Florida's Stand your Ground law

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

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.

It doesnt. And the longer I think about it, the more convinced I get that your brother is making a good point. Zimmerman did not stand his ground. The police shouldn't have accepted his assertion that he did. I think the problem more likely is racist bias in the police department rather than the law itself.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Does Florida also have a SYG provision for gunless citizens? Does it tell all little gray haired grannies to engage in rock 'em sock e'em battles with hoodlums twice their size?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

... or possibly that's something that the police department there is simply in the habit of doing, without too much outside scrutiny, Thomas?
But on this particular occasion, it turned out to be a news item which received word-wide attention.
Which is an excellent development!

Obama urges 'soul-searching' over teen shooting:
http://www.theage.com.au/world/obama-urges-soulsearching-over-teen-shooting-20120324-1vqzr.html

Trayvon Martin and the shot heard around the world:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/22/trayvon-martin-shot-heard-around-world

0 Replies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/comic-riffs/StandingArt/TRAYrogers.jpg?uuid=Z1L4CHVlEeGPpp_LTgASNA

0 Replies

@parados,

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

parados wrote:

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

Yes; that, without more, does not justify violence. It is neither immoral, nor illegal.

parados wrote:

I guess, it's OK and legal for a criminal to kill you
if you try to defend yourself according to your logic.

What??
If u defend yourself from WHAT??
Your post is unclear.

David

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Yes; that, without more, does not justify violence. It is neither immoral, nor illegal.

You might take note that the proposed new version of VAWA elevates stalking to a crime nearly on par with rape, and if passed the Feds will be putting the strong arm on the states to enact law changes to reflect this. Even you seem sadly unaware of how much of our freedom has been lost, and of how much more is likely to be soon gone, in the name of "SAFETY!".

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
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.

It doesnt. And the longer I think about it, the more convinced I get that your brother is making a good point. Zimmerman did not stand his ground. The police shouldn't have accepted his assertion that he did. I think the problem more likely is racist bias in the police department rather than the law itself.

I agree with him as well that it shouldn't cover Zimmerman. However in practice it certainly prevented his arrest. It's hard for me to believe that would have been the case before this law was enacted. My take is that it's overly broad and the immunity provision favors criminals. In addition, I wouldn't be surprised if an in depth study of the application of the law found that whether or not you stood trial had a lot to do with the color of your skin and the color of the victim's, as well as the region of the state where it occurred.

To me, the idea of "meeting force with force" should absolutely preclude any situation where someone is shot who was not carrying a weapon. That's not "force with force", that's deadly force to non-deadly force. If the law does not protect Zimmerman, as I said to my brother, then they better make a very big example of this guy and make it clear to every podunk police department in the state that the law doesn't protect shooters in these situations.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Yes; that, without more, does not justify violence. It is neither immoral, nor illegal.

So.. what is a perceived threat then? Do you have to wait until they pull a gun? By that time, it is too late, is it not under your "gun is needed for protection" scenarios?

2 Replies

@parados,

Kudos, Parados for patiently attempting to reason with the unreasonable. It's probably a good character-building exercise, although I see little other potential for it.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

parados wrote:
I guess, it's OK and legal for a criminal to kill you
if you try to defend yourself according to your logic.
What??
If u defend yourself from WHAT??
Your post is unclear.

Criminal threatens you.

You pull a gun to defend yourself.

Criminal shoots you.

Criminal shielded by "stand your ground" law, because he perceived a threat to himself and responded with deadly force.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Criminal claims the person he shot and killed was the one about to commit a crime. Police have to believe him because other person is dead.

0 Replies

DrewDad says:

Quote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
parados wrote:
I guess, it's OK and legal for a criminal to kill you
if you try to defend yourself according to your logic.What??
If u defend yourself from WHAT??
Your post is unclear.

Criminal threatens you.

You pull a gun to defend yourself.

Criminal shoots you.

Criminal shielded by "stand your ground" law, because he perceived a threat to himself and responded with deadly force

Which is precisely David's argument as to why criminals and convicted felons should be able to buy unlimited guns--because they need to defend themselves too. Which, he maintains, is why everybody should have the right to acquire unlimited quantities of guns, because we need to defend ourselves against the unlimited quantities of guns that criminals have. There is of course a certain circularity that David, that self-proclaimed devotee of logic, seems unable to recognize in that argument.

1 Reply

Trayvon Martin had every legal right to be in that gated community. He had every legal right to be walking on a sidewalk at night in the rain and wearing a hoodie carrying a bag of candy and an ice tea. And I believe if he hadn’t been a young black man he would be alive today.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg841/scaled.php?server=841&filename=only17.jpg&res=medium

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

DAvids world consists of everyone armed and ready with open warfare among us. DAve is a Libertarian, and libertarians are never accused of being sane.

1 Reply

@MMarciano,

Quote:

Trayvon Martin had every legal right to be in that gated community

Says who? Who invited him in? I am not well read on this story but I do know that once we allow controlled access communities then we have agreed that the group has the right to control access. I have always apposed them on the grounds that they deprive Americans of the right of free movement.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Perhaps you should read up on the case. His fathers girlfriend lived there. That where he was going that night.

1 Reply

@MMarciano,

Hawkeye dosent read up on things. He might find the facts dont agree with his perception of life. He is a typical conservative.

2 Replies

@parados,

DAVID wrote:

Yes; that, without more, does not justify violence.
It is neither immoral, nor illegal.

parados wrote:

So.. what is a perceived threat then?
Do you have to wait until they pull a gun?

Either that or some other form of attack,
with a sharp object or blunt object,
fire, acid or any tangible danger.

parados wrote:

By that time, it is too late, is it not
under your "gun is needed for protection" scenarios?

Yes, it it NOT.
I have never followed anyone down the street (except as friends,
together in 1 group) nor, I am confident, has anyone ever
followed ME down the street, as a pedestrian,
but if someone follows me down the street next week,
I am certainly NOT going to turn around and shoot him.
He will be SAFE from me. I will not even be angry; just deem it odd.
It is not dishonorable, nor illegal, nor immoral to follow anyone.

U cannot morally, nor legally, nor honorably COUNTERattack anyone
before he has done SOMETHING to initiate the primary attack.

It is not the position of the 2nd Amendment,
It is not the position of the NRA,
It is not the position of the 2nd Amendment Foundation,
It is not the position of the Stand Your Ground Law, and
It is not ` MY position of the that u can
walk thru the world gratuitously attacking people who did not attack u first.

The only time that I defensively used a gun,
I had already been shot at, with a bullethole showing up in my driver's side window.

Its not offen that someone takes my right flank, and shoves me leftward into pacifism, Mr. Parados.
Your question did it.

David

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

That certainly applies to more than conservatives, Rabel.

And Hawkeye, a conservative, hmmmmm.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Hawkeye dosent read up on things. He might find the facts dont agree with his perception of life.

He is a typical conservative.

A political conservative
is someone who does not deviate from the Contitution,
but rigidly, honorably clings to it.

David

0 Replies

Florida's Stand your Ground law

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know