• Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days 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.