Monday, May 28, 2012

Stand-Your-Ground Laws in 21 States

Most stand-your-ground laws grant a person who uses deadly force the presumption that he acted reasonably unless there is evidence to the contrary.

If there are no witnesses and the victim is dead, or if the evidence is conflicting, the chances are greater that someone can "get away with murder," Savannah Law School professor Elizabeth Megale.

"The statute can be used and distorted by hard-core criminals or someone who has committed a crime," she says. "Most times, someone will get arrested if the other person does not die. … It's ironic. If someone dies, the other person is less likely to get arrested."
What's your opinion? Hasn't the macho, tough-guy, never-backing-down attitude about gun ownership gone too far? People are being shot and killed who wouldn't be otherwise. Homeowners who open the door to screaming maniacs and then shoot them dead are in the wrong. Armed citizens who get in arguments with unarmed people and then shoot them dead are in the wrong.

Avoiding the incident should be a requirement. If you fail to take simple steps to avoid the confrontation, you shouldn't be able to claim self-defense later.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.


  1. Common sense tells us that we have work to do--the remaining twenty-nine states need to adopt the laws that those twenty-one have. And the ones that don't have it already need a shall-issue carry license system.

    You want us to avoid the situation? Ideally, I will. But I have no intention of trying to outrun a bullet. A man with a knife who is within ten yards can close the distance in under two seconds. I don't plan to try to outrun him, either. You expect us to try to run away, but we're trying to protect our lives. We know which one has the priority for you.

  2. Why did they leave California out? Oh, that's right- they are trying to make this a backwards red state vs. sane blue state issue.