4/12: ‘Stand your ground’ laws

Moderated by Rick Badie

Shoot. Don’t retreat.

“Stand your ground” laws in Georgia and other states allow people to use deadly force if they believe their lives are in danger.

Supporters say such self-defense statutes empower potential victims to protect themselves.

Opponents deem them bad policies that grant people a license to kill. Today’s guest columnists weigh in.

What do you think?

30 comments Add your comment


April 11th, 2012
10:34 pm

I look around and see people often in groups that try their best to look and dress and act like they will hurt you. And guess what, many will if they feel like it. I am too old to try and fight off an attacker or two, If I am attacked or my family then I will shoot. If I am not attacked then I will never shoot.
Now, lets talk about the real reason the left wing radicals want to dis-arm the public, THEY CAN”T COMPLETELY CONTROL ARMED CITIZENS. If the left is ever successful of taking away guns in the US, then you will see total socialism in a blink of an eye.


April 11th, 2012
10:02 pm

As the previous comment stated “this is about lack of respect for life in this culture”. However, as usual, they have it backwards. Let’s talk about a lack of respect. How “respectful” is it for a criminal to enter my home/business and rob/beat/kill me. Please stop making excuses for the lowest members of our society to act as they please.

Martin Williams

April 11th, 2012
9:46 pm

This is not about being a conservative, a liberal, or a socialist. This is about lack of respect for life in this culture and a system that supports it. I hear people say it my right to have a gun to protect myself and family. If this is so true, then why do we need a police force/or the military to protect us and our country. We all just carry our guns and bullets on us all time. I know the gun industry is very happy about our ‘ Stand Your Ground’ laws. They smile to the banks every time a lifeless person is found.


April 11th, 2012
8:28 pm

Do we want to create a legal duty for someone to retreat under reasonable threat of bodily injury. When someone is threatening you the last thing you should have to worry about is some angle hair thin legal distinction that can get you killed.
Why let the risk lie with the victim of violence and not with the perp?


April 11th, 2012
7:46 pm

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

sanjay lal

April 11th, 2012
7:39 pm

Accusing liberals of being mentally ill or cowards is a great way to evade the legitimate points Josh raises. I guess we shouldn’t expect more from the carry at all times crowd. Does anyone else think it is a false dichotomy to think the only choices are always to kill or be a coward? It is that kind of simplistic thinking that is the cause of so many problems. If it is possible to decrease the intensity of a violent situation without being more violent than the one who initiated the conflict shouldn’t that be what the law requires?

Hillbilly D

April 11th, 2012
7:13 pm

Duty to retreat? When trouble happens, it happens fast and usually so fast all you have time to do is react. Make the wrong decision and you don’t have to worry about making any more.


April 11th, 2012
7:02 pm

I’ll add something to my somewhat flippant previous post… JOSH HORWITZ, STOP LYING!

First, his phrase “kill at will” is a blatant lie. Anyone who uses lethal force to defend themselves will STILL have to justify their choice to do so to investigators and possibly a grand jury.

Second, law-abiding citizens peacefully going about their business do not, and NEVER HAVE, had a “duty to retreat.” That is another BLATANT LIE made up by liberals to convince people to not hurt the poor, misunderstood murderous rapist/mugger/car jacker thug with the depraved indifference to human life.

Liberals like Mr. Horwitz are just plain sick in the head, and Mr. Howritz is part of the problem that is interfering with the solution. I suggest any interested, open-minded person read “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott Jr. Mr. Lott spent years collating data from every county in the country, applied impartial statistical science, and proved by the scientific method that (a) violent crime goes up in areas with strict gun control, and (b) goes DOWN in areas that respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

This, of course, tracks with anecdotal evidence and common sense… criminals prefer soft and easy targets, and are far less likely to launch an assault in areas where people are more likely to fight back.

Of course, being liberal like Mr. Horwitz means choosing to ignore reality and scientific proof in order to blindly cling to utterly STUPID dogma.

Mr. Horwitz — STOP LYING!


April 11th, 2012
6:53 pm

Well, here we go again… more liberals whining that I don’t have a right to defend my life from some crackhead who would kill me for the $40 in my wallet, or from the home invaders that would kick in my door and kill me over material possessions, or from the gang thugs who would beat me to death over the color of my skin… unbelievable!

Somehow, for some reason, because I am a straight white male who works for my living, everything that’s wrong in society is all my fault, and I should just stand there apologizing to the lowlife who has just gutted me with a butcher’s knife. Right.

Liberals think I should just cheerfully allow myself to be beaten to death or shot or stabbed since the poor misunderstood thugs van’t help themselves, they are so disenfranchised. The very fact that liberals think that way is just more proof that liberalism is a mental illness.


April 11th, 2012
6:29 pm

Josh can run with his tail between his legs but I intend to protect my right to be in any ‘hood in town.