• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Laws Be Federal Law [W18]

Should Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Be Federal Law?

  • Yes, I should be protected under Federal Law to be a Man and defend me and mine.

    Votes: 14 70.0%

  • No, I'm a coward who should be made to run and hide.

    Votes: 6 30.0%
  • Total voters
    20
Re: Should Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Laws Be Federal Law

Under the Laws of Nature / Vattel's "Law of Nations", individuals have the right to stand his ground and defend his home, property, family and life or even a neighbors home or life and use deadly force to to do so.

Government telling individuals that they can't stand their ground to defend their life, family or property is violating the Laws of Nature. The politically correct, the political left ignore the Laws of Nature.

Citizens should have the same rights as the sovereign or government. Each individual should be looked upon as a sovereign.
 
Last edited:
Gipper said:
Yes, but SYG and Castle Doctrine can be used as a blanket "get out of jail free" card in this aspect. If you just let it go unchallenged, you'll see people essentially bending the rules to get a clean slate.

Don't get me wrong - I essentially agree with these doctrines, but I also think that the mere existence of these laws create a massive amount of grey area that I really do not wish to see be categorized in convenient little boxes.
Click to expand...

I think you underestimate the tenacity of the AG's and SA' office to stick their nose into private citizens affairs... ;)
 
Goshin said:
Just to throw my two bits in, I think Castle Law and no-duty-to-retreat ("SYG") are such common sense measures that there is no reason why they aren't standard precedent in every jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Personally I think stand your ground is a potential nightmare. What if the wrong people start taking advantage of the law to commit crimes and when they kill some one they claim self defense?
 
ChezC3 said:
I think you underestimate the tenacity of the AG's and SA' office to stick their nose into private citizens affairs... ;)
Click to expand...

Oh I have a healthy distrust of government at all levels. However, I'm not going to don the tinfoil hat and start shouting "CONSPIRACY!" around every corner.

Them "sticking their nose" in this is an absolutely necessary evil, since it's a determinant that makes an action become "self defense" or "murder". I'll take some government action lightly, but not that.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
Me too!

I figure a guy that needs a federal law to be a man is a wuss anyway.

Badges, I don't need no steenking badges!

I'll protect me and mine with or without someone telling me I am allowed.
Click to expand...

You're not seeing it in the correct context, it isn't about being what's allowed, it is being about what the law is limited to. That's what the Constitution was, a limitation of what government can do not what its citizens can't...
 
Gipper said:
Oh I have a healthy distrust of government at all levels. However, I'm not going to don the tinfoil hat and start shouting "CONSPIRACY!" around every corner.

Them "sticking their nose" in this is an absolutely necessary evil, since it's a determinant that makes an action become "self defense" or "murder". I'll take some government action lightly, but not that.
Click to expand...


I use tinfoil for casseroles in the oven and baked potato on the grill, in my youth, to make a maryjawanna smoking utensil, as a hat? Never even thought about it...
 
ChezC3 said:
1. You're taking yourself waaaaaaay too seriously for a Friday evening.
2. I purposefully chose those options because they were provocative.
3. What is beyond your "normal right" as it regards your right to protect your life and property?
Click to expand...

1.) really, winking back is serious now? i had no idea lol
2.) well those are good chooses then
3.) well its just my opinion i admit that but ill give you my rundown.

intruder in your house or in the middle of forcibly trying to enter your house, deadly force is allowed
intruder on your property retreat/investigation is first unless obvious fear for ones life is present or intimate danger is present then deadly force is allowed, this one of course will be very subjective and one will still have to be careful in some cases.

as for stand your ground laws, im not sure that I could come up with how that needs written, most i have seen are very sloppy and basically COULD allow me to push you and punch you on time, then you start kicking my ass then i shoot you.

a stand you ground law IMO has to be written much better or just extend castle laws to place of work, vehicles and person like they did here in PA.
I THINK id have to check that deadly force is allowed for protecting yourself and to prevent a felony but id have to check on the felony part. Like shooting a guy committing a rape.
 
I oppose the federal government mandating state criminal law upon them, especially affirmative defenses. Stand your ground could be a free-for-all at some point--survivor wins--but it is better than No-Retreat, not that juries are strict with that one.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Personally I think stand your ground is a potential nightmare. What if the wrong people start taking advantage of the law to commit crimes and when they kill some one they claim self defense?
Click to expand...


Okay, I'll address this.

"Stand your Ground" is a label attached to a legal provision removing the "duty to retreat prior to using lethal force" that existed in SOME State's laws previously. It was labeled "Stand your ground" probably by detractors, attempting to portray it as encouraging vigilantism and macho posturing.

Not So.


The basic standard for self-defense is pretty similar in all states. All that I know of require the following:

1. You must be without leqal fault in the incident. Meaning, if you were committing any crimes or wrongs at the start of the incident, you are automatically disallowed the self-defense legal defense, right there.

2. You must have been in, or believed yourself in, imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

3. A reasonable person in same situation also believe #2 (the "reasonable man clause")

The fourth item used to be "was unable to safely retreat from the situation"... the so-called SYG just removed that fourth requirement from those states that had it... and this was a GOOD thing because it was too easily abused by prosecutors against people who were legitimately defending themselves, who might have trouble PROVING they couldn't safely retreat.

It's hard enough proving self-defense as it is... and SD is an "affirmative defense", meaning you can't just claim it, there has to be somethign supporting it.




So you STILL cannot claim self-defense under SYG if you STARTED OFF IN THE WRONG!
 
Last edited:
ChezC3 said:
I use tinfoil for casseroles in the oven and baked potato on the grill, in my youth, to make a maryjawanna smoking utensil, as a hat? Never even thought about it...
Click to expand...

Didn't mean you. You're not quite at that level. However, it sounds as if you're just wanting to establish federal law to make SYG pretty lax and encompassing - to a point where you could create a moral hazard of sorts.

I believe in SYG, but I don't want it to be a "can't touch me" law when you shout it. We already have that with often-abused legislature like Affirmative Action. Damned if I keep quiet about more of it.
 
ChezC3 said:
Below is a wonderful story of a man defending his home from intrusion.

[video]http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/05/09/70-year-old-man-fights-back-after-finding-intruder-in-his-gardner-home/[/video]

My problem is when you watch the video, you'll hear the narrator state Law Enforcement officials advise that home owners when faced with intrusion should flee.

This to me is the most asinine, cowardly, depend on nanny state, thinking one could have and it really is disturbing that Law Enforcement officials, who have already been proven NOT to have a constitutional obligation of protecting you and yours would tell you and me to tuck tale and flee.

If an intruder invades my home it will be by God's grace that he is capable of leaving it vertically. I will not flee, I will fight.

I feel that this is a universal right, not one that should be subject to review or under the purview of anyone or anybody. Therefore, it should -- in my opinion -- fall under Federal statute, not to be limited or restricted in any way by State, County, or local levels of government.

What say you?
Click to expand...

I think the law should say that if anyone breaks into my house, he is fair game. If anyone tries to steal my care, he is fair game.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
This is not on list but I will speak my mind.

This is the same law that sparked the George Zimmerman/trayvon Martin saga. And I don't think Zimmerman acted in self defense, it was a excuse.

Edited to add, by Goshin:

Moderator's Warning:
NO Martin/Zimmerman crap in this thread! M/Z stays in the M/Z forum!!
Click to expand...

Just to note, I am /liking Goshin here...NOT Unitedwestand13.
 
Perotista said:
I think the law should say that if anyone breaks into my house, he is fair game. If anyone tries to steal my care, he is fair game.
Click to expand...



That should be common sense, but in some states it isn't. Unfortunately.
 
Goshin said:
Okay, I'll address this.

"Stand your Ground" is a label attached to a legal provision removing the "duty to retreat prior to using lethal force" that existed in SOME State's laws previously. It was labeled "Stand your ground" probably by detractors, attempting to portray it as encouraging vigilantism and macho posturing.

Not So.


The basic standard for self-defense is pretty similar in all states. All that I know of require the following:

1. You must be without leqal fault in the incident. Meaning, if you were committing any crimes or wrongs at the start of the incident, you are automatically disallowed the self-defense legal defense, right there.

2. You must have been in, or believed yourself in, imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

3. A reasonable person in same situation also believe #2 (the "reasonable man clause")

The fourth item used to be "was unable to safely retreat from the situation"... the so-called SYG just removed that fourth requirement from those states that had it... and this was a GOOD thing because it was too easily abused by prosecutors against people who were legitimately defending themselves, who might have trouble PROVING they couldn't safely retreat.

It's hard enough proving self-defense as it is... and SD is an "affirmative defense", meaning you can't just claim it, there has to be somethign supporting it.




So you STILL cannot claim self-defense under SYG if you STARTED OFF IN THE WRONG!
Click to expand...

interesting, thanks goshin, written like this then yes i would support it national and it should be national.
 
I've noticed that liberals tend to be more tolerant of criminals than victims...and by victims, I mean my TV, my car, my stereo.

I value my car more than I value the person trying to take it from me illegally. Frankly, I think I'd be doing society a disservice by letting him go free - not to mention reducing my own net worth.

Let me shoot him in the head and save the taxpayer the cost of a trial.
 
Gipper said:
I've noticed that liberals tend to be more tolerant of criminals than victims...and by victims, I mean my TV, my car, my stereo.

I value my car more than I value the person trying to take it from me illegally. Frankly, I think I'd be doing society a disservice by letting him go free - not to mention reducing my own net worth.

Let me shoot him in the head and save the taxpayer the cost of a trial.
Click to expand...



Personally I despise thieves and rarely shed a tear when they get shot dead. Particularly since most of them are not the Gentleman Burglar of literary myth, but thugs perfectly willing to use violence to achieve their larceny.
 
The poll is absurd so I abstain.
 
Goshin said:
Personally I despise thieves and rarely shed a tear when they get shot dead. Particularly since most of them are not the Gentleman Burglar of literary myth, but thugs perfectly willing to use violence to achieve their larceny.
Click to expand...

just had to quote and BOLD this part.

i always laugh when people cry about trust and knowing if the INTRUDER/CRIMINAL is a "real" threat.

the solution is simply, if you want me to trust you and not question whether you are a "real" threat, keep your ass on the outside of my house :shrug:
 
ChezC3 said:
Below is a wonderful story of a man defending his home from intrusion.

[video]http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/05/09/70-year-old-man-fights-back-after-finding-intruder-in-his-gardner-home/[/video]

My problem is when you watch the video, you'll hear the narrator state Law Enforcement officials advise that home owners when faced with intrusion should flee.

This to me is the most asinine, cowardly, depend on nanny state, thinking one could have and it really is disturbing that Law Enforcement officials, who have already been proven NOT to have a constitutional obligation of protecting you and yours would tell you and me to tuck tale and flee.

If an intruder invades my home it will be by God's grace that he is capable of leaving it vertically. I will not flee, I will fight.

I feel that this is a universal right, not one that should be subject to review or under the purview of anyone or anybody. Therefore, it should -- in my opinion -- fall under Federal statute, not to be limited or restricted in any way by State, County, or local levels of government.

What say you?
Click to expand...

Yes it should be federal law.Citizens shouldn't have to worry about what state they are in regarding self defense.
 
Goshin said:
Personally I despise thieves and rarely shed a tear when they get shot dead. Particularly since most of them are not the Gentleman Burglar of literary myth, but thugs perfectly willing to use violence to achieve their larceny.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me, but "Gentleman Burglar" seems oxymoronic in nature.

Now, I know that in a perfect world you can't just shoot someone dead for taking your stuff, but - as you alluded to - if severe violence or potential for death resulted in it, I could see punishment for it being capital in nature.

Obviously some limitations need to be made. Stealing bread to eat and stave off starvation is one thing. However, nobody needs my car to live. Additionally, people who do this once are almost certain to do it twice.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) really, winking back is serious now? i had no idea lol
2.) well those are good chooses then
3.) well its just my opinion i admit that but ill give you my rundown.

intruder in your house or in the middle of forcibly trying to enter your house, deadly force is allowed
intruder on your property retreat/investigation is first unless obvious fear for ones life is present or intimate danger is present then deadly force is allowed, this one of course will be very subjective and one will still have to be careful in some cases.

as for stand your ground laws, im not sure that I could come up with how that needs written, most i have seen are very sloppy and basically COULD allow me to push you and punch you on time, then you start kicking my ass then i shoot you.

a stand you ground law IMO has to be written much better or just extend castle laws to place of work, vehicles and person like they did here in PA.
I THINK id have to check that deadly force is allowed for protecting yourself and to prevent a felony but id have to check on the felony part. Like shooting a guy committing a rape.
Click to expand...

1. Don't know you that well, couldn't tell if you were throwing a mock out there...
2. Thank you
3. I think we can all agree in common sense implementation. However common sense isn't winning the day in our government and evidence to that fact is that if it was then there wouldn't need to be any laws of this nature on the books in the first place. The fact that they are tells me that their are some down right imbeciles who are promoting an agenda that tells you to run and hide, to not resist aggression and to basically allow yourself to be robbed and or get your ass kicked if not murdered.

The wording of such laws would have to be taken under considerable consideration but there is a movement to prevent people, to make law abiding citizens culpable for reacting to crimes committed against them.
 
Gipper said:
Maybe it's just me, but "Gentleman Burglar" seems oxymoronic in nature.

Now, I know that in a perfect world you can't just shoot someone dead for taking your stuff, but - as you alluded to - if severe violence or potential for death resulted in it, I could see punishment for it being capital in nature.

Obviously some limitations need to be made. Stealing bread to eat and stave off starvation is one thing. However, nobody needs my car to live. Additionally, people who do this once are almost certain to do it twice.
Click to expand...



I brought out this term, "The Gentleman Burglar", to exemplify how some people protest that you can't know an intruder in your home means you harm... perhaps he just wants your TV, and you should let him have it rather than use violence. :lamo

To which I tell them, the reason you SHOOT HIS SORRY ASS, is BECAUSE you don't know what he may do... and given the risks in waiting to find out, shoot first!
 
Goshin said:
I brought out this term, "The Gentleman Burglar", to exemplify how some people protest that you can't know an intruder in your home means you harm... perhaps he just wants your TV, and you should let him have it rather than use violence. :lamo

To which I tell them, the reason you SHOOT HIS SORRY ASS, is BECAUSE you don't know what he may do... and given the risks in waiting to find out, shoot first!
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how many liberals I see that would give him the benefit of the doubt. A criminal. Benefit of the doubt.

Is it just me, or do those two things simply not belong together?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom