• 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?


  • Total voters
    20

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,458
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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?
 
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?

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!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would've voted YES in your poll if not for your wording.
 
This.

Of course, there aren't very many laws that I would hold at the federal level as opposed to the state level.

If I took your meaning, I personally don't think it should be up for review at any level, my life and what's mine aren't beholden to anyone but me. States Rights in this regard can only be seen as repressive to individual freedom, as a State restricting your right to defend yourself is obviously a violation of your individual liberty.

I am a States Rights advocate to the extreme, however there are certain things which are universal and therefore wouldn't pertain.
 
If I took your meaning, I personally don't think it should be up for review at any level, my life and what's mine aren't beholden to anyone but me. States Rights in this regard can only be seen as repressive to individual freedom, as a State restricting your right to defend yourself is obviously a violation of your individual liberty.

I am a States Rights advocate to the extreme, however there are certain things which are universal and therefore wouldn't pertain.

However, states can and should be allowed to determine causality and other factors. I don't want it to dwindle down to situations where, in Texas, you can shoot a Jehovah's Witness because they interrupted your basketball game with a doorbell and a copy of The Watchtower.

States and their laws can be molded to help determine what populace they wish to have for residents. Massachusetts can have wackjob laws that will cater to the fringe-stupid anti-gun nuts and Mississippi can have thumper laws that say God mandates that you kill heathens and brown people.
 
this is actually a good topic to bad you ruined it with such a ****y poll.

Anyway absolutely a FORM of castle laws should be national, just like open carry and my conceal weapons should be legal in every state.

and the reason i stress FORM id because many states have varying degrees of this law and a suitable one should be picked, flight laws are complete BS and im glad PA got ride of them.

also i purposely left out the stand your ground question because those laws vary way to much and some of them are very piss poorly written.
id have to see the law and its verbiage to ever make an opinion on them.
 
However, states can and should be allowed to determine causality and other factors. I don't want it to dwindle down to situations where, in Texas, you can shoot a Jehovah's Witness because they interrupted your basketball game with a doorbell and a copy of The Watchtower.

States and their laws can be molded to help determine what populace they wish to have for residents. Massachusetts can have wackjob laws that will cater to the fringe-stupid anti-gun nuts and Mississippi can have thumper laws that say God mandates that you kill heathens and brown people.


I see your point and can actually agree with your reasoning for about everything else but this. Your life and the lives of your family aren't under any institutions authority but your own.
 
this is actually a good topic to bad you ruined it with such a ****y poll.

Anyway absolutely a FORM of castle laws should be national, just like open carry and my conceal weapons should be legal in every state.

and the reason i stress FORM id because many states have varying degrees of this law and a suitable one should be picked, flight laws are complete BS and im glad PA got ride of them.

also i purposely left out the stand your ground question because those laws vary way to much and some of them are very piss poorly written.
id have to see the law and its verbiage to ever make an opinion on them.


Well, next time I make a poll I'll take a poll to see what is the proper options I should offer... ;)

So you agree with the principle but taking a wait and see approach to the particulars?
 
I see your point and can actually agree with your reasoning for about everything else but this. Your life and the lives of your family aren't under any institutions authority but your own.

Yes, but I do believe in some form of "checks and balances" in a government determining if someone acted with due diligence. Otherwise, you'd just have a bunch of dead people dragged in to houses and people telling cops, "Scared. Self-defense. Not my fault." without knowing the truth.

And, as such, I'm okay with states determining where that delicate line is.
 
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.

Come on United, Zimmerman was suckered punch by Trayvon.

Ballistic evidence shows that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman couldn't retreat and run away like a good liberal.

I believe that's why Zimmerman's defense aren't using the "Stand Your Ground Law" as a defense.

You do know you personally responded to Zimmerman on the Politico before he was attacked by Trayvon ?
 
I voted no. It is within the mandate of the Constitution to protect the right of the people to bear arms. It is not within the federal government's mandate to determine which situations warrant their use.

To adequately understand my perspective on this issue, please read the remainder of my statement silently or aloud, using the voice of R. Lee Ermey.

I live in Texas. I own a semi-automatic AK-47 variant with 73-round drum magazines, a holographic red dot sight, and other assorted accessories that assure my preparedness for the impending collapse of the federal government, or zombie apocalypse as the case may be. I will defend my right in this great state to put all 73 of those rounds into anyone that threatens my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as a sovereign individual.

However, the most fundamental liberty granted by the Constitution of this great nation is the right of any person who does not share my superior viewpoints to choose whatever inferior position suits them within their own weak and inferior subculture. The moment I deny the freedom of my worst enemy to burn my flag, berate my country, or squander their own liberties by placing the care of them solely in the hands of their state and local governments, then as ironic as it is, I become the very thing that my fellow men and women in uniform have successfully defended this country against since its inception.

If you are not in favor of freedom for your worst enemy, you are not in favor of freedom, and you will neither have it, nor deserve it.

That is all.
 
Yes, but I do believe in some form of "checks and balances" in a government determining if someone acted with due diligence. Otherwise, you'd just have a bunch of dead people dragged in to houses and people telling cops, "Scared. Self-defense. Not my fault." without knowing the truth.

And, as such, I'm okay with states determining where that delicate line is.

We have laws both State and Federal against Murder.

People plead not guilty by reason of insanity, doesn't mean they're insane.

A federal law of this nature wouldn't prevent law enforcement from investigation.
 
Would've voted YES in your poll if not for your wording.

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.
 
Moderator's Warning:
There will be NO MARTIN/ZIMMERMAN in this thread!! I will not have that retarded crap polluting other parts of the forum! If you want to talk M/Z go to the M/Z Forum!
 
Last edited:
1.)Well, next time I make a poll I'll take a poll to see what is the proper options I should offer... ;)

2.)So you agree with the principle but taking a wait and see approach to the particulars?

1.) its pretty easy typically there should always be an "other" option, secondly you shouldnt word the poll in such a biased and dishonest manner. ;)
2.) in principle i do agree but there are some castle laws and stand your ground laws that are outside the realm of normal rights and i wouldnt want those national.
 
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?

I say I don't give a damn about whose law it is...whether there is a law...and could care less what law enforcement advises me to do to best protect myself in my own home. There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to home invasions. I will trust my instincts and, with my .38, will decide whether fight-or-flight is best. Damned the law; who cares?

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.

Great. Zimmerman'd in three.
 
We have laws both State and Federal against Murder.

People plead not guilty by reason of insanity, doesn't mean they're insane.

A federal law of this nature wouldn't prevent law enforcement from investigation.

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.
 
Come on United, Zimmerman was suckered punch by Trayvon.

Ballistic evidence shows that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman couldn't retreat and run away like a good liberal.

I believe that's why Zimmerman's defense aren't using the "Stand Your Ground Law" as a defense.

You do know you personally responded to Zimmerman on the Politico before he was attacked by Trayvon ?

People that would pull a gun on unarmed person should not carry a gun. We generally refer to folks who would pull on an unarmed person a criminal, I don't know why it is different in this case.

Losing a fight that you precipitated does not give you the right to murder someone, it gives you the right to get your ass beat.
 
People that would pull a gun on unarmed person should not carry a gun. We generally refer to folks who would pull on an unarmed person a criminal, I don't know why it is different in this case.

Losing a fight that you precipitated does not give you the right to murder someone, it gives you the right to get your ass beat.



Moderator's Warning:
Last Warning: NO MARTIN/ZIMMERMAN HERE! Take it to the M/Z forum that is why we have one!
 
1.) its pretty easy typically there should always be an "other" option, secondly you shouldnt word the poll in such a biased and dishonest manner. ;)
2.) in principle i do agree but there are some castle laws and stand your ground laws that are outside the realm of normal rights and i wouldnt want those national.

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?
 
People that would pull a gun on unarmed person should not carry a gun. We generally refer to folks who would pull on an unarmed person a criminal.....


So is a 70yo Granny supposed to open a six-pack of Mixed Martial Arts WhupAss on a 20yo thug that attacks her? :lamo




whoopass.jpg
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom