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.
SYG will not be reversed as long as there is an NRA and the financial support of ALEC. The NRA is running out of ideas and causes, they need to create some new threat to justify their existence.
SYG has worked in some cases but it is bad legislation, at least they are reviewing the legislation the NRA helped write. Strange how quiet the NRA has been, since they were instrumental in writing the legislation.
SYG will not be reversed as long as there is an NRA and the financial support of ALEC. The NRA is running out of ideas and causes, they need to create some new threat to justify their existence.
SYG has worked in some cases but it is bad legislation, at least they are reviewing the legislation the NRA helped write. Strange how quiet the NRA has been, since they were instrumental in writing the legislation.
Just becaue you are not listening doesn't mean the NRA has been quiet.
The primary difference between a state with this law and one without is a victim has "the duty to retreat" in the states without them. The "duty to retreat" laws potentially criminalize the actions of a victim when they are facing what might be a life threatening situation. One of the reasons for these laws is to prevent an overzealous prosecutor from second guessing the actions of a victim. When a victim that has the means to protect themselves is faced with a life threatening situation the last thing they should be considering is if they can run away.
If you kill someone in either state it still has to be justified. The media has blown the Zimmerman case up into something it is not, SYG is irrelevant to this case. He will be judged on whether the shooting was justified.
There are absolutely no similarities between the drunk cop beating up a lady bartender because she wouldn't serve him more alcohol and the Martin/Zimmerman case.
Were you there to see what actually happened between Martin and Zimmerman to be able to say that?
If I walked into a bar and saw a guy doing that, would I not be justified in using my legally concealed firearm to handle the situation?
If that off duty cop was walking down a Sanford gated community sidewalk "looking suspicious", would I be right in confronting him and possibly using my firearm against him, if I felt my life was threatened? Even if that drunkard said he was a cop, and maybe even had the badge to prove it, should I just let a guy in that condition beat me up? Do I not have a right to stand my ground then?
And this is where this case is S-----------
Hispanic on black? Black on hispanic? White on black? Black on White? White on hispanic? Hispanic on hispanic? Black on black? White on white? It doesn't matter. The circumstances surrounding the Martin/Zimmerman case, no matter their races, needed the courts to get involved to hash this out, and ultimately decide if the law needed to be overturned, amended, or upheld.
Ahhh... but if we throw a government employee into the mix, more specifically a police officer, Zimmerman, regardless of his race, would have been sitting in a jail cell indefinitely, and certainly not let go after only 5 hours of questioning.
The truth of the matter is, no matter how much it seems like a strict "racial issue" now, if Martin would have been an off duty government official (no matter his color) who was dealt the same fate, this wouldn't be a racial or political issue... this would be a "right" versus "wrong" issue that gets people from both sides of the aisle to join in on a side.
If people want to paint this case as a racial issue, that's their prerogative.
This is a case about the law not working out how it was intended, double standards and governmental failure. Since when do civilians get to kill someone else, in justifiable self defense or not, and get away with only five hours talking to cops? Guaranteed if a cop was killed in "justifiable self defense", that person would be in custody and under questioning for 5 weeks at the minimum.
Who are you to say that the law isn't working? IF zimmerman's accounting of the incident turns out to be correct, then the law IS working.
Quote:
Since when do civilians get to kill someone else, in justifiable self defense or not, and get away with only five hours talking to cops?
This is exactly why STAND YOUR GROUND was passed....to give Joe Citizen a chance to defend themselves against attack without having to worry about the law coming down on them.
From what you are saying, a man should just lay there and take a beating and PRAY that the assailant doesn't mean to kill him OR that the assailant doesn't have a weapon.
If anything, as the crime rate grows....as money gets tighter and break ins...home invasions...muggings...etc are on the rise, and police forces are shrinking because of budget constraints...you will see more states adopt this STAND YOUR GROUND law. I applaud it. It's about time the law abiding citizen has an option.
Since when do civilians get to kill someone else, in justifiable self defense or not, and get away with only five hours talking to cops?
I didn't see that, he's under no obligation to talk to them and under such circumstances you should never talk to the police until you have a lawyer who is most likely going to advise you to not say a word. If you never viewed this you should, it's long but it's very informative.
(1)Who are you to say that the law isn't working? IF zimmerman's accounting of the incident turns out to be correct, then the law IS working. This is exactly why STAND YOUR GROUND was passed....to give Joe Citizen a chance to defend themselves against attack without having to worry about the law coming down on them.
(2)From what you are saying, a man should just lay there and take a beating and PRAY that the assailant doesn't mean to kill him OR that the assailant doesn't have a weapon.
(3)If anything, as the crime rate grows....as money gets tighter and break ins...home invasions...muggings...etc are on the rise, and police forces are shrinking because of budget constraints...you will see more states adopt this STAND YOUR GROUND law. I applaud it. It's about time the law abiding citizen has an option.
1. If Zimmerman's story is completely, 100% true, then sure, the law worked. But it certainly didn't work the way it was intended to (in my opinion), as the case currently stands. The fact is that Zimmerman put everything in motion. If he didn't follow Trayvon, Trayvon would more than likely still be alive and Zimmerman would not be in the situation he currently is.
If Trayvon was still alive, and the confrontation between himself and Zimmerman still took place, I would almost bet my bottom dollar that Martin and Zimmerman would both claim they were standing their ground.
2. I never said that. If Trayvon attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman initially followed him, there was nothing stopping Zimmerman from pistol whipping Trayvon if he was being attacked. Zimmerman could have shot Trayvon in any number of places that wouldn't have resulted in an almost instantaneous death. I'm not saying people shouldn't defend themselves.
3. I certainly hope you're never on the receiving end of someone standing their ground because they thought what you were doing was a threat.
And getting back to my initial post, this law won't be changed until the government is wronged by it.
When I was in college there was a drunk kid coming home from the bars. He was trying to get into a house that he thought was his friend's... but it wasn't. It was a little old lady's house, not his friend's. A police officer shows up. The police officer claimed that the kid charged him, and the officer responded by putting a few bullet holes in his chest and one in his head. He had a baton and a gun, buy no pepper spray or taser because he hadn't been "trained" to use those yet. I believe that at least one of the bullets entered through the kids back, the other bullets entered through the front.
Now, lets pretend this took place in a stand your ground state. And lets pretend that instead of a drunk college kid beating on the wrong door, it was an off-duty drunk cop. And lets say someone walking by noticed this attempted "break in" and had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Lets say this person tries to stop the break in by yelling at the drunken guy to stop what he's doing. Maybe this really ticks off the drunk and he comes after the guy walking down the street. The person fears for their life when the enraged drunk rans at him, so he chooses to stand his ground and put a round or two into the cops chest.
Once a situation like I described happens, only then will the law be changed. And then you can also bet that person who feared for his life from a drunk off-duty cop will be the first person to go to jail for self defense after the law is repealed.
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.
A true American heroine.
