WWW search....
stand your ground law, usa
Quote:
Stand-your-ground law
A stand-your-ground law, sometimes called a "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law, provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against certain violent crimes (right of self-defense). Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present.[1] The exact details vary by jurisdiction.
The alternative to stand your ground is "duty to retreat". In jurisdictions that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.
Even areas that impose a duty to retreat generally follow the "castle doctrine", under which people have no duty to retreat when they are attacked in their homes, or (in some places) in their vehicles or workplaces. The castle doctrine and "stand-your-ground" laws provide legal defenses to persons who have been charged with various use-of-force crimes against persons, such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and illegal discharge or brandishing of weapons, as well as attempts to commit such crimes.[2]
Whether a jurisdiction follows stand-your-ground or duty-to-retreat is just one element of its self-defense laws. Different jurisdictions allow deadly force against different crimes. All American states allow it against prior deadly force, great bodily injury, and likely kidnapping or rape; some also allow it against threat of robbery and burglary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_lawIt can often be difficult to prove [later, in a court of law], that someone that you have 'consequently' harmed, had an immediate intent to first harm you or yours.
The evidence would not always be apparent [demonstrable], after the incident.
All of these circumstances [of determining a 'proper' right of self-defence] are made so much more problematic, imo, in jurisdictions [such as Australia],
where/because we find, that many violent criminals live 'in society',
alongside peaceable, law abiding citizens
[principally it would seem, because the judiciary and our political class, seem reluctant, to
permanently remove such persons [violent criminals] from our society].
.
Appropriate Justice, it isn't rocket science.
Deuteronomy 25:1
If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.
Why should, we
not do Deuteronomy 25:1,
in Australia ?
Is there any good reason, why criminals [particularly violent criminals],
should not be made to account [be made personally responsible], for their criminal behaviour ?
Forum
Pages: 1 
