The current "Stand your ground" law in Ohio is called the Castle Doctrine. This doctrine states that if you are in a home or vehicle that you own, you do not have a duty to retreat if attacked. This meaning that you can legally use force that could potentially be deadly, if you are ever attacked. Outside of those, you have to attempt to retreat and passing a law to change this, in my opinion, would not be very beneficial as it would give people an excuse to carry more guns or weapons and could possibly make the streets even more unsafe than it is.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57603840/obama-takes-on-coal-with-first-ever-carbon-limits/ This article is about how Obama and the EPA have set very strict limits on the amount of carbon limits coal companies can produce. This would make Americans start to get their energy from a cleaner source. Obama believes that this will help reduce the limitless carbon pollution in the air. The problem is that it only effects new power plants. For new coal power plants to be built, they would have to install expensive technology that would capture carbon dioxide and put it underground. I believe that this new proposal would not really change anything. It only effects new power plants and a bill last year banned any new coal-producing power plants. So this new proposal has no major effect on the pollution. They should make it where it makes old coal-producing have to put in the new technology so that it has a greater effect on the carbon pollution than the bill they're proposing now.
Great summary Emily! This is definitely interesting and will be cool to see if the proposal of using less coal with help with pollution and decrease global warming. It also comes with a cost, literally, and many new advances in technology which can be a vigorous task. It will also be interesting to follow this change and it's impact on our climate
This is infact, a very useless limitation. Despite the fact that creating new coal-producing power plants is a banned process, even if they could be created, the expensiveness of the technology required for it to make it eco-friendly would prevent some companies from creating these power plants. I agree with you that it effect the current coal production, as that is the only way it would make a real impact.
FINALLY. We should be so beyond being dependent upon coal right now. With the way our pollution is affecting the planet right now it should be clear that we need to be changing our habits. This is a great step in the right direction. There are so many cleaner, more eco-friendly ways to produce power. I'm shocked it's something the markets haven't tapped into more already. Like, there's endless opportunity.
This a right step for a better more eco-friendly world as the limits are set higher i think more major companies will starting looking for alternative energy sources such as wind and solar. I think they should increase the carbon limit regularly to push for renewable energy sources and maybe development of better energy sources that might someday fuel the world.
I think the stand your ground law in Ohio is very useful because a lot of times people get robbed or broken into . Being able to have that weapon is protection of yourself and your family. That doesn't mean that you can use those weapons on anyone, only in time of an emergency. I understand that some people are against weapons and to a certain point i am too, but when it comes to the protection of you and your family i think that they are a great thing. I also do think that if you do shoot someone in protecting yourself that there should be some kind of consequence because you did take a life.I honestly think that guns are not a bad thing, people just give them a bad reputation because of they way they have been used.
Currently, Ohio does not have an form of a law that would authorize the use of, in self-defense, firearms without consequences from the law. In my opinion, I feel that should change and that Ohioans, and the rest of the country, should be able to posses firearms on their person in case of the need to defend themselves. Now some may argue, "Well, with the legalization of concealed firearms for all persons, wouldn't that justify people just walking the streets and slaughtering eachother?". Not necessarily. Some people may not be able to be trusted with concealed firearms, possibly because of a troubled past, or possibly because of their mental instability. To appease both parties on the matter, I feel that in order to be able to qualify to carry a concealed firearm and use it to defend yourself against an attacker, one should have to undergo both a background check, and a thorough mental evaluation. To sum it up, yes, I am in favor of a "Stand Your Ground" law being enacted in Ohio.
I agree that we need some better form of a stand your ground law here in Ohio. While we can defend ourselves in our homes, that is not where we spend al of our time. I do not advocate everyone in Ohio being able to strap on a gun and wander the streets just daring someone to "threaten" them. I feel that a reasonable method of screening and granting permits has to be in place before we move along the path with this law. We must do a better job of preventing criminals and disturbed individuals from getting permits like what happened at the Navy Shipyard. Once we hae a strong procedure of checks and balances for those wishing to carry a weapon, we can safely implement the law that lets you have the rights and ability to protect yourself when you need to.
I agree as well. People should be allowed to defend themselves in serious emergency or situation. Not everyone should carry a weapon of course. People should be made to go through gun safety classes and such to be able to carry weapons. People get attacked and harmed more easily because we technically are not allowed to defend ourselves with weapons. We should be allowed to defend ourselves in times of emergency.
http://www.abc6onyourside.com/shared/news/features/top-stories/stories/wsyx_abc-6-town-hall-stand-your-ground-law-proposed-ohio-26291.shtml This article gives an overview of the "stand your ground" law that is being proposed at the next town hall meeting. This law is giving you the option to defend yourself using deadly force. I think protection and safety should be a main concern in local areas and I am torn on this subject. I feel you should defend yourself, especially if you are protecting yourself AND others from harm, but I also think you should not "shoot to kill" ,but just to injure and keep them from hurting others.
As for the "Stand Your Ground" law in Ohio, it is called the Castle Doctrine where only in cases of you being in your home or vehicle to be allowed to use force in defense and if you are outside of those parameters you are supposed to flee. I believe that we should have the "stand your ground" law because you can get attacked outside of your house or vehicle so you should be allowed to defend yourself since your body is your space even if force to the point of death is required. However the sad flip side to this is that it could be a reason people can justify if they were to murder someone they could sadly call it "self defense."
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/24/20677783-report-army-set-to-implement-partial-tattoo-ban?lite This article revolves around the military restricting their reasons for not allowing someone to enter into the armed forces. The main focus this time is on tattoos. I believe that if a man or woman is willing to join our nation's military and put their life on the line for the protection of American citizens, they should be allowed to enter the military no matter if they have some sort of tattoo that is above their neckline or below their knees or elbows.
I completely agree with what Andrew is saying. The only reason the United states is loosing their tattoo restrictions is because right now we are not at war. Right now there is no need for a huge army because we are not involved in a war. We only tighten the rules regarding tattoos because there is no need to have so many soldiers and the army does not want the soldiers to show any unique things about themselves or impose their own personal views through their tattoos on people. When there is a war and the army does need people they will again change the reigns on tattoos and allow more people with tattoos to join the army because in times of war no one will willing volunteer to go to war so restrictions need to be lifted to allow more people to join the army. This is a big waste of time. If the army is going to loosen tattoo restrictions eventually why change them now.
While I'm typically completely against any kinds of tattoo restrictions whatsoever, I can see the logic behind this. I agree, however, with what Gladys said regarding them changing the restrictions again and again. When they loosen the restrictions during times of war it, to me, shows desperation. Nonetheless, I can see why they wouldn't want individuals with tattoos in the military. Soldiers are forced to look very uniform and when you have something like a tattoo it really makes you stick out.
And they are at it again. Well okay the military trying to restrict someone from entering the army for having tattoos, specifically above the neck and below the knees or elbows. I am in complete agreement with Ritchie here, why, if someone is trying to fight for their country, would we stop them using such excuse as tattoos on their own skin, which i would say falls under the right of speech amendment if I'm not wrong. Which actually wants me to bring up that subject to see if it would be an possible and liable argument to bring the right of speech being interfered with in the rejection of allowing future troops to join for something as simple as that. There were the being able to admit your sexuality, now tattoos past a certain line on your body, whats next? will it be because of the style of hair on your head?
These new restrictions against clearly shows that the U.S. Army is in no real need for new recruits because if they did they wouldn't be diverting young people to not want to be soldiers. This restriction is going to do more harm to the Army than it would do good. In my opinion people should not be forced to get rid of visible tattoos in order to be able to jion the Army.
I agree with Andrew as well. If someone is willing to join our armed forces and fight for our country's freedom then they should be allowed to do that no matter what they look like, it shouldn't even matter. I also agree that it is being done to limit recruits, if you think long term they will have to get rid of the new limitation when in time of war or we won't have enough troops.
The decision to for the military tight restriction on tattoos is a good idea. Since all the soldiers are dressed and uniformed to look alike it should stay that way. The enemy shouldn’t be able to tell one solider from the other just because of the ink marking he has showing in the line of battle. This could potentially pose as a threat not only to the solider but to his or her platoon/crew/squad etc. just because of the fact that they have a distinctive marking on their body. It is true that the military is making these changes because they don’t have a need for soldiers at the moment but once the going gets tough and we’re thrown into a war they will end up having to loosen these laws which they shouldn’t have to, but with today’s society they might have to.
I think the stand your ground law should be there. If someone is going to attack you or you feel like they are without a doubt attack you, I feel you have the right to take forceful action against them. The law of course would have to be strictly in forced and action should only be taken when there is great reasoning justifying a person's actions. People should not have to turn their backs on someone who is wanting to attack them and hope for the best. They should be able to ensure their safety by insuring they cannot be hurt. The Zimmerman verdict told us that justifiable homicide is right in certain situations. Not that Zimmerman is guilty, or isn't guilty, but this opened our eyes to whats going on and this issue. This stand your ground law would allow more minorities to justify their protection of themselves. The current duty to retreat is not working right now. You can not always run away, with the stand your ground law you would have to prove you couldn't run away. This would prevent people just saying they are in danger and can't do anything about it. Here is an interview that shows both sides. http://www.10tv.com/content/sections/video/index.html?video=/videos/2013/08/09/capsquare-stand-your-ground.xml
Alright, time to chime in I guess. According to my sweet mistress Wikipedia, the stand your ground law is this: "A Stand-Your-Ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation." I think that adopting such a law is a terrible idea. A prime case of this is the Trayvon Martin case. This law basically says that if someone is comin' at you crazy like a bag of ferrets you don't have to run away to spill their guts. The problem I see with this is that people WILL abuse this law. It's only logical, really. Many victims of the law have been unarmed (12 out of 13, in an investigation by the Orlando Sentinel, methinks). They also require law officials to prove that the suspect who killed the peep wasn't acting in self defense. It's not too easy to prove a motive when the other guy is dead, not to mention that they protect the suspect from civil suits!!!!!! I don't approve I don't approve I don't approve
Hey, so since we're talking about political culture and how it's different, here's an article that shows the different customs in other parts of the world. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/brazilian-man-plans-marry-pet-goat-article-1.1447528 I'm not weirded out by this at all because he's not gonna get jiggy with the gentle steed. It actually made me kind of happy that this cute old man really loves this goat. I'm being completely serious. I saw this and I thought to myself "WHOA, POLITICAL CULTURE". Men can't marry goats here though. I've tried.
It is another very sad event with the mass shooting of civilians in the mall in Kenya. Terrorists hiding behind the reason of extremist religion feel it is their right to slaughter innocent people in order to attack a government they do not like. Instead of working in the system or finding less violent ways of working out issues they act like cowards and attack people who can not fight back. These terrorists are the worst type of criminal and deserve whatever fate they face when captured. Maybe if Kenya had a stand-your-ground law a few of the citizens could have saved some lives by being able to immediately fight back against these cowards.
I heard about this event. Just like the one that happened in DC this week with the Naval station. It really is sad that people as in terrorism or whatever are okay with just taking lives of others and could careless. The innocent people they are kelling have no way to fight back and I think that is just wrong.
Im so glad you posted this sasha! I was thinking about this at the same thing you were. If kenya haf a stand your ground law then perhaps this wouldnt have happened. I also am concerned how the terrorist were hiding weapons in the store. Do the people who work there not check the store? I am also wonderig is why would they do this? They should know that they are going to get caught and either killed or sent to prison. I just dont understand how criminals think apparently (thats a good thing lol)
The current law in Ohio for self defense is the Castle Doctrine which enables someone to protect themselves with possibly deadly force if they are attacked while they are in their own home or car. Yet in all other places they have must try to run away or retreat from the attacker. This law in my opinion does not give us the rights we deserve as to being able to protect ourselves sufficiently. Even in public places we should be able to use force to protect ourselves and out families and friends if we need to. The purposed Stand Your Ground gives people that ability to rightly protect yourself but it wouldn't allow people to cause unnecessary violence.
I agree with Gabby. I think that if someone is trying to attack you or come at you with aggression, you should be able to do what you need to do to stop them. The government isn't giving us enough power or rights with that in my opinion. I'm not saying to just kill them but do what you have to do to get the point across.
I just finished watching the entire broadcast held at the union at The Ohio State University. Let me Begin with one quote from Pastor Charles Bond "Change of laws don't change people". Him starting with this saying just hits how he will have a strong argument. The way I see it is as from a Question asked by Tanya "why do we need this, when the Castle law could do just as good with a little combo sense..." Bringing up a good argument that if the focus were to really be on the disabled or people who had no way to fleeing out of the confrontation. There is no reason to remove that third step but modify and underline the common sense of someone having to resort to these actions due to the inability to do anything else. Another great point of many is that brought up by Julie Icorn. "Isn't it true that in states that have Stand Your Ground laws that the murder rate has increased 7 to 9 percent resulting in an additional 700 murders per year..." "that is true that is facts that were from University of Texas A&M study" and well I am on the same page on the murders if possible would rise also. I will try to keep following on this subject because these arguments from both sides are quite intriguing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/world/middleeast/west-says-un-nears-syria-resolution.html?_r=0 I think if a the U.N Security council finally agree on something then it might be a great chance to end this revolution. I think it might have to go past sanctions it has gone to far for a simple sanction on the country i don't think it will do anything.I think a multi-national coalition could end the war fast and simple after that the Syrian people and only the Syrian people should decide who the new leader should be. that is the fastest way i think to end the revolution and the government oppression on its people. It is far to late for simple sanctions maybe humanitarian aid for the people and letting the fighting run its course with out help for either sides. I dont think a collation will happen as Russia is still a strong ally of the country.
I feel that the stand your ground law is something we should be glad to have. I feel that if someone breaks into your house, you should have the right to use force against them. I also feel that it should be allowed in public but with limitations, like if you are attacked on the street you should be allowed to defend yourself but you should not be permitted to start shooting on a public street.
So as everyone has already said the Stand Your Ground Law is also called the Castle Doctrine. This law allows people that are in a life or death situation to protect themselves and can use deadly force upon their own judgment as long as it is on their own property. If feeling threatened anywhere else it is illegal to use deadly force so the person will have to try and retreat from the threat.
I am very much for the stand your ground law. This is a very important law that should be taken very seriously. I think that old women would also be ideal for this. Robbers and just plain bad people like to target the elderly. I think that the elderly should have protection for themselves and they need to be able todo it legally. It would be wrong of they got robbed and the readson they couldnt protect themself is because their not allowed to carry a gun yet the person who robbed them has a gun. So what im trting to say is that it meeda to be legal.
In my opinion this is not that bad of an idea. There are many people that get either hurt or worse due to break ins. In those situations they could then be able to protect themselves even if it means that they will have to kill another person. Yeah there may be some bad outcomes but imagine how many lives could possibly be saved from break in attacks. I just find it to be a good law.
To me the stand your ground law is a good law. One should be able to defend themselves if they fell threatened in any type of way. My problem with the law is how people defend themselves and what type of situation it is. As the old saying goes “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”, to me this simply means depending on what type of fight you’re engaged in you want to be prepared. If someone is coming at you with a knife you don’t want to just have your fists you want to be equally prepared. And also if someone is coming at you with a gun you don’t want to just have a knife. But this also doesn’t mean if someone is coming at you with bare hands you’re going against them with a gun, it’s completely unfair and this is where gray areas in an issue become a problem.
Upon finding this article, I was originally looking for problems between cultures in our government, and found this instead. I found this article to be very interesting in the way that it informs its readers about the issue of rape and violence. In addition, this article made me think about how our government could make these issues more of a big deal because it greatly effects people in their everyday lives.
I think that the deficit the American nature has come to attain is very great, however, the blame is always given to the wrong people. I find it interesting when I hear people rage on about how much Obama has raised our deficit, when in reality, it is the left-overs of the past presidents spending showing up and making the current president look bad. It proves how easily misinformed Americans can be and how we like to point fingers. Yes, Obama, himself, has raised our deficit, however, not as much as other presidents.
The current "Stand your ground" law in Ohio is called the Castle Doctrine. This doctrine states that if you are in a home or vehicle that you own, you do not have a duty to retreat if attacked. This meaning that you can legally use force that could potentially be deadly, if you are ever attacked. Outside of those, you have to attempt to retreat and passing a law to change this, in my opinion, would not be very beneficial as it would give people an excuse to carry more guns or weapons and could possibly make the streets even more unsafe than it is.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57603840/obama-takes-on-coal-with-first-ever-carbon-limits/
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how Obama and the EPA have set very strict limits on the amount of carbon limits coal companies can produce. This would make Americans start to get their energy from a cleaner source. Obama believes that this will help reduce the limitless carbon pollution in the air. The problem is that it only effects new power plants. For new coal power plants to be built, they would have to install expensive technology that would capture carbon dioxide and put it underground. I believe that this new proposal would not really change anything. It only effects new power plants and a bill last year banned any new coal-producing power plants. So this new proposal has no major effect on the pollution. They should make it where it makes old coal-producing have to put in the new technology so that it has a greater effect on the carbon pollution than the bill they're proposing now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGreat summary Emily! This is definitely interesting and will be cool to see if the proposal of using less coal with help with pollution and decrease global warming. It also comes with a cost, literally, and many new advances in technology which can be a vigorous task. It will also be interesting to follow this change and it's impact on our climate
DeleteThis is infact, a very useless limitation. Despite the fact that creating new coal-producing power plants is a banned process, even if they could be created, the expensiveness of the technology required for it to make it eco-friendly would prevent some companies from creating these power plants. I agree with you that it effect the current coal production, as that is the only way it would make a real impact.
DeleteFINALLY. We should be so beyond being dependent upon coal right now. With the way our pollution is affecting the planet right now it should be clear that we need to be changing our habits. This is a great step in the right direction. There are so many cleaner, more eco-friendly ways to produce power. I'm shocked it's something the markets haven't tapped into more already. Like, there's endless opportunity.
DeleteThis a right step for a better more eco-friendly world as the limits are set higher i think more major companies will starting looking for alternative energy sources such as wind and solar. I think they should increase the carbon limit regularly to push for renewable energy sources and maybe development of better energy sources that might someday fuel the world.
DeleteI think the stand your ground law in Ohio is very useful because a lot of times people get robbed or broken into . Being able to have that weapon is protection of yourself and your family. That doesn't mean that you can use those weapons on anyone, only in time of an emergency. I understand that some people are against weapons and to a certain point i am too, but when it comes to the protection of you and your family i think that they are a great thing. I also do think that if you do shoot someone in protecting yourself that there should be some kind of consequence because you did take a life.I honestly think that guns are not a bad thing, people just give them a bad reputation because of they way they have been used.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, Ohio does not have an form of a law that would authorize the use of, in self-defense, firearms without consequences from the law. In my opinion, I feel that should change and that Ohioans, and the rest of the country, should be able to posses firearms on their person in case of the need to defend themselves. Now some may argue, "Well, with the legalization of concealed firearms for all persons, wouldn't that justify people just walking the streets and slaughtering eachother?". Not necessarily. Some people may not be able to be trusted with concealed firearms, possibly because of a troubled past, or possibly because of their mental instability. To appease both parties on the matter, I feel that in order to be able to qualify to carry a concealed firearm and use it to defend yourself against an attacker, one should have to undergo both a background check, and a thorough mental evaluation. To sum it up, yes, I am in favor of a "Stand Your Ground" law being enacted in Ohio.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we need some better form of a stand your ground law here in Ohio. While we can defend ourselves in our homes, that is not where we spend al of our time. I do not advocate everyone in Ohio being able to strap on a gun and wander the streets just daring someone to "threaten" them. I feel that a reasonable method of screening and granting permits has to be in place before we move along the path with this law. We must do a better job of preventing criminals and disturbed individuals from getting permits like what happened at the Navy Shipyard. Once we hae a strong procedure of checks and balances for those wishing to carry a weapon, we can safely implement the law that lets you have the rights and ability to protect yourself when you need to.
DeleteI agree as well. People should be allowed to defend themselves in serious emergency or situation. Not everyone should carry a weapon of course. People should be made to go through gun safety classes and such to be able to carry weapons. People get attacked and harmed more easily because we technically are not allowed to defend ourselves with weapons. We should be allowed to defend ourselves in times of emergency.
Deletehttp://www.abc6onyourside.com/shared/news/features/top-stories/stories/wsyx_abc-6-town-hall-stand-your-ground-law-proposed-ohio-26291.shtml
ReplyDeleteThis article gives an overview of the "stand your ground" law that is being proposed at the next town hall meeting. This law is giving you the option to defend yourself using deadly force. I think protection and safety should be a main concern in local areas and I am torn on this subject. I feel you should defend yourself, especially if you are protecting yourself AND others from harm, but I also think you should not "shoot to kill" ,but just to injure and keep them from hurting others.
As for the "Stand Your Ground" law in Ohio, it is called the Castle Doctrine where only in cases of you being in your home or vehicle to be allowed to use force in defense and if you are outside of those parameters you are supposed to flee. I believe that we should have the "stand your ground" law because you can get attacked outside of your house or vehicle so you should be allowed to defend yourself since your body is your space even if force to the point of death is required. However the sad flip side to this is that it could be a reason people can justify if they were to murder someone they could sadly call it "self defense."
ReplyDeletehttp://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/24/20677783-report-army-set-to-implement-partial-tattoo-ban?lite
ReplyDeleteThis article revolves around the military restricting their reasons for not allowing someone to enter into the armed forces. The main focus this time is on tattoos. I believe that if a man or woman is willing to join our nation's military and put their life on the line for the protection of American citizens, they should be allowed to enter the military no matter if they have some sort of tattoo that is above their neckline or below their knees or elbows.
I completely agree with what Andrew is saying. The only reason the United states is loosing their tattoo restrictions is because right now we are not at war. Right now there is no need for a huge army because we are not involved in a war. We only tighten the rules regarding tattoos because there is no need to have so many soldiers and the army does not want the soldiers to show any unique things about themselves or impose their own personal views through their tattoos on people. When there is a war and the army does need people they will again change the reigns on tattoos and allow more people with tattoos to join the army because in times of war no one will willing volunteer to go to war so restrictions need to be lifted to allow more people to join the army. This is a big waste of time. If the army is going to loosen tattoo restrictions eventually why change them now.
DeleteWhile I'm typically completely against any kinds of tattoo restrictions whatsoever, I can see the logic behind this. I agree, however, with what Gladys said regarding them changing the restrictions again and again. When they loosen the restrictions during times of war it, to me, shows desperation. Nonetheless, I can see why they wouldn't want individuals with tattoos in the military. Soldiers are forced to look very uniform and when you have something like a tattoo it really makes you stick out.
DeleteAnd they are at it again. Well okay the military trying to restrict someone from entering the army for having tattoos, specifically above the neck and below the knees or elbows. I am in complete agreement with Ritchie here, why, if someone is trying to fight for their country, would we stop them using such excuse as tattoos on their own skin, which i would say falls under the right of speech amendment if I'm not wrong. Which actually wants me to bring up that subject to see if it would be an possible and liable argument to bring the right of speech being interfered with in the rejection of allowing future troops to join for something as simple as that. There were the being able to admit your sexuality, now tattoos past a certain line on your body, whats next? will it be because of the style of hair on your head?
DeleteThese new restrictions against clearly shows that the U.S. Army is in no real need for new recruits because if they did they wouldn't be diverting young people to not want to be soldiers. This restriction is going to do more harm to the Army than it would do good. In my opinion people should not be forced to get rid of visible tattoos in order to be able to jion the Army.
DeleteI agree with Andrew as well. If someone is willing to join our armed forces and fight for our country's freedom then they should be allowed to do that no matter what they look like, it shouldn't even matter. I also agree that it is being done to limit recruits, if you think long term they will have to get rid of the new limitation when in time of war or we won't have enough troops.
DeleteThe decision to for the military tight restriction on tattoos is a good idea. Since all the soldiers are dressed and uniformed to look alike it should stay that way. The enemy shouldn’t be able to tell one solider from the other just because of the ink marking he has showing in the line of battle. This could potentially pose as a threat not only to the solider but to his or her platoon/crew/squad etc. just because of the fact that they have a distinctive marking on their body. It is true that the military is making these changes because they don’t have a need for soldiers at the moment but once the going gets tough and we’re thrown into a war they will end up having to loosen these laws which they shouldn’t have to, but with today’s society they might have to.
DeleteI think the stand your ground law should be there. If someone is going to attack you or you feel like they are without a doubt attack you, I feel you have the right to take forceful action against them. The law of course would have to be strictly in forced and action should only be taken when there is great reasoning justifying a person's actions. People should not have to turn their backs on someone who is wanting to attack them and hope for the best. They should be able to ensure their safety by insuring they cannot be hurt. The Zimmerman verdict told us that justifiable homicide is right in certain situations. Not that Zimmerman is guilty, or isn't guilty, but this opened our eyes to whats going on and this issue. This stand your ground law would allow more minorities to justify their protection of themselves. The current duty to retreat is not working right now. You can not always run away, with the stand your ground law you would have to prove you couldn't run away. This would prevent people just saying they are in danger and can't do anything about it. Here is an interview that shows both sides.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.10tv.com/content/sections/video/index.html?video=/videos/2013/08/09/capsquare-stand-your-ground.xml
Alright, time to chime in I guess. According to my sweet mistress Wikipedia, the stand your ground law is this: "A Stand-Your-Ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation." I think that adopting such a law is a terrible idea. A prime case of this is the Trayvon Martin case. This law basically says that if someone is comin' at you crazy like a bag of ferrets you don't have to run away to spill their guts. The problem I see with this is that people WILL abuse this law. It's only logical, really. Many victims of the law have been unarmed (12 out of 13, in an investigation by the Orlando Sentinel, methinks). They also require law officials to prove that the suspect who killed the peep wasn't acting in self defense. It's not too easy to prove a motive when the other guy is dead, not to mention that they protect the suspect from civil suits!!!!!! I don't approve I don't approve I don't approve
ReplyDeleteHey, so since we're talking about political culture and how it's different, here's an article that shows the different customs in other parts of the world. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/brazilian-man-plans-marry-pet-goat-article-1.1447528 I'm not weirded out by this at all because he's not gonna get jiggy with the gentle steed. It actually made me kind of happy that this cute old man really loves this goat. I'm being completely serious. I saw this and I thought to myself "WHOA, POLITICAL CULTURE". Men can't marry goats here though. I've tried.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2013/09/25/world/africa/kenya-mall-attack-aftermath/?hpt=hp_c3
ReplyDeleteIt is another very sad event with the mass shooting of civilians in the mall in Kenya. Terrorists hiding behind the reason of extremist religion feel it is their right to slaughter innocent people in order to attack a government they do not like. Instead of working in the system or finding less violent ways of working out issues they act like cowards and attack people who can not fight back. These terrorists are the worst type of criminal and deserve whatever fate they face when captured. Maybe if Kenya had a stand-your-ground law a few of the citizens could have saved some lives by being able to immediately fight back against these cowards.
I heard about this event. Just like the one that happened in DC this week with the Naval station. It really is sad that people as in terrorism or whatever are okay with just taking lives of others and could careless. The innocent people they are kelling have no way to fight back and I think that is just wrong.
DeleteIm so glad you posted this sasha! I was thinking about this at the same thing you were. If kenya haf a stand your ground law then perhaps this wouldnt have happened. I also am concerned how the terrorist were hiding weapons in the store. Do the people who work there not check the store? I am also wonderig is why would they do this? They should know that they are going to get caught and either killed or sent to prison. I just dont understand how criminals think apparently (thats a good thing lol)
DeleteThe current law in Ohio for self defense is the Castle Doctrine which enables someone to protect themselves with possibly deadly force if they are attacked while they are in their own home or car. Yet in all other places they have must try to run away or retreat from the attacker. This law in my opinion does not give us the rights we deserve as to being able to protect ourselves sufficiently. Even in public places we should be able to use force to protect ourselves and out families and friends if we need to. The purposed Stand Your Ground gives people that ability to rightly protect yourself but it wouldn't allow people to cause unnecessary violence.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gabby. I think that if someone is trying to attack you or come at you with aggression, you should be able to do what you need to do to stop them. The government isn't giving us enough power or rights with that in my opinion. I'm not saying to just kill them but do what you have to do to get the point across.
DeleteI just finished watching the entire broadcast held at the union at The Ohio State University. Let me Begin with one quote from Pastor Charles Bond "Change of laws don't change people". Him starting with this saying just hits how he will have a strong argument. The way I see it is as from a Question asked by Tanya "why do we need this, when the Castle law could do just as good with a little combo sense..." Bringing up a good argument that if the focus were to really be on the disabled or people who had no way to fleeing out of the confrontation. There is no reason to remove that third step but modify and underline the common sense of someone having to resort to these actions due to the inability to do anything else. Another great point of many is that brought up by Julie Icorn. "Isn't it true that in states that have Stand Your Ground laws that the murder rate has increased 7 to 9 percent resulting in an additional 700 murders per year..." "that is true that is facts that were from University of Texas A&M study" and well I am on the same page on the murders if possible would rise also. I will try to keep following on this subject because these arguments from both sides are quite intriguing.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/world/middleeast/west-says-un-nears-syria-resolution.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteI think if a the U.N Security council finally agree on something then it might be a great chance to end this revolution. I think it might have to go past sanctions it has gone to far for a simple sanction on the country i don't think it will do anything.I think a multi-national coalition could end the war fast and simple after that the Syrian people and only the Syrian people should decide who the new leader should be. that is the fastest way i think to end the revolution and the government oppression on its people. It is far to late for simple sanctions maybe humanitarian aid for the people and letting the fighting run its course with out help for either sides. I dont think a collation will happen as Russia is still a strong ally of the country.
I feel that the stand your ground law is something we should be glad to have. I feel that if someone breaks into your house, you should have the right to use force against them. I also feel that it should be allowed in public but with limitations, like if you are attacked on the street you should be allowed to defend yourself but you should not be permitted to start shooting on a public street.
ReplyDeleteSo as everyone has already said the Stand Your Ground Law is also called the Castle Doctrine. This law allows people that are in a life or death situation to protect themselves and can use deadly force upon their own judgment as long as it is on their own property. If feeling threatened anywhere else it is illegal to use deadly force so the person will have to try and retreat from the threat.
ReplyDeleteI am very much for the stand your ground law. This is a very important law that should be taken very seriously. I think that old women would also be ideal for this. Robbers and just plain bad people like to target the elderly. I think that the elderly should have protection for themselves and they need to be able todo it legally. It would be wrong of they got robbed and the readson they couldnt protect themself is because their not allowed to carry a gun yet the person who robbed them has a gun. So what im trting to say is that it meeda to be legal.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion this is not that bad of an idea. There are many people that get either hurt or worse due to break ins. In those situations they could then be able to protect themselves even if it means that they will have to kill another person. Yeah there may be some bad outcomes but imagine how many lives could possibly be saved from break in attacks. I just find it to be a good law.
ReplyDeleteTo me the stand your ground law is a good law. One should be able to defend themselves if they fell threatened in any type of way. My problem with the law is how people defend themselves and what type of situation it is. As the old saying goes “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”, to me this simply means depending on what type of fight you’re engaged in you want to be prepared. If someone is coming at you with a knife you don’t want to just have your fists you want to be equally prepared. And also if someone is coming at you with a gun you don’t want to just have a knife. But this also doesn’t mean if someone is coming at you with bare hands you’re going against them with a gun, it’s completely unfair and this is where gray areas in an issue become a problem.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thenation.com/article/172643/ten-things-end-rape-culture#
ReplyDeleteUpon finding this article, I was originally looking for problems between cultures in our government, and found this instead. I found this article to be very interesting in the way that it informs its readers about the issue of rape and violence. In addition, this article made me think about how our government could make these issues more of a big deal because it greatly effects people in their everyday lives.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/12/us-usa-economy-budget-idUSBRE97B0O020130812
ReplyDeleteI think that the deficit the American nature has come to attain is very great, however, the blame is always given to the wrong people. I find it interesting when I hear people rage on about how much Obama has raised our deficit, when in reality, it is the left-overs of the past presidents spending showing up and making the current president look bad. It proves how easily misinformed Americans can be and how we like to point fingers. Yes, Obama, himself, has raised our deficit, however, not as much as other presidents.