44
   

Florida's Stand your Ground law

 
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 01:14 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Yes. It might not be wise to go quite that far, but near there.


Anywhere near there and you would have long ago been pushing up daisies, Om.
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 01:33 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
[JPB's sister] did explain that the Stand Your Ground law was primarily written to allow commercial business owners (stores, gas stations, etc) to arm themselves and defend themselves against armed robberies - something I wasn't aware of.

That's not stand-your-ground, that's the so-called Castle Doctrine, which is much narrower. The Castle Doctrine is a legal theory, accepted in most states, stating that you can use deadly force for self-defense on your own property. That property can be your home, your car, your place of business, or whatever. Consequently, business owners in their own gas stations or stores are already covered. They get no extra rights from stand-your-ground laws.

Stand-your-ground laws, by contrast, go beyond the Castle-Doctrine by extending your rights under it into public spaces. So your sister must have been talking about business owners who sell their merchandise in public squares, or she doesn't really know what she's talking about. Based on my own exchange with her, both explanations seem plausible enough.
roger
 
  4  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 01:35 pm
@Thomas,
I think I understand that Stand your Ground means that one can defend oneself without the requirement of fleeing till you can flee no more.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 01:46 pm
@roger,
That seems reasonable, Rog.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 02:09 pm
@JTT,

Quote:
Yes. It might not be wise to go quite that far, but near there.
JTT wrote:
Anywhere near there and you would have long
ago been pushing up daisies, Om.
an update from the dreams of JT&T
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 02:27 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Dave, If you'd been about a hundred years ago, you'd have been talking about anarchists in the same terms you talk about Moslems today. By that reckoning, if you can live another hundred years, ( probably by using your vast wealth to invest in vampiric technology) you should change your name to ImamSigDavid.

Quote:
The 1919 United States anarchist bombings were a series of bombings and attempted bombings carried out by anarchist followers of Luigi Galleani from April through June 1919. These bombings fed the Red Scare of 1919-20.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_United_States_anarchist_bombings
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 02:46 pm
@panzade,
DAVID wrote:
Before I owned a gun for the first time,
I felt unsafe; like I coud not control a predatory situation.

That feeling ended, when I got one.
panzade wrote:
We know that Dave. It's the sum total of your posts.
But why do you think everyone should share your paranoia?
Factually, its not paranoia (tho as it actually turned out,
I did not need to defend myself for several more decades
and 1,OOOs of miles away). R u aware that your post implies
that members of this forum r immune from predatory, violent crime??
Did u really intend to say that???????

My cautions are not based on emotion. Being sufficiently well armed
is the same in principle as carrying a spare tire in your trunk;
that 's not paranoia. Do u agree that possession of spare tires is not paranoid??

Advising everyone to carry guns is the same in principle
as counselling everyone to carry health insurance,
because u might NEED it in an emergency.

Citizens shud carry their own personal guns,
because like washing your hands before u eat, it MIGHT be good for your health.
I respectfully suggest that u re-examine your anti-security reasoning.

In further response to your question: there is also something else.
I want our employees, all governments in America, to fear the citizenry
so that thay will leave us the hell alone. I want all governments
to know that we citizens are all armed to the teeth, all 3OO,OOO,OOO+ of us.
A populace that is defensively well armed is good for Individualism; bad for collectivism.
Unlike the nazis or the commies, I don 't want any government in America
to believe that it presides over a docile humbly submisive populace.
That way we 'll remain the "land of the free and the home of the brave".





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 02:53 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
That way we 'll remain the "land of the free and the home of the brave".


So brave in fact, that a huge number run from the facts or seek the safety of ignore.

Not to mention all the armed to teeth "soldiers" who battle innocents, or the brave pilots who carpet bomb women and children, or those that napalm villagers.

Or brave guys like OmSig who spread malicious rumors to suck up to whatever power may be.

Land of the brave indeed.


0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 03:15 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Trayvon, going about his lawful business, should be free from interference.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I challenge u on that.
I invite u to prove that. I don 't think u can.
I expect u to brush me off because that is all u can do.
DrewDad wrote:
He certainly has the right not to be assaulted.
Agreed, but we don 't know whether he violently attacked Mr. Z FIRST, or not.
Mr. Z alleges that he DID, and the police found that plausible.
Note that he is said to have suffered a broken nose
and bloody injuries to the back of his head. Decedent might have
attacked him from behind.



Quote:
In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Because assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary.
DrewDad wrote:
Tell me that you think Zimmerman didn't knowingly try to scare the crap out of the "******* coon"
who dared to walk in his neighborhood.
We don 't know what the interpersonal dynamics were nor their sequence.
All of this public furor is 1OO% assumption & guesswork.

IF neither of them had become violent,
then all of the described conduct of Mr. Z woud be of no consequence
and no public notice. Will u agree with that ???

After Mr. Z addressed decedent, the rong party was the first one
that became violent. There was nothing rong with driving around
his own naborhood. There was nothing rong in addressing anyone; free speech,
whether police like it or not.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 03:29 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
You will be attacked but pay no attention to the gun nuts. You are ******* with their right to kill what ever they want when ever they want. Its the rule of the west, but in this day and age the cowboys usually want their antagionasts unarmed so they cant shoot back.
That 's an interesting concept, 222.
I had not thawt of that.
Up until now, I 'd advocated that like everyone shud get himself health insurance,
so shud he also get good defensive guns, but maybe I have been rong.

Adopting your suggestion,
maybe I shud advocate that liberals shud remain helplessly unarmed.

"The commonwealth is theirs who hold the arms." (Aristotle)





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 04:38 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Dave, If you'd been about a hundred years ago,
you'd have been talking about anarchists in the same terms you talk about Moslems today.
U raise a very interesting point, Izzy, from an emotional perspective.
I see how government can be helpful (coining money, co-ordinating wars),
so I don 't embrace anarchy, tho it kinda sparkles in the sun; alluring.
My attitude toward anarchy is like the tacit warm, comfy, cozy feeling of the Democrats toward communist slavery.


izzythepush wrote:
By that reckoning, if you can live another hundred years,
( probably by using your vast wealth to invest in vampiric technology)
you should change your name to ImamSigDavid.
O, my goodness! No, I disfavor theocratic despotism.
Since the age of O, I 've been a libertarian Individualist. Liberty has my loyalty.


Quote:
The 1919 United States anarchist bombings were a series of bombings and attempted bombings carried out by anarchist followers of Luigi Galleani from April through June 1919. These bombings fed the Red Scare of 1919-20.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_United_States_anarchist_bombings
[/quote]
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 04:45 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

According to the cops he, Zimmerman, was the only witness left alive so they had to take his word as to what happened.

Lots of folks have been convicted of murder, even when there were no witnesses.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 04:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Agreed, but we don 't know whether he violently attacked Mr. Z FIRST, or not.
Mr. Z alleges that he DID, and the police found that plausible.
Note that he is said to have suffered a broken nose
and bloody injuries to the back of his head. Decedent might have
attacked him from behind.



David

So.. David, are you arguing that you can't use force if someone is stalking you?

I guess, it's OK and legal for a criminal to kill you if you try to defend yourself according to your logic.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 05:00 pm
@roger,
Dident say I believed him, the cops did.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 05:32 pm
@RABEL222,
It's also possible they decided to leave it in the hands of the district attorney.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 06:26 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

I wondered if his whereabouts are being monitored too, FD (good to see you, btw). Joe Nation posted something about this case on his FB wall yesterday (specifically about Obama weighing in). My FL-residing sister saw my comments and jumped into the conversation. I disagreed with most of what she was saying (nothing new there), but she did explain that the Stand Your Ground law was primarily written to allow commercial business owners (stores, gas stations, etc) to arm themselves and defend themselves against armed robberies - something I wasn't aware of. She did agree with me, however, that there's no understanding the rationale about not arresting Zimmerman.


My FL-residing, concealed weapon carrying brother seems to also be under the impression that the law is only for good, law abiding citizens. He's a good person who carries a gun and has the proper respect for it so he doesn't understand how SYG provides cover to Zimmerman. I understand where he's coming from in his assumption that good people will overcome bad people with firearms. However, it just doesn't play out like that in practice. The last man standing isn't automatically the good guy. I don't really know how to make him see it since his identity is so wrapped up in it, but I just don't see what problem these laws were designed to solve. I mean, was there a rash of people being arrested for defending themselves outside of their home? I don't think so, and I don't live in constant fear of the "bad guys" -- probably directly related to my having moved out of Florida. Whatever the law was intended to do, it pretty clearly does something else now.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 06:26 pm
@JPB,
Oh, and where are my manners, great to see you too!
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 06:30 pm
@FreeDuck,
And where are mine? Wink
It is wonderful to see you here again, FreeDuck!
I hope this won't just be a fleeting visit!
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 09:16 pm
@msolga,
Hey msolga, great to see you too. Sorry, I just drop in and out of here like a rude guest. I'm sure with the elections coming up I'll be pissed off enough to stick around here and vent. Smile
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 09:21 pm
@FreeDuck,
Oh good!
Excellent! Very Happy

And thanks.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 08:49:47