Washington Post’s nation of victims
The Washington Post‘s editorial board tries to influence the “stand your ground” discussion that’s going on in the country and of course they take the side of the criminals and criminalize the victim;
Instead of requiring potential victims of crime to retreat if they have a safe escape route, these laws allow people to use deadly force without attempting to avoid a potentially lethal confrontation. They also often contain other generous protections for killers claiming self-defense.
So the victims become “killers” in the space of two sentences.
There is a reason that the duty to retreat is a concept respected by centuries of legal application. Setting a laxer standard encourages tragic mistakes, poor judgment and perhaps even vigilantism. A recent study from two Texas A&M University researchers found that “lowering the expected cost of lethal force causes there to be more of it.” Stand-your-ground states saw more homicides than their peers — about 600 more a year over the period they studied. One possible explanation is that stand-your-ground laws encourage people to escalate conflicts rather than withdraw.
What about the criminals’ “duty to retreat”? I have no way to escape someone who has forcibly gained entrance to my residence because I can barely walk. So if a criminal doesn’t want to be shot, he should depart as soon as the Glock 30 comes off my night table, because it’s his duty to stop in the commission of his crime. I’m not going to shoot someone in the back who is making his escape from the ten rounds of .45 caliber ammunition. So, why is it my duty to retreat, something I’m physically incapable of doing anyway?
Criminals have a duty to society to not commit their crimes, once they’ve violated their part of the social contract, they should expect whatever they’re dealt. And suppose that while I’m beating a hasty retreat, I get shot in the back? Do you think a criminal will respect my duty to retreat? They already broke into my house, so I’m sure they don’t want to leave witnesses to their crime. Who is going to protect my family when I’m laying bleeding on the floor after I fulfilled my duty to retreat?
This is why we aren’t able to fight wars anymore, too. We’re supposed to be better than our enemies who kill us anytime, using any means necessary, but we have to play by our arbitrary rules, hoping the enemy will abide by the same rules after we’ve set the example for them. Of course, they never do, and our troops are put at a disadvantage which ends up costing lives and limbs. Remember after the Gulf War we had to stop destroying Iraqi equipment because we were being mean to the Iraqis. As soon as they made good their escape, they turned their weapons on their own unarmed minority groups while we stood and watched them do what we should have done to them.
Now the left wants to turn us into a nation of victims by making it the law that we abandon our families and homes to the criminals hoping that those criminals will be better people for it. Every day we here at TAH post stories about folks who rescued their families from violent criminals by standing their ground and refusing to be victims.
Yes, more criminals are killed than victims, why is the Washington post and the Obama Administration so convinced that is a bad thing?
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Gun Grabbing Fascists, Media, Politics
To me, it looks like that bunch of thin-skinned, snot-nosed leftist just want to renew their crusade to protect, as they see them, “Victims of Society” that have no other choice to “escape their oppression”. They want everyone to have the same safety and quality of life that people in places like Chicago, LA, New Jersey, and NYC enjoy while keeping criminals as safe as they can from productive people!
That’s why I enjoy life in a Concealed Carry State, where, if I’m attacked, I’ll first call 1911, then 911 so the local Coroner knows where to pick up the corpse of my would-be attacker!
It’s amazing that the media is still beating the SYG issue to death as it wasn’t even part of the Zimmerman trial. Yes, it was discussed a bit right after the incident as a possible defense, but as the facts developed it ceased to be an issue, and the defense never argued it at trial. With TM straddling GZ while administering a ground-and-pound, GZ’s ability to retreat was not at issue. So, even if FLA had no SYG law, the result would have been the same; it was a case of traditional self-defense.
Very true, MrBill,but like all facts and logic, that means nothing to snotnosed heart-on-the-sleeve liberals who want all victims, especially White People, (to them, we’re the source of all the World’s ills) to just lay there and be victims while the wealth redistribution takes place!
@47 Hack that’s indeed what I am saying, our hypocrite in chief has once again played that card….
Self-defense is “racist”– why? Because if you don’t have to retreat from your home before defending with lethal force, loyal Democratic voters don’t get to pillage your property and rape your wife/daughters for “social justice.”
DNA is a checkblock on every SRC to deploy. They have to have it for military.