Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TellemTrav t1_j0uvstk wrote

SYG is not meant to combat crime. It's meant to empower citizens to defend themselves. Also, while SYG has a racial bias, I would say the entire justice system has that problem. While I commend compassion I don't think anyone should be compelled to show it to an agressor. Human life has subjective value for some and no one should be compelled to hold it to the highest standard when someone is attacking them.

10

MotoSlashSix t1_j0vu3im wrote

"Reframing" is not going to work.

>SYG is not meant to combat crime. It's meant to empower citizens to defend themselves.

This is dishonest revisionist history. The NRA-ILA flatly claimed that the Florida SYG Law "deters would-be murderers, rapists and robbers" and that "more guns, less crime."

The claim that SYG was not meant to combat crime, that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" and it was only meant to "empower [certain] people to defend themselves" is belied by the proponents' own statements. It's also false to presuppose that a right to self defense is only guaranteed by SYG. Maryland law provides for the defense of self or others including use of deadly force. You don't need a SYG law to defend yourself.

All objective evidence shows that Stand Your Ground laws increase homicides and, when combined with racial bias, results in the killing of Black Americans.

​

>Human life has subjective value for some and no one should be compelled to hold it to the highest standard

Cars have less subjective value for some citizens of Maryland, so I guess by your rationale we can go ahead and destroy all of them that are driven aggressively based on our own subjective standards of value.

​

>while SYG has a racial bias, I would say the entire justice system has that problem.

Maybe racial harm to minority communities seems like a zero sum game for you, but the false notion that since racial disparity already exists it's okay to enact laws that make it worse is immoral and cynical.

5

TheCaptainDamnIt t1_j0vwrbv wrote

> It's meant to empower citizens to defend themselves.

This is a lie, as you so well demonstrate in the rest of your comment. You're allowed to 'defend yourself' under duty to retreat laws, but as you show what you really want is approval to hurt or kill the person you're mad at.

1