Because most people are already getting it wrong when they do it in their homes, but at least there it is somewhat contained. Allowing this kind of insanity in cars and other places would be very dangerous.

Really? 17 States have ‘stand your ground/no duty to retreat’ laws in place, and yet they haven’t turned into blood-soaked shoot em’ up battlegrounds like individuals such as yourself predict. If I’m wrong, please show me. I’m a reasonable person, and am willing to amend my views given effective argument.

“I’m thinking you would not know a “bad part of town” if it bit you no the ass.”

I understand that you disagree with me, and hold different views on firearms and self-defense than I do, and that’s fine. The petty and childish response you have offered is not going to convince me to change my mind about anything. I spent several years living a few blocks off Broadway near the harbor in Gary, Indiana. It was a dangerous place to live, and I got out of there as soon as I could do so.

“N. Nesico‘s story doesn’t even relate to the castle doctrine in the first place.”

Except for that part where I specifically pointed out how my home State’s castle doctrine and no duty to retreat laws protected me from prosecution in the situation I described. Strike one.

The story does not involve a situation where those threatened could safely retreat.

You’re omniscient, now? Strike two.

With his comment at 17, it becomes clear that he does not even understand what the castle doctrine is.

I am well aware of what castle doctrine is, and how it applies in the State that I reside in. I even gave a specific example of how it applied to my own life, and gave me legal protection from prosecution when I used force in order to defend a passenger in my vehicle. Strike three. Let me know when you’re willing to discuss this like an adult, even if you disagree with me.

Because most people are already getting it wrong when they do it in their homes, but at least there it is somewhat contained. Allowing this kind of insanity in cars and other places would be very dangerous.

Ever live in a ‘bad part of town’? The kind of place where you don’t wear or carry anything you’re not okay with losing? Attempted robbery while a vehicle is stopped at a stoplight is certainly not a “less threatening situation” than somebody trying to rob you in your home.

I’m thinking you would not know a “bad part of town” if it bit you no the ass.

N: Being in a situation where the castle doctrine does not apply does _not_ mean that you cannot defend yourself or someone else from substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death. It doesn’t even mean that you can’t use lethal force, it just means that you must chose to retreat if you can do so safely and retreating will remove the threat.

This is the version of the bill I’m going off of:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1467.0.html&session=ls87

Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized. (a) The use of deadly force by an individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
(1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual’s dwelling;
(2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
(3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or imminent commission of a forcible felony.

“Subd. 3. Degree of force; retreat. An individual taking defensive action pursuant to subdivision 2 may use all force and means, including deadly force, that the individual honestly and in good faith believes is required to succeed in defense. The individual may meet force with superior force when the individual’s objective is defensive; the individual is not required to retreat; and the individual may continue defensive actions against an assailant until the danger is eliminated.”

“The various recently considered bills would move that line towards the public square and the less threatening situation. For instance, in most jurisdictions you can’t pull out your gun and shoot someone who threatens you in your car, but the new bills would allow that sort of thing.”

Why should somebody in a vehicle not be permitted to defend themselves and/or their passengers from “substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death” when they’re lawfully present in their own property?

Ever live in a ‘bad part of town’? The kind of place where you don’t wear or carry anything you’re not okay with losing? Attempted robbery while a vehicle is stopped at a stoplight is certainly not a “less threatening situation” than somebody trying to rob you in your home.

You can have your opinions, you can’t have your own facts.
“Fuck” is a word that adults use. Or do you let your children say that?

When someone says something inchoerent, there is no need to respond qualitatively. suggested reading: the inchoerence principle.

He never will, as he well be elected by a landslide.
Banal people like you will watch our country rise into prosperity ,morality, and plenty.

Tone troll.

I don’t consider the word he used an adult word, but evidently you find it acceptable in your vocabulary. Calling people names really lessens any shred of credibility you may have been able eek out of someone. Most of us would agree with this thought process. I guess that puts you both into the same category. Maybe you can find the Craigslist people more acceptable of this type of language and your name calling.

The bottom line is that what he did was wrong. One day I hope he regrets his decision. It very possibly could be when e is up for re-election.

The complaint of the infant, “he said a bad word”.

No. He said an adult word in an adult way

You are an infant.

and dan-o, sour grapes?