Stand Your Ground: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Objavljeno 16. maj. 2021
John Oliver takes a look at why “stand your ground” laws were created, who they protect, and, crucially, who they don’t.

Connect with Last Week Tonight online...

Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight SLflow channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/lastweektonight

Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: lastweektonight

Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news: lastweektonight

Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: www.hbo.com/lastweektonight

Komentarjev

  • I dont see any issue with "stand your ground" laws. What seems to be overlooked is that being scared for your life is the benchmark, combine that with a jury of pears to rationalize what happened. Much like with self defense there will be blurred lines, but with physical evidence and questioning it can be a functioning system.

  • Hey friends, I know this is not a popular opinion for the people on this show, but the real problem is not the laws. It's a poorly picked jury that doesn't differentiate justified self-defense and murder. You would not want to prevent people from stopping a rape or murder, especially if it was your girlfriend or grandma.

  • USCCA self defense insurance doesn’t pay out if you’re found criminally liable. Their website and monthly magazine both contain a lot of educational and anecdotal information about responsible gun ownership. There’s at least one, if not more articles in every edition of the magazine that discourages the use of a firearm unless absolutely necessary, because the reality is that even if you are justified in doing so, your life will be fundamentally changed forever the moment you pull that trigger.

  • Well the killers of Ahmaud Arbery were arrested and charged even though they were in a stand your ground state…… soooooo

  • 'they came towards me---' victims were shot in the back. yep, makes sense...

  • Standard ground 💣Castle doctrine🏴‍☠️Goddamn I love this country🎩We got to get machine guns in vending machines immediately🎩Man that guy sounds feminine

  • Don't steal people's shit. Don't get drunk and pick a fight with a random stranger. Problem solved. Secondly, assuming john is telling the truth, every state that I know, it's illegal as fuck to shoot someone in the back and dosen't qualify as standing your ground. The man should be in jail for manslaughter.

    • @David Christian you're equating theft and violence to buying chips? Nah bruh, doesn't work. "In most states/ countries it's legal to shoot someone in the back" No, it's absolutely not. What are you smoking?

    • Don't go walking through a neighborhood adjacent to your own. Don't go out for your regular morning jog. Don't buy potato chips and walk back to school. Problem solved. In every state (and most countries), it's perfectly legal to shoot someone in the back under certain circumstances- and the castle doctrine (where applicable) is one of them.

  • Now you’re stretching John. Stand your ground and gun rights do exponentially more good in America than bad.

    • hahahahahahAZHhaahahahahahahahahahhahaahahhqahhahahahahahahahahahahah look at every fucking european country, no it doesn't anything good, literally not anything

  • I listen to a lot of true crime stories and one that comes to mind was on this very thing. What kept the police investigating the matter to learn it was indeed murder was all the neighbors. They knew this wasn't a "Stand Your Ground" defence but just cold blooded murder. Forensic proved what the neighbors already understood and this time the killer was convicted.

    • @fclp67 Oh I know. This story just came to mind because it was the freshest on my mind and the only reason this got investigated was because of what the neighbors said.

    • problem with that - most cases don't go to that level of investigation, especially ones involving black people

  • 'scrub jays are so friendly they'll eat out of your hand' sir 'friendly' is not the word you want scrub jays are 100% Bastardly Corvid (affectionate). Crow but about 50% smaller so the Bastard is more compact.

  • Damn i distinctly remember the guys chasing down ahmed arbaury and very much not *standing* their ground.

  • Being German myself I remember reports from a few years ago of a German exchange student in the USA getting shot and killed on someone's lawn for just approaching and not knowing about that law :0

    • the US is a joke, not a country

  • I'm gonna be real the idea of letting a burglar be because the house is empty and "its just property it isn't worth shooting them" is a mentality that clearly belongs to somebody who has never been burglarized. I generally agree with most views on this show but if my neighbor shot and killed somebody who was breaking in to my house I would thank that neighbor. It isn't about the property. It's not because I'm so afraid to lose muh things. It is about not feeling safe in your home again. It is an invasion and I absolutely would kill over it and have no sympathy for burglars who get killed. It changes the victim forever and people don't wanna talk about it because they see it as a consumer mourning their lost products when it is a person mourning their lost sanctity. Horne may just be somebody who was too easy to pull the trigger but I'm glad he was there to express deliver lead to somebody who truly deserved it.

  • This is why it pissed me off George Zimmerman got away with blatant murder using stand your ground law. He legit followed and kept following Trayvon then engaged him until he swung then shot him. How he got away with that is beyond me and dumb juries and bad lawyers because the other side said zero logical points to Zimmerman. I would have destroyed him in Court. What about Trayvons stand your ground law when he was stalked by Zimmerman? That's why he HIT Zimmerman because he stood his ground and followed what every parent tell their children stranger danger if someone you don't know tries anything get away or fight. Yet the law backed up his death.

  • They should at least add the rate at which crime is committed by race if they want to talk about the race aspect of "stand your ground".

    • another racist

  • Carry a Bowie knife. No one will mess with you.

    • yeah they definitely wont shoot you when you show a knife, this isnt britain man, they can shoot you for simply being black

  • Did this dude just demonize concealed carry permits? Lol.

    • another racist

    • @Mark Chandler Me watch the video? Obviously you did not. I know what the video is about. He also talked about how that lady is to blame for states adopting concealed carry permits. Which isn’t a bad thing lol.

    • No, he's arguing about how stand your ground laws enables murderers. Watch the video.

  • White women anger kills

  • Joe horn wanted to kill someone and this law gave him a legal way to do so. Any person with a basic understanding of US history would have told you this was a bad idea.

    • It's known as the Non-Aggression Principle. If force is initiated against you and/or your property, you have a moral right to use equal if not greater force to defend your person/property. And you can do this *ex parte or third party as well,* because the Non-Aggression Principle is universal. In Texas, *Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9, Subchapter D: "Protection of Property"; Sec. 9.41, 9.42, & 9.43* falls perfectly in line with this principle.

  • Tilda Swinton is Gabriel, not Jesus Christ, John.

  • The dog weight thing could of turned deadly and that’s why he shot.

  • Well, if I met Stephanie Howse, I too would be afraid, that she gives me a cookie, I think it's the face

  • The fact John Oliver is surprised the woman would say this in a free country just shows how out of touch he is with the common man or woman that loves freedom and safety. This woman is part of the solution whereas John Oliver is here to push his leftist agenda.

  • Nope you're already in the human misery category. I get a headache every time you spin your ignorant propaganda. Keep misguiding the people Jonny boy.

  • So... Florida strikes again?

  • Its coming straight for us South park

  • You got put to death if you shot someone in the back in Texas but, somehow it is now legal?!

    • They weren't shot in the back. One of them actually rushed Horn and forensics showed they were shot in the torso.

  • Stand your ground law allows racist pigs to kill black people in Missouri.

  • It's worse that they no longer require a conceiled carry permit in Missouri and stolen guns are sold on Facebook and trade catalogs

  • Well in my country you can not defend your self anywhere not even in your home. If you do more damage than is inflicted to you you are breaking the law...Iceland and america should meet somewhere in the middle

  • I too fear Tilda Swinton. But kind of in a good way. Like I wish she was my dad.

  • We need to expand this law for businesses as well, so be next BLM riots, business owners can defend the store they've cared for years!! Instead of seeing your lifetime's work and efforts gone in a day because of "social justice" and "peaceful demonstrations"....

  • Haha - that guy was such a keener he went for the "stand my neighbors ground" law he feels entitled to. How progressive.

  • America seems so fucked up, bloody hell.

  • John talking about the man with the Robert E Lee hat's opinion is literally just as valid as "you pfp is anime, you're argument is immediately invalid"

  • This is just enraging to watch and I don't even live in USA. From country where guns are legal tho, nothing like this.

  • Is this guy meant be funny?

  • Next time someone says "America is the best country on earth", I going to show them this video (and all the others from Last Week Tonight)

    • Remember that John Oliver is a comedian hosting a comedy show, generalizing information read from a teleprompter in order for it to fit into his comedic act. I like this show too. But it seriously needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

  • So this woman is part of America’s gun problem. Edit: I understand her story, but by making it more easy to obtain guns, she is involuntarily responsible for every mass shooting in America because a regular person could just walk into a gun store and casually get a gun

  • I don't understand this gun Fetishiizing idiots I cannot comprehend why these people associate guns with their own identity. it's low and pathetic. I sometimes feel like people are just looking for an excuse to pull a gun because their miserable lives are so easy and not full of excitement.

    • If that's the way you think it is, then you'll end up in prison like that guy arguing over dogs or like that Salama Ra lady.

  • These “comedians” are have a hard time getting their “jokes” across without their studio audience clapping and laughing for them like seals.

  • We continue to suck as Americans. I don’t see anything changing

  • 🤪

  • "It's basically Rosetta Stone for justified homicides." Way to be hilarious and poignant at the same time. You and your writers are geniuses John.

    • @Andrew Honeycutt Truth has no power to impress the mind without the exquisite horror of it's reality. ✌

    • @BenJamin Croft you are a troll and I will not feed you anymore. There will be no more replies.

    • @Andrew Honeycutt Please push the "OFF" button on your glorious absence of sophistication to actually accept what John Oliver is saying about guns and gun laws.

    • @BenJamin Croft please press the “Off” button on your Hate Bot.

    • @Andrew Honeycutt I'm just simply speaking the truth. For some reason certain kinds of people see that as cynical.

  • Yet another extremely short sighted american law

    • *Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9, Subchapter D: "Protection of Property"; Sec. 9.41, 9.42, & 9.43* falls perfectly in line with this principle. If force is initiated against you and/or your property, you have a moral right to use equal if not greater force to defend your person/property. And you can do this *ex parte or third party as well,* because the Non-Aggression Principle is universal.

  • Y’all should be thankful..in Canada if somebody attempts to kill me in my own home and i end up killing them instead, I’m still getting charged with murder no doubt 🤣 🤦🏽‍♂️

  • not gonna lie but the best marksmen practice the duty to retreat well. They know too well that when they shoot, they risk themselves a high risk to be shot back at.

  • Violation of the NAP is a death sentence.

  • 'Murican gun laws; giving you the only 1st world nation with a 3rd world homicide rate...

    • @ratman Again, explain it, describe it, illustrate on it, make it clear. I'm waiting and have _been_ waiting. Throw me a bone a here.

    • @BenJamin Croft Your failure to understand, while amusing and very 'Murican, isn't my problem 😁

    • @ratman That's not an explanation on why after you extrapolate such a low number and percentage, via the ratio, from the total number.

    • @BenJamin Croft "You still haven't been able to explain to me why 0.004% is such a travesty" Other than being over quadruple the rate of your more civilised peers? Other than being a worse rate than nations like Uzbekistan? Keep weaseling boyo, it amuses me :D

    • @ratman I'm not pretending anything. I'm just simply asking questions, providing the facts, and speaking the truth. When you take a ratio of 5/100,000 from a population of 320 million you get 14,000 or 0.004%. You still haven't been able to explain to me why 0.004% is such a travesty.

  • “That mans get-out-of-jail free card, coupled with his get-out-of-jail free complexion, is an awful combination.” That is the best and saddest joke I have heard in almost any video he’s ever done.

    • Remember that John Oliver is a comedian, hosting a comedy show, generalizing information read from a teleprompter in order for it to fit into his comedic act. I like this show too, but it seriously needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

  • You 'stand your ground' when you're hard enough to defend yourself or know how to diffuse a situation. If you have a crime problem, the answer isn't throwing more guns at the problem. If anything, you do the opposite and you certainly don't create justifiable murder laws.

    • @Michelle Schu-blacka *3.* Oh boy. The gun loopholes, here we go. 1) The gunshow loophole bs. There is NO gun show loophole. So I'm going to have to say this again because there's a lot of lies and misleadings going on out there. There is NO gun show loophole! It's a red herring. It's something made up. There is nothing you can't do at a gun store that you can do at a gun show. Gun shows are essentially really big temporary gun stores. Get a bunch of dealers in one place, increasing the selection, and competition therefore, theoretically, driving the prices down. Sure you have your Nazi memorabilia booths, which kind of confuses people. However, you can't buy baby fetuses at a gun show and we're not helping North Korea start World War 3. We're just buying and selling guns LEGALLY. 2.) The internet loophole bs. Millions of people think they can just go online, Google, "guns for sale", find the gun they want, put in their credit card info, and then two days later a box of gun shows up at their front door, all without a background check. This NEVER happens! There is no place online where you can just buy a gun and then it shows up at your front doorstep without a background check. Are there online sites out there where companies post guns for sale and allow you to purchase them online without a background check? Absolutely. HOWEVER, after you purchase that gun it isn't sent directly to your house. They ship it to the nearest FFL, or Federal Firearms License, dealer from your address. Moreover, guess what else you have to do when you go and pick up your new gun at that FFL dealer? Fill out Federal Form 4473 and submit it to a background check before you can even think about leaving that store with your new gun. This isn't a new process. It's always been this way. Even before the internet. 3) The private sales bs. Let the anti-gunners tell you that 40% of all gun purchases are conducted through private sales and/or at gun shows. 40% Do you know how much 40% is? Think about it. Why would a vendor pay to set up shop at a gun show, surrounded by competition, if 40% of the people coming to the show are merely coming to the show to buy guns privately? I'll tell you why. Because it's NOT true. It makes no sense from a business perspective. You want to know where they got that 40% from? It's not like they actually went to a gun show and then surveyed the people there. It was a report conducted back in 1997 where they called 251 people on the phone who bought guns between 1993 and 1994. Keep in mind that the NICS system, that's now in place, that all gun dealers, even the ones at gun shows, used to conduct background checks wasn't available yet. Out of those 251 people, 35.7% said they didn't even buy from a dealer and then they rounded that number up to 40%. Also, keep in mind, that 35.7% included the people who got their guns as gifts, from inheritance, or prizes. Take those people out and guess what number you get now? 26.4%. In addition, out of that 26.4%, 23.8% of those people who were surveyed actually did in fact receive their guns as an inheritance or as a gift and about half of them believe a licensed firearms dealer was the source. So what number are we really left with after this one and only survey? 3.9%..... 3.9%! Now ask yourself. Why are the anti-gunners using outdated inconsequential data to make their argument? Because it is NOT an argument, it's an agenda. They rely on your ignorance. Plausible deniability is the name of the game the anti-gunners love to play. Either by quoting outdated and inconsequential stats they are being irresponsible or because it pushes their agenda they know that most people will actually believe.

    • @Michelle Schu-blacka *1.* You own the effects of your actions because you are the source of what you created. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor. You put your time, money and effort (your life) into achieving what you got or what you've given. Let's say you bought a model and it took you 3 days to build it, then all of sudden somone just takes it. That person just stole 3 days of your life and you're never going to get it back. "It can be replaced", is what most people would say, but that time and effort, part of your life, can never be replaced. Get it? *2.* When seconds count and help is minutes away, what do you do?

    • @BenJamin Croft *1.* No. I'm simply saying that a life is worth more than material possessions. *2.* This is apparent. The question we're debating is whether that should be the case of not. *3.* Criminals get hold of firearms over there because there's so many loopholes to obtain them and none of these are tracked. To be brutally honest, your assertion that criminals are criminals so why bother trying is not a sensible proposition since this could be applied to any law, for example, drug laws and your recent abortion laws. Dealing with your firearm death rate isn't going to be easy and unfortunately, your politicians seem more concerned with their next election than their constituents/employers and those people are easily placated with platitudes that speak to the more vitriolic element, rather than presenting reasonable, well thought out policies that address more pressing issues like jobs, housing, etc. But whether _you_ like it or not, you're never going to reduce the number of fatalities as a consequence of firearms, by throwing more firearms at it. The sad reality is that, for the rest of the western world, it's essentially entertainment...morbid curiosity. We don't get why there's all these mass shootings, yet your country does the opposite of trying to address it because of the blatant corruption, impotence and incompetence of your politicians.

    • @Michelle Schu-blacka *1.* So if I'm understanding you correctly, nobody has the moral right not to defend that which is theirs or someone else's? *2.* Firearms _are_ in play whether you want them to be or not. *3.* All these anti-gunners and gun control addicts all keep promising that not all these gun control proposals will not affect "responsible" gun owners. How can any "reasonable", law-abiding citizen, not be for more universal background checks? Come on. Seriously? Criminals are criminals because they don't obey the laws. Look, if a criminal wants to take this gun and then sell it to this other criminal and then that criminal goes, "Hey! You know what guy? Let's go over to that gun store over there and get a background check. Just in case you're not a felon." REALLY!? SERIOUSLY!? I DON'T THINK SO! Anti-gunners and the people they're siding with don't have a single clue about anything they talk about when it concerns guns. They all have such a limited understanding of firearms, how to buy them, training, safety and the laws, that it completely renders their opinions useless. I carry a firearm everyday. They don't and obviously you don't either. So who do you think is going to know more about firearms, firearm safety, training, purchasing and laws than the individual who has to clear a loaded handgun after every night when he/she comes home? So when I hear anti-gunners say things like, "It's not a not a big issue..." or "...it's less convenient..." and then try and force those views on to me is completely rude and disrespectful. Because at the end of the day _none_ of you have the credentials. That argument is not only invalid, it's completely WORTHLESS.

    • @BenJamin Croft *1.* My issue was with the number of people wrongfully killed, regardless of whether it was accidental or in defence of an erroneously perceived threat to life. However, I did deliberately not postulate on the ethics of killing in order to retain material possessions, which you appeared to indicate was legally 'reasonable'. *2.* If no firearms were in play, people wouldn't be dying in their thousands as a consequence of accidents, negligence or deliberate self-infliction. This is an unavoidable side-effect that can't be ignored by humans who value lives. It is ironic that many who are in favour of your current situation, only appear to value life when it comes to abortion. *3.* As you pointed out, there are legal and illegal ways to obtain firearms and even the legal method, as you pointed out, doesn't take particularly long. For reference, those in the UK wishing to own firearms must pass enhanced criminal checks where practically anything can disqualify you. There's thorough medical checks to ensure you have no mental illnesses that could bar you, there's an interview with police, two character references, checks on your home to ensure you have appropriate storage and a couple of other checks that I can't remember. Leaving aside the use of a firearm in defence, why would such a procedure be a big issue for law-abiding, mentally healthy individuals when all it does is drastically reduce unsuitable people with access to firearms? It's less convenient, especially if you close the loopholes, but even if you retain defence as a justification to end a life, it should take your death rate into four figures, at least.

  • Idk I usually agree with John but I still agree that I should be able to carry a firearm and defend myself. I don’t agree with leaving my safety in the hands of felons if I should be robbed etc. The guy Horn is clearly wrong though and should be prosecuted because he went out and shot those people in the back over someone else’s property

    • @ratman Yet another bureaucratic dodge. smh... You never said it's *"legislated murder"?* Murder being immoral, therefore making what Horn did, which was defending another person's property, immoral. You still haven't explained why this is. smh...

    • @BenJamin Croft Yeah, you're a weasel kiddo. I never said what you claim. You can't land a point no matter how you try, so you gotta make crap up in the effort. Hilarious. Pathetic, yes, but also hilarious 🤣

    • @ratman Still not wanting to explain why it's immoral for someone to defend their property or someone else's property? And you're calling _me_ a weasel? smh...

    • @BenJamin Croft Weasel all you like kiddo, you just sound more daft. With these laws, all you need is a good story and you're right to go.

    • @ratman It's not my view. It's yours. Remember? Your position is that laws that support someone morally protecting their property or someone else's property is "legislated murder". When I asked you to elaborate on this you just bureaucraticlly dodged me. So obviously your position is that since it's legislated murder therefore it's morally wrong for people to defend their property or someone else's property.

  • This feels like 2011 again lol. But oh my god, the dog argument. Someone got killed over what was basically a Monty Python gag. What a world we live in.

    • It isn't the rest of the world....

  • Oh yes guns bad so let’s take them away from lawful citizens. Hello Chicago! Check crime rates in most Democrat cities. Useless

    • You seem to have failed to comprehend anything he said.

  • Why should we feel anything for the two thieves that got shot? If it was my stuff being stolen I'd have been happy they got were eliminated. I love when British people have an opinion on our second amendment 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 sorry we won that war years ago

  • How the fuck do stand your ground laws apply if they've been shot in the back?! Doesn't that prove they were trying to get away and therefore can't have been threatening his safety

    • Medical reports and bullet forensics show that they were shot in the torso and there was a cop already there that witnessed one of them rush towards Horn. Furthermore, these two criminals were illegal aliens too. Remember that John Oliver is a comedian hosting a comedy show, generalizing information read from a teleprompter in order for it to fit into his comedic act. I like this show too, but it seriously needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

  • He killed 2 robbers, potential killers, whats wrong with that? I would thank him if it was my house.

    • He shot them in the fucking back, they werent threatening his safety

  • I’m probably going to sound weird…but Rep. Stefanie Howse is cute AF

  • Ok, but property is worth killing over. See: all of history.

    • @Ben Jones It's known as the Non-Aggression Principle. If force is initiated against you and/or your property, you have a moral right to use equal if not greater force to defend your person/property. And you can do this *ex parte or third party as well,* because the Non-Aggression Principle is universal. In Texas, *Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9, Subchapter D: "Protection of Property"; Sec. 9.41, 9.42, & 9.43* falls perfectly in line with this principle.

    • Just because people have killed others over property doesn't mean it's worth it and it also doesn't justify his actions (especially as it wasn't his property)

  • John Oliver you make as much sense as a porcupine wearing a rubber during mating season.

    • @Ben Jones guessing satire isnt in your daily life

    • Way to address the issues raised in the video. good job

  • Im for stand your ground if someone breaks into your home or if your life is TRULY in danger (i.e. they pull a weapon on you first)

    • @Ben Jones Stand Your Ground reinforces these clauses. It gives you a fighting chance in court.

    • So you mean you're in favor of self-deffense clauses that already existed before stand your ground laws

  • Good luck america

    • America is ok. They build and send rovers to Mars

  • Man americas racism is so superior to any others countries. You american white people are so amazing at it. Its first class fresh racism of the highest calibre. Fuck yeh 'Murica! 🤣

  • Are we 100% that story of her pulling the gun on some thugs and the officer saying we wouldve arrested you did really happen? It sounds like some made up bs to sell the notion

    • @Meelek Edits Correct. If he was there *in the moment.*

    • @BenJamin Croft did they tho? it was only said that when she called the police officer said hed have to arrest her if he were there

    • @Meelek Edits Yes. How do you think the police showed up afterwards and wrote down the incident?

    • @BenJamin Croft and how do you prove that? Is there even evidence of the call she made to the police?

    • @Meelek Edits If it wasn't true then it would've been brought to light years ago.

  • Guns, plus those laws make me never want to visit America.

    • Yes, you don't need to visit America to see space launches. NASA broadcast them in high quality

  • The issue was not with the law but how the law was administered in these Cherry picked cases

    • @Ben Jones Not true. Not true at all.

    • Well it's mainly the fact that it allows these incidents to occur. And it basically gives you freedom to murder people you don't like

  • If someone might kill me because of their fear (which of course I would not always be able to determine when it was happening), the I'm pretty afraid of basically everyone. And if I'm afraid of everyone, then I have the legal protection to...? Sounds legit.

    • Nope. If that's the way you think it is, then you'll end up in prison like that guy arguing over dogs or like that Salama Ra lady too. smh...

  • Parts of the US feels like Taliban country with better weapons

  • Why the hell would anyone move to the US? Trash country with trash laws.

    • Harvard, Stanford, MIT, NASA, SpaceX...

  • I love you, John! ❤️💜🖤

    • Remember that John Oliver is a comedian hosting a comedy show, *generalizing* information read from a teleprompter, in order for it to fit into his comedic act. I like this show too, but it seriously needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

  • Everybody hates the NRA, even gun owners it seems.

  • The only surprising part of this is that the police claimed they would have arrested the former NRA president.

  • "...mixed with that man's 'get out of jail free' complexion." Sadly hysterical

  • The dizzy sign optically flash because epoxy proportionately weigh worth a wild psychology. half, abaft fireplace

  • it was so much better with an audience, its been a year and a half just go back

  • where can we get that Shrek "Daddy" bucket hat? come on Oliver, don't hold out on us

  • Don’t attack people, don’t die. Pretty simple.

    • @Ben Jones It's got nothing to do with race. It's known as the Non-Aggression Principle. If force is initiated against you and/or your property, you have a moral right to use equal if not greater force to defend your person/property. And you can do this *ex parte or third party as well,* because the Non-Aggression Principle is universal.

    • Don't make someone scared of you because of the color of your skin, don't die. Pretty simple. You see how stupid that sounds, that's how you sound right now

  • Ya know, if someone drove to Texas and killed this Mr. Horn, you wouldn't go to jail. Don't do this, but I'm just saying that could happen.

    • @Johnny Shields Too late. You can't unring the bell. Next time think more critically about what you say *before* you say it. Especially when it involves an individual's life.

    • @BenJamin Croft I didn't threaten anyone's life. I pointed out an ironic flaw in this law.

    • You just threatened an individual’s life. Regardless if you said, "Don't do this." afterwards. You can't unring the bell.

  • 民間警備会社は何をしていますか?

  • Joe Horn is a hero.

    • @Ben Jones It doesn't matter. They came onto his property. Once they do that they are a threat on your life.

    • Yeah he shot those guys in the back. Like a hero would

  • "is it in" isn't that what virgin guys say the first time they are about to have sex?

  • Intersting about "percieved fear" and how subjective it is, seems very much akin to other subjective perceptual feelings that seem to be over emphasized today. Maybe we shouldn't be giving these sorts of things so much creedence ?

    • @Defdroid Morality _is_ universal and it _is_ specific. For example if someone took a dump in the middle of the road, I'm not gonna shoot him over that. Get it? So once we understand the morality, that which is used to justify violence, we have to be very sparing, tiny, case controlled and tight in our justifications for morality. Because whenever we justify morality, whatever we apply morality to, there is where we also justify violence. And if we want to keep violence down in the world we have to keep morality reactive, case specific and very very tightly defined. So if we say morality is the Non-Aggression Principle that bans rape, theft, assault and murder, we have a very powerful and very _limited_ justification for violence and it's reactive. If you don't want force involved then it's not morality. It's then aesthetics or politeness or social convention or something els; it's not morality. Morality is that which takes the safety off the gun and let's you point it at somebody. That's the foundation of morality. It's flicking the small domino (this is immoral) and the last big domino is the safety coming off the gun. When you start defining morality as somthing else like impolitness, it's gauche, it's unrefined, not socially acceptable, it's coarse; these are not moral judgments. I like to call them aesthetic morality. Since we all have a right to life, liberty, property, ect and then somebody decides to take my life, my liberty, my property, ect, then moraly and legally I can use force to defend myself. So it's passive, it's reactionary, it's instantaneous, it's a moment. If you are aggressed against and have that moment of self defense it's done, it's over and you have restored your rights that were threatened, your life that was threatened, your property that was threatened. *It's not a license for infinite violence.* It's very specific, it's lazer like, it's precise, it starts-it-stops-it's done. _Period._

    • @BenJamin Croft morality is neither universal nor specific enough to use a phrase like "Morality is violence". This of course seems to be veering off in a phylosophical direction. I am more interested the problems inherent in using preception and feelings within laws that can result in "lawful" murder

    • @Defdroid Morality _is_ violence. What I mean by that is not all violence is moral. All morality justifies the use of force. For example if your a woman and you have the moral right not to be raped, then of course you are perfectly legit in using force in order not to be raped. If you have the moral right not to be assaulted, then you have the moral right to use force to prevent yourself from being assaulted. If you have the moral right not to be murdered, to not be stolen from, you have the moral right to use force to prevent that. So whatever we define as the _moral_ is what we give permission to use violence in the pursuit of or the defense of that principle. Morality _is_ violence. It's not to say that the two are completely synonymous because you can have just self defense; which is the use of violence to defend your moral rights and that's perfectly fine. However! When people talk about morality, they're talking about _justified violence._ *Justified violence.* So what is the morality that reduces the amount of violence in the world? Clearly it has to be reactionary morality. And it has to be _case limited_ morality. The Non-Aggression Principle is _reactive._ It's not proactive. Thou shall not initiate force against others. But if force is initiated against you then you have the right to initiate force to defend your persons and/or property and that includes ex parte and third party too. It's a universal principle.

    • @Ben Jones yes it's easy to lie about feelings, that is why evidence more important

    • @BenJamin Croft hmm almost seemed like you were going by some sort of logic... until that last psychotic sentence

  • You break into someone else's house, you have forfeited your right to live.

  • As a firearms instructor, I teach that human life is precious and you only get one. Should never want to take it from someone and you make it your last resort. Do what you can to never use the gun But if You can't get away, trapped and cornered with life in danger type situation then you have to do what you have to do to survive. Personal property is not a reason to take a life. I get a lot of students who get angry when I mentioned that also. Pretty sad that so many would straight kill someone because they are stealing a TV.

    • @K TIPP USMC It's not just about voting. Simply putting a ballot in a box is not enough. You gotta get out there, get your voice heard, spread your message, articulate your position, convince the people not the politicians. You'd be surprised how many people are out there who will agree and support you. If it's a good idea people _will_ follow you.

    • @BenJamin Croft The rich and politicians make all the laws. All I can do is vote and hope it works. They will not listen to people who actually need the laws passed.

    • @K TIPP USMC Since you agree then help pass laws, like the one in Texas, that support the Non-aggression Principle.

    • @BenJamin Croft I agree but I am a legally certified firearms and armed guard instructor. I can not teach personal opinions. Only what the law states. You can not use deadly force unless it is your life or the life of someone else in danger. Shooting someone over material value will get you locked up. Unless you get lucky like the guy did in the video shooting home intruders at his neighbors house. Depending on where you are, that could get you some serious prison time.

    • @K TIPP USMC You own the effects of your actions because you are the source of what you created. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor. You put your time, money and effort (your life) into achieving what you got or what you've given. Let's say you bought a model and it took you 3 days to build it, then all of sudden somone just takes it. That person just stole 3 days of your life and you're never going to get it back. "It can be replaced", is what most people would say, but that time and effort, part of your life, can never be replaced. Waiting until after the fact is an open invitation, because thieves know and understand that there is nothing you can do about it in the moment. Hence, why have property and property rights at all if this is the way we perceive it?

  • It's kind of interesting that victims of s*xual assault and harassment have to endure so much to be believed, and still often aren't, but random people can claim they were frightened and attacked, and get away with murder. Victims of s*xual assault usually don't see legal recourse, and are not given the justice that they deserve, but the people in the video got off scot-free, despite shooting other people, and sometimes killing them.

  • This is exactly why I refuse to go to the US. Breathing wrong can get you shot if it bothers someone else.

  • John Oliver 2024

  • So basically we should: Educate the public on what Stand Your Ground laws are, specifically gun owners. Also less basically: stop being racist.

  • So how could she be aiming up through the headlights, implying she was directly in front of the car, and not get hit? Also how could she hear what they said? Were they sticking their head out of the car as they were about to mow her down?

    • Siwatu-Salama Ra incident was really a result of an altercation two children had. The two children are Ra’s teenage niece, and one of her schoolmates. They were friends, but the girls got into a fight at school, in which Ra’s family say the other girl attacked Ra’s niece. The two girls made up, but tensions lingered between the families. Which is why Ra was unhappy when the other girl's mother, Channell Harvey, dropped her daughter off to spend the night at Anderson’s house last July 16. Ra told the girl to leave. The girl called her mother, crying, to come back and pick her up. “And she was irate when she pulled up. She pulled up upset and demanding answers,” Ra's lawyer Victoria Burton-Harris said. From there, *their stories diverge.* Did Harvey actually try to hit Ra with her car resulting in Ra brandishing her gun because she was in fear of her life? What we do know, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that Siwatu-Salama Ra pulled out a gun (regardless if what was loaded or not) and aimed it at Harvey and her daughter. Harvey even provided three cell phone pictures she’d snapped of Ra holding her gun. And that this whole thing started between Ra’s niece and Harvey's daughter. This is all the jury had to work with. Everything else was a she said she said scenario. Ra didn’t have to take her case to a jury. Her first lawyer encouraged her to take a plea deal. "But Ra didn't want that." says her attorney Burton-Harris. www.michiganradio.org/post/pregnant-activist-prison-defending-herself-and-her-family UPDATE: On January 31, 2020 Ra's ordeal was over after she cut a deal with prosecutors: She pleaded no contest to brandishing a firearm, a 90-day misdemeanor. In exchange, prosecutors dropped the felony firearm and assault charges, an agreement that will allow Ra to go home to her husband and children a free woman as she has already served nine months in prison. Remember that John Oliver is a comedian hosting a comedy show, *generalizing* information read from a teleprompter, in order for it to fit into his comedic act. I like this show too, but it seriously needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

    • Because the story is OBVIOUSLY fake. This woman, who's been a gun lobbyist for years, just *happens* to have an altercation that would have gotten her arrested because of America's "shitty gun laws". She literally has no proof that this story ever happened. I've seen fake tumblr posts that are more believable than her "supposed incident". >_>

  • 11:51 is not true. Burglars are parasites on society. They all deserve to be shot.

    • I won't shoot a five year old for stealing a pack of gum.

  • I'm confused he seems to be in favor of the "duty to retreat" where you can use deadly force if you have no other option, but against concealed handguns. Most people can't defend themselves without that tool.

  • I would personally thank her for helping me to carry a concealed handgun for self defense.

    • @Ben Jones It's known as the element of surprise.

    • That is a very uninformed comment. Concealed carry hasn't been known to increase violence and in many cases has prevented mass shootings. I prefer to carry concealed because I don't want to cause people to follow me, ask questions, kick me out of a store, or otherwise harass me. Concealed let's me walk around just like every other person, only armed.

    • If the gun is visible people probably wont attack you. so why does it have to be concealed

  • that story is truly horrific.

  • "Just in case you need something small". Something tells me that the douchebag leading off the footage won't ever be deficient in that situation.

    • So if I'm understanding you correctly, owning guns = having a small penis. I guess in the case of armed women, guns compensate for.... no.... penis??? rme & smh...

  • “Get out of jail free complexion” skjjdddndehg I mean he’s right

  • Ok, so the crimson between my head and shoulders is showing: I had to Google "Show Me's", because it sounded like a bad movie knockoff of something we got down in the Georgia. Y'all, anyone else who knows what I'm talking about, don't let them in on it. Make 'em earn that knowledge. Edit: I know it ain't good to go pushing stereotypes, but the guy with the Pride of the South hat, it ain't that much a surprise he's from Lafayette. Now, I say y'all shouldn't go pushing stereotypes, because the ruralness of somewhere like Walker County don't tie one-to-one with political views of individual residents. I say as someone with family in Fitzgerald.

  • Petty, powerless people, looking for any psychpathic legal excuse they can, to shoot someone dead. Worthless humans.

    • It's known as the Non-Aggression Principle. If force is initiated against you and/or your property, you have a moral right to use equal if not greater force to defend your person/property. And you can do this ex parte or third party as well, because the Non-Aggression Principle is universal.

  • @Jomegadude yes it did hence the outtrage that ensued along with the creation of black lives matter and all the other support that stemmed from Treyvon Martin being murdered by a racist pos like Zimmerman. He should be UNDER the jail.

  • The goal of stand your ground laws is not the safety of citizens, it is to make guns a more needed thing to live in the US, hence to sell more guns

    • When seconds count and help is minutes away, what do you do?