Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The issue of self defense does not even come up in the aa community unless the shooter is non aa
Then u get riots
Just taking a guess but Martin is not the first aa to get shot of late by a Latino
Which is the driving force behind the riots
Archie bunker don't shoot em no more he just moves to high rent district
But the Latinos do shootem and do stay on the hood
Good luck getting ANY politician to stand behind that law in this case....they are scoundrels. The law is a very necessary law. If you think that this country can NEVER get to the point where people will need to defend themselves then you have been turned into a child because you will fall back on "Nanny" to protect you.
You think that EVERY humans right and ability to protect their own well being should be severely compromised, or further oppressed, because of this incident? This incident happened in a vacuum.
I'm saying they went too far with what could be a reasonable law, and they would be wise to publicly endorse the prosecution of Zimmerman. Many of the 26 states are not radical, and failure to distance themselves will likely add to the modifications.
“In reality the NRA’s leaders weren’t interested in public safety. They were interested in promoting a culture where people take the law into their own hands and face no consequences for it. Let’s call that by its real name, vigilantism,” he said. ”The NRA should be ashamed of themselves. This has nothing to do with gun owners rights. It has nothing to do with the second amendment.”
Zimmerman was released when there was no lethal threat to him
I didn't realize that the trial was over already. That sure was fast! Can you do me a favor and point me to the site where I can find records of the proceedings? Thanks.
to formalize a law setting parameters under which you can lawfully kill some one is barbaric, uncivilized, and backwards.
And yet they're necessary. Welcome to the real world.
BTW, laws "setting parameters under which you can lawfully kill some one" already existed. The only thing that "stand your ground" laws do is (as has been mentioned many times in this thread - are you actually paying attention?) remove legal and/or civil liability from the victims of the initial attack for defending themselves with the appropriate amount of force, given the situation, and remove the remarkably stupid requirement that still exists in some states to attempt to flee before using force to defend yourself.
It's been several years since I lived in California, but IIRC, one must actually retreat to the furthest corner of their home before defending their home and life against an intruder.
Can you imagine? You're watching TV in your living room and two gang bangers burst in to perpetrate a home invasion robbery and/or murder. You have your .45 sitting next to you, but in order to escape prosecution for defending yourself against these thugs and possibly spending the rest of your life in prison, you must retreat to your bedroom or basement before you're legally able to defend yourself. F'ing insane!
"Stand your ground" laws are a GOOD thing. They don't allow anyone carte blanche to go around committing murder, despite what the liberal media and certain activist clergymen have been saying. I invite you to READ THE LAWS in the various states with an OPEN and OBJECTIVE mind and then ask yourself if what you believe right now is actually the case. It's not - I guarantee that - but you need to figure that out for yourself. No anonymous Internet junkie is going to be able to prove something to you that you've already decided on so firmly, using emotion and media bias in place of logic and reason.
I'm saying they went too far with what could be a reasonable law, and they would be wise to publicly endorse the prosecution of Zimmerman. Many of the 26 states are not radical, and failure to distance themselves will likely add to the modifications.
Please address the FL statute specifically and show us the precise wording you claim takes the law "too far" and thus not reasonable.
Please address the FL statute specifically and show us the precise wording you claim takes the law "too far" and thus not reasonable.
It's an open license to execute another human being. As long as there are no witnesses, and you don't shoot the suspect in the back, you cry "self-defense" and walk.
It's an open license to execute another human being. As long as there are no witnesses, and you don't shoot the suspect in the back, you cry "self-defense" and walk.
That's just not true. There have been volumes written about the principles of one's right of self-defense. Most laws are written to insure an individual that he has the same right to life as that of his aggressor, hence the castle doctrine or stand your ground. You make it sound as if an individual uses the law to "go out and murder someone".
Most states have grand juries which review the situations surrounding cases where deadly force was used,....when the authorities feel it necessary. At that point the evidence is presented and the grand jury decides whether there is enough reason to pursue prosecution.
That's just not true. There have been volumes written about the principles of one's right of self-defense. Most laws are written to insure an individual that he has the same right to life as that of his aggressor, hence the castle doctrine or stand your ground. You make it sound as if an individual uses the law to "go out and murder someone".
Most states have grand juries which review the situations surrounding cases where deadly force was used,....when the authorities feel it necessary. At that point the evidence is presented and the grand jury decides whether there is enough reason to pursue prosecution.
No one just "walks".....
I'm all for the Castle Doctrine/Law. I'm not 'anti-gun'. If someone came at my wife or kids, I wouldn't think twice about shooting. Stand Your Ground is just a little to open ended IMO.
I'm all for the Castle Doctrine/Law. I'm not 'anti-gun'. If someone came at my wife or kids, I wouldn't think twice about shooting. Stand Your Ground is just a little to open ended IMO.
SYG is an expansion of the Castle Doctrine (at least comparing the Texas and Florida laws), but the former allows one to defend himself with equal forces against an aggressor anywhere in the state of Florida. It just seems logical that a person should have the right to protect himself against personal injury or death,....anywhere.
I may be old fashioned, but I still believe that people will not actively seek to use the SYG law to commit murder.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
