'Stand your ground' law tested in recent shootings

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    May 2, 2014 10:51 p.m.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote about our unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. John Locke's natural rights were life, liberty and property. I would say those are the proper order of those rights. Setting a bait trap and killing the perpetrator to prevent loss of property is wrong.

  • Onion Daze Payson, UT
    May 1, 2014 3:00 p.m.

    "Entrapment" seems to be a factor in some of these cases.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    May 1, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    Homeowners insurance covers theft minus a deductible, and renters coverage works the same way for a premium of maybe 20 bucks a month. How small a loss justifies shooting someone?

  • Jefferson Kalispell, MT
    May 1, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    In both cases, homeowners basically baited a trap and waited. In the Minnesota case, the owner clearly wantdd the intruders dead. In Montana, the owner definitely wanted to not be burglarized anymore, and possibly wanted the perpatrator dead. So how do you handle it? Set a trap and be prepared, or just take your chances that you might be home and might be prepared when the criminal comes calling? Stores face this all the time with shoplifters, and basically have surrendered. If an employee stops a shoplifter and they are not one of the designated "stop loss" employees, they get fired. Consumers pay the billions of losses in the form of higher prices and most homeowners can't afford to absorb theft losses. But society expects you to just let yourself be a victim so long as your life isn't in danger. So if the thief says, "Hey, I just want your TV, guns and jewelry, don't shoot me." Do you trust him? The father of MT kid said he wouldn't have let his son come if he thought he could get shot. But he appears to be OK with the kid being a thief

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    May 1, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    @ Nebsy
    Incorrect. In the Minnesota case, the shooter had shot the victims, they were seriously injured,no longer a threat and then finished them off with a fatal shot to the head. His act turned from defense of self and property to one of murder. As a society are we alright with that?

  • Nebsy Ephraim, UT
    May 1, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    How does the saying go? "Better tried by twelve then carried by six."
    I certainly can understand the mental state of the burglary victims. Yes, I said it. They were the victims of the criminals trespassing and burglarizing the homes. When the criminals chose to commit the crimes, they also chose to put their lives at risk. And met the appropriate consequence.
    None of the shooters chose for it to happen.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    May 1, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    @ Mark B.
    Spot on. It's what the NRA and gun manufacturers want. Create fear, sell guns. Ultimately, if these shooters are Christans do they meet their Maker and have to answer the question, "Did you have to take another human life, or did you have other options"?

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    May 1, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    Opening the doors a little wider to "legal" gun use produces predictable results - even more people ready to lock, load and blast away. Then they call a lawyer.