty to retreat.
Dude was saying that everything would have been fine if the assailants ran, when they did precisely what the homeowner did: opened fire under the pretense of defending their own lives.
You can't condemn one and champion the other. By the time bullets are flying, it isn't about a burglary anymore--it's about not getting killed. The "defend your life" logic applies to both sides of the equation.
If defending oneself through lethal means is a fundamental right (it isn't. It's treated as a non-fundamental right by the Supreme Court, but people have been treating it as though it were fundamental,) then both parties have that right.
Either it's fundamental, and it cannot be restricted on either side, or it is non-fundamental, in which case bystanders may also face stringent restrictions on its use.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say self defense may go unimpeded and unrestricted because it's fundamental, but at the same time strip criminals of that right. Criminals have all fundamental rights. If it is non-fundamental, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with restricting it on both sides of the equation.
NYPD specifically only hit their targets roughly 8% of the time when discharging a weapon in 2005.
Accuracy varies by area and year, but even trained officers rarely go up to even 50% accuracy.
The typical accuracy for police according to the spokesperson in that article is 20%. And they're trained.
Eleven years of statistics for the NYPD. Roughly 34% accuracy (which is noted as being a product of the NYPD having extremely disciplined trigger fingers.) And they're highly trained. Also note that, in most of those instances, nobody was shooting at the officers.
You aren't going to hit on the mark with anything less than pure luck. Hitting a target in a truly perilous situation is nigh impossible for an untrained layman. When the shit hits the fan you might as well be throwing rocks, honestly. At least that way a bystander won't eat a stray bullet.
I am not explaining them to you.
Fundamental rights apply to everyone equally and relatively unrestricted. Non-fundamental rights can be restricted and regulated as much as the facts and history determine they should be.
e.g. driving straddles the line between a non-fundamental right and a privilege. You can restrict who gets to drive and you can strip people of that right for a shitload of reasons because it isn't fundamental.
Contrarywise, voting is a fundamental right, and you can't impose broad restrictions upon the process.
Self defense is treated as a non-fundamental right, because there are broad restrictions upon what does and does not constitute self defense. Therefore, there is nothing unconstitutional or infringing about telling people what they need to do before they employ violence as a means of defense.
Lankists points on being able to handle a firearm under duress are fairly accurate according to some of the books I've read talking about the subject. I can't cite the book I read a couple years back but it was a great read about how soldiers in the military (ie highly trained physically and mentally to wield firearms and kill human beings) have terrible accuracy because of the actual situation itself and the psychological aspect of taking another human life.
Also a lot of excerpts I've read from various gun ownership articles and books have seen only call for using deadly force when deadly force is going to be used against you, and that choosing to open fire with a gun at the wrong time could have dire consequences for everyone involved.
Unfortunately I don't really have citations for any of these things so it wouldn't really hold up in a debate. Just throwing in my 2 cents.
I don't recall anyone saying that cops should give the guy a high-five and then everyone goes home, this isn't unrestricted self-defense, i don't think anyone suggested that.
(going back to accuracy.)
It is a LAST resort. As in, it's either roll the dice with the gun and hope you get lucky or die.
Anyone who thinks they've actually got a reasonable chance of hitting something in that scenario doesn't understand what that scenario is like. It is an absolute crapshoot, literally.