Poll: How Do You Feel About "Stand Your Ground" Laws? (Mart: gated, safety)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by redfish1

People will turn this into a right verses left thing; however, I believe it is you're right to stand your ground and use deadly force on an aggressor that is threatening your life. Any physical attack is a threat to ones life. Those that choose to engage in physical confrontations like an animal should be put down like an animal, as they have no place in a civilized society.

Sincerely a far left liberal.

I also find it odd that this is so often considered a right versus left thing. I don't see it that way at all. I agree completely with your comments and consider myself a moderate liberal. I see this as an individual rights issue, what could be more important then the right to protect yourself and your family? The states that require one to "retreat until your back is against the wall before defending yourself" makes every citizen a victim and gives the upperhand to the criminal who is perpetrating the assault. I am adamantly opposed to giving them such power over individuals who are prepared to defend themselves.

"The Sheepdog Concept" by Nutnfancy - YouTube

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by L210

My problem with one law is that it allows people to shoot someone when an illegal transaction goes wrong. The guy who got off for killing a prostitute because she wouldn't have sex with him already had a serious rap sheet. A man with violent tendencies was let back out on the streets.

I'm still not sure the jury got that one right. The shooter should not have been able to use "stand your ground" or "self defensive" if he was engaged in committing a crime when it happened. Which I believe he was in this instance.

I will have to look again at what the TX law says, but I find it hard to understand this verdict other then to assume the prosecuting attorneys did a lousy job.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by jerbear30

No, I'm not. I just think we should try to come as close to whatever we view as perfect (Christ or other) as possible. I was responding to a poster who avowed his own Christianity and then basically went in the exact opposite direction. I agree that perfection is impossible, but that is no reason to not get as close as you can. I would shoot someone who was threatening the life of my family, and maybe even someone who was threatening my own life but I would most surely not feel good or "justified" about it. It would still be absolutely terrible--not a "yee haw" boy moment or even a "protecting what's mine by golly" moment. (BTW, that is why I like the FX show Justified so much: because it questions the very idea of being justified for murder)

I seriously do not believe that most people how have ever had to shoot another human being while defending themselves or their family has ever had a "yee Haw" or "by golly" moment as you described them. It is demeaning and disrespectful to the people you are debating with to assume they feel anything at all like that. Is this what Jesus would have written?

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by peterlemonjello

And then there are scenarios when a person is not endangered but feels they are because the person is of another color or just looks wrong to them. Then they can pull out their gun and open fire for no reason other than paranoia.

However, if that person of another color knocks you to the ground and is sitting on your chest beating your head against the sidewalk. Then that is not paranoia, that is entirely justification for shooting them to defend yourself.

Originally Posted by peterlemonjello

Paid much attention to the news lately?

That isnt an exact match, but he followed the kid even when the 911 operater told him not to. Had he stood back or simply waited for an officer to respond, it never would have happened. That's where the subjectivity to stand your ground comes into play. I can understand if you are being robbed or if someone comes onto your property and tries to do you harm, but there is too much of a grey area for me to support stand your ground.

911 operator did not tell him not to, they said "we do not need you to do that". Big difference. And he WAS returning to his vehicle when the "kid" confronted him. If someone is sitting on your chest beating your head into the sidewalk, surely you have every right to defend yourself. You have no option to retreat, it is not even a matter of "sand your ground", it is simply die or fight, that is all that is left.

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

911 operator did not tell him not to, they said "we do not need you to do that". Big difference. And he WAS returning to his vehicle when the "kid" confronted him. If someone is sitting on your chest beating your head into the sidewalk, surely you have every right to defend yourself. You have no option to retreat, it is not even a matter of "sand your ground", it is simply die or fight, that is all that is left.

You were there???

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by blkgiraffe

You were there???

The evidence is all there readily available in the public record.

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

The evidence is all there readily available in the public record.

Video footage??

[TexasReb]

=blkgiraffe;31307818]You were there???

None of us were. But those on the jury who actually heard/saw all the available evidence presented were the closest to "being there." And, as CapR said, the entirety of the transcripts are there for the reading via the public record.

And the conclusion of the jury was that Zimmerman violated no laws and had ever right to be where he was. On the other hand, Travon Martin committed aggravated assault and, given the fact the former was getting his head pounded into the ground, and reasonably felt death or serious bodily injury would be the ultimate result, Zimmerman fired to prevent it. Was he supposed to wait until he was beaten into unconsciousness -- and then perhaps, death? -- before protecting himself?

On a related tangent, I personally find it appalling that so many make this tragic incident into a racial thing. There is nothing racial about it. If the situation had been reversed? That is, in terms of if Zimmerman had been black and Martin, Hispanic? Still, the same jury hearing the same facts would have reached the same verdict. I know I would have...

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

For one thing? This particular "thread" you are on -- if you had read it -- was a mistake on my part in the sense, I neglected to post the poll with it. I said so, so started another one.

I hope this one gets closed so that the other one (where almost everyone is posting) is the primary one.

For another? LMAO. Your example is about the most ludicrous thing I have ever read. Not only does it make no sense whatsoever, it makes no sense whatsoever!

Here is a suggestion: Go to this one -- which is easily available, anyway -- to join the discussion and make your "points" (whatever they are).

And please re-post it in the exact same wording you did on this one. Oh man, this ought to be a good one! Where are you from, by the way? I can't help but ask..

http://www.city-data.com/forum/texas...l#post31244214

You just linked to this same thread.

I didn't make up that example. It's the Trayvon Martin case.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

You just linked to this same thread.

You are right; I did. Sorry. Try this one...

http://www.city-data.com/forum/texas...eel-about.html

Meanwhile...?

I didn't make up that example. It's the Trayvon Martin case.

I know what it was and, once again, the comparison you attempt to make, is nothing short of ridiculous in terms of what actually happened. So bring it over there and it can be debated/discussed....

Believe me, I would welcome it.

With that said though, I once again emphasize that this whole thread was not intended to be about the merits/demerits of the Travon Martin case. The ONLY reason it was brought up is that it was the occurance which started the whole protests/protection related to "Stand Your Ground" qualifications concerning the justified use of deadly force...

Still, I can't resist repeating what has been said quite a few times. That is, even to start? Wellll, if you are insistent on following this line of "reasoning" (if it can be even remotely called that!)? -- then I repeat that nothing you say has any resemblance to what actually happened, according to the totality of evidence.

So anyway, bring it over to the other thread. In the meantime? Let me start by asking the simple question of exactly who chased who? . As it came out by actual facts and testimony in court? It seems that Martin chased Zimmerman.