Submitted by LaunderMachine t3_zppgoj in baltimore
SaulsAll t1_j0u161o wrote
I prefer duty to retreat. I feel stand your ground is a lot more feelings-based and has too low a bar for lethal force. I don't want it to be acceptable to shoot someone because their skin color made their yelling seem life-threatening.
That said, duty to retreat might also have too high a bar. For instance, if someone's entire life is contained in and dependent on their vehicle, I don't think it is reasonable to expect them to abandon it if they have the means to defend themselves.
It's tricky all around, and I don't have info at hand to say which is more effective, or even what effective would mean with this issue. Are we more worried about people dying, or are we more worried about putting the burden on the victim of violent altercations to do the right thing?
DoIt2It t1_j0u3m8p wrote
DTR requires that someone retreat if they reasonably believe that they’re able to safely. So if I’m in my car, and someone tries to carjack me, it’s probably a situation in which you’d be fine for self defense if you couldn’t just drive away.
minor7flat6 t1_j0u7lm0 wrote
if you’ll allow me to answer the rhetorical — i’m more worried about people who are already doing the right thing not dying.
the choice is really: we can only prioritize one, so do we prioritize victims’ lives? or perpetrators’?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments