• Doomsider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Stand your ground laws disagree. If one party views it as a threat of bodily harm they can definitely defend themselves by preemptively killing someone.

    • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      This was such a weird time-line switch. Trump president again and progressives on Lemmy sound like r/conservative with law interpretation. So there’s no better response, no room for the very real needed evaluation of each situation, just a blanket “shoot em” now. Idk how people are so subjective to propaganda and influence when we have such a hard grasp on reality.

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        A bunch of women shooting men for threatening to rape them would definitely get the stand your ground laws changed for the better. Sounds like a progressive win to me.

        Reality is a strange bedfellow.

        • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Just an OG fantasy accelerationist eh? I can dig it, but I think they would dismiss it as not being fit for the definition. Judges can and are allowed to be fickle like that.

          • Doomsider@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            It would be wonderful to set the precedent that men can legally defend themselves but woman can’t. Let’s hope for fickle justices who can’t help themselves.