"Shoot them"
I have seen a whole lot of people advocating to shoot the rioters when they burn buildings, loot stores, set fire to cars, etcetera.
This, in my opinion, makes a clear case for the difference between "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat". In Florida, a shop owner would be within her rights to stand at their shop door, or house door, with an AR, and say "No. You can burn this home, but only when I am out of ammo." However, Missouri is *not* a "stand-your-ground" state. It's a "duty to retreat" state. That means that when the rioters appear, Molotov cocktails in hand, In Missouri, you can only call the police and leave out the back door. You must watch, doing nothing while rioters loot your store and destroy your life's work.
When the Trayvon case was going on, the injustices of "stand-your-ground" were on display. Some such injustices do exist, despite the failure of the proponents to find even one such example. Contrast that against the lives destroyed and lives lost in duty to retreat states, and the picture gets murkier. Particularly in light of the number of people killed because they *couldn't* fight back. Firearms are used defensively 2 million times per year in the US. In most off those cases, shots are not fired. How many people are dead because they were not permitted the one effective method for dealing with ne-er do wells intent on inflicting harm?
This, in my opinion, makes a clear case for the difference between "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat". In Florida, a shop owner would be within her rights to stand at their shop door, or house door, with an AR, and say "No. You can burn this home, but only when I am out of ammo." However, Missouri is *not* a "stand-your-ground" state. It's a "duty to retreat" state. That means that when the rioters appear, Molotov cocktails in hand, In Missouri, you can only call the police and leave out the back door. You must watch, doing nothing while rioters loot your store and destroy your life's work.
When the Trayvon case was going on, the injustices of "stand-your-ground" were on display. Some such injustices do exist, despite the failure of the proponents to find even one such example. Contrast that against the lives destroyed and lives lost in duty to retreat states, and the picture gets murkier. Particularly in light of the number of people killed because they *couldn't* fight back. Firearms are used defensively 2 million times per year in the US. In most off those cases, shots are not fired. How many people are dead because they were not permitted the one effective method for dealing with ne-er do wells intent on inflicting harm?