44
   

Florida's Stand your Ground law

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Apr, 2012 06:45 pm
@sozobe,
That would suck.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Apr, 2012 06:50 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Huh. Good point.

I'm definitely looking forward to the trial and seeing more evidence/ getting a better narrative of what happened. Preparing for this to be one of those forever unknowables though, which would suck.

Keeping in mind of course that the criminal standard is beyond all reasonable doubt.

BTW. Did you catch that Stanford refused to accept the police chief's resignation today? Something about how they are refusing to let a vocal minority run city officials out of town on a rail.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Apr, 2012 07:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawk, It's not necessary to tell us about criminal standards. That is standard instruction to the jury for each criminal trial.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Apr, 2012 07:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

hawk, It's not necessary to tell us about criminal standards. That is standard instruction to the jury for each criminal trial.


Sure, but given the law and the burden of proof required Zimmerman not getting arrested the day of the event increasingly looks like a reasonable judgment call. The allegation that a non black man was given a outrageous free pass from the racist local police for the killing a black kid has I think been put to bed.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Apr, 2012 07:35 pm
@hawkeye10,
When you talk about "burden of proof," that's every trial, not just criminal ones.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:21 am
Quote:
Would you favor a "stand your ground" law in your state?
Read Related Articles
No48%84300
Yes44%77641
Don't know8%14180



http://www.cnn.com/


I voted "no" of course. What this tells me is that the haters of these laws around A2K who seem to think that they can bring up these laws, point to the Martin/Zimmerman tragedy, say "SEE! SEE!" and get these laws revoked...these people are delusional. There are legions of A2K'ers who by all appearances have no idea of where Americans are on the issues, likely because they spend almost all of their time hanging out with their own kind, never mixing with folk who see the world differently then them. Less charitably maybe they simply dont care, maybe they aim to ram their will down our throats come hell or high water....

dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:43 am
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Huh. Good point.

I'm definitely looking forward to the trial and seeing more evidence/ getting a better narrative of what happened. Preparing for this to be one of those forever unknowables though, which would suck.


Man, we're a nosy species!

I have read evolutionary psychologists arguing that this is hard-wired, presumably because for most of our history we lived in small clusters of people and knowing what the hell was up in the group fostered survival and status.

Now electronic media allow us to be nosy for miles and miles and miles!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:45 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

When you talk about "burden of proof," that's every trial, not just criminal ones.


Is it? My understanding was that in civil matters there is less burden of proof upon the claimant...eg civil damages being awarded against OJ Simpson when he was not convicted in a criminal court.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:49 am
@dlowan,
No, the burden is the same. In criminal cases the guiding wods are "reasonable doubt." An accused defendant must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil cases, the burden is to prove culpability by means of "the preponderance of the evidence." In criminal cases such "preponderance" is not enough. But in both instances, the burden is on the accuser to prove the case, not on the defendant to prove innocence.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:57 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the burden is greater in criminal trials...
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 12:59 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the burden is greater in criminal trials...


Oh, yes.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 01:20 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Would you favor a "stand your ground" law in your state?
Read Related Articles
No48%84300
Yes44%77641
Don't know8%14180



http://www.cnn.com/


I voted "no" of course.
Y, by WHAT reasoning,
did u choose to vote "no"???
THANK U for the link, Hawkeye.

I voted YES, i.e., that I favor & desire
a strong Stand Your Ground Law in my State.

It blows my mind that any person woud wanna vote against such law,
unless he is a mugger, or his friends are muggers (mugging means: assault and robbery).

I kinda like u, Hawkeye, and I have never joined in the venom
with which u have been afflicted in this forum, but I gotta say:
for sure, u r unpredictable. (Still, I gotta respect that; u gotta be u. I love Individualism.)



hawkeye10 wrote:
What this tells me is that the haters of these laws around A2K who seem to think that they can bring up these laws,
point to the Martin/Zimmerman tragedy, say "SEE! SEE!" and get these laws revoked...these people are delusional.
I don 't believe that Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground Law
has ever been repealed in any State; if it had been, I 'm pretty sure that I 'd know about that.
I predict that it will withstand challenge from the left in Florida.

These are pro-victim and anti-predator laws, protecting
the safe exercise of self defense; without them,
crime victims woud have good reason to fear the criminal 's partner: government,
and for that reason, be less vigorous in defending themselves,
with a vu toward protecting the well-being of the guy who is trying to rob & kill them.
That is unAmerican and unnatural.

We 'll see what happens, qua preservation and proliferation of those laws.







hawkeye10 wrote:
There are legions of A2K'ers
who by all appearances have no idea of where Americans are on the issues,
Are our legions up to 1OO strong, of active posters ?



hawkeye10 wrote:
likely because they spend almost all of their time hanging out with their own kind, never mixing with folk who see the world differently then them. Less charitably maybe they simply dont care, maybe they aim to ram their will down our throats come hell or high water....
Well, even the foulest citizen has the right of free speech.





David
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 06:52 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
but I gotta say: for sure, u r unpredictable. (Still, I gotta respect that; u gotta be u. I love Individualism.)


giving up on being a conservative again? you really are a bit of a feather in the wind
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 06:57 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
There are legions of A2K'ers who by all appearances have no idea of where Americans are on the issues,


Legions you say? have more than 20 0r 30 people posted on this?

Definitely not legions. It'd be a crazy place if there were 3000 - 5000 active posters, let alone 3000 - 5000 people posting here about SYG.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 07:05 am
@ehBeth,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
but I gotta say: for sure, u r unpredictable.
(Still, I gotta respect that; u gotta be u. I love Individualism.)
ehBeth wrote:
giving up on being a conservative again?
you really are a bit of a feather in the wind
No, Beth; not at all!
Conservatism is very intensely individualistic.
This Republic was founded upon principles of Individual freedom.
THAT is what we conserve.
The Sons of Liberty began the American Revolution.
Remember Patrick Henry 's "liberty or death" speech?
(I do not imply that he was a founder of the Constitution; he was an Anti-Federalist.)
The Declaration of Independence rings of personal freedom,
as does the Bill of Rights, by crippling jurisdiction 37 different ways.





David
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 07:08 am
@OmSigDAVID,
It's always entertaining to watch you decide in which circumstances it is all right to deviate from the 'norm'.

you're a feather
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 07:28 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
It's always entertaining to watch you decide in which circumstances
it is all right to deviate from the 'norm'.
Well, I can 't deny
that the circumstances have quite a lot to do with whether
I will choose to DEVIATE from the norm.
In my youth, the norm was to favor baseball and Roosevelt.
I liked neither of them and deviated from both of them; no regrets.





David
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  5  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 09:41 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Would you favor a "stand your ground" law in your state?
Read Related Articles
No48%84300
Yes44%77641
Don't know8%14180



http://www.cnn.com/


I voted "no" of course. What this tells me is that the haters of these laws around A2K who seem to think that they can bring up these laws, point to the Martin/Zimmerman tragedy, say "SEE! SEE!" and get these laws revoked...these people are delusional. There are legions of A2K'ers who by all appearances have no idea of where Americans are on the issues, likely because they spend almost all of their time hanging out with their own kind, never mixing with folk who see the world differently then them. Less charitably maybe they simply dont care, maybe they aim to ram their will down our throats come hell or high water....


I am having a hard time making sense of this post. On the one hand you show a poll where a majority of people, including yourself you say, indicate they are not in favor of SYG laws and on the other you accuse A2Kers who feel the same way as trying to ram our will down the throats of others. It's a very confusing argument.

On another note, the Trayvon case is not the only one I would cite (and I believe I did link to others in this thread) as an example of why these laws are bad for the public. It is the one that got the most attention and there is good reason for that -- he was an unarmed teenager. There was another very similar case right after or before Martin's death where an unarmed man was shot after being followed home from a bar at night. His killer hasn't been arrested. The SYG defense has been used by gang bangers more than once, and sometimes successfully, to prevent arrest for public shoot outs. Lost in the SYG law is any notion of public safety -- of the right of those of us who choose not to carry weapons, or those of us too young to, or even those of us who carry weapons but accept the great weight of responsibility associated with it, to not be subjected to violence in public by those who care only for their own safety and whose fear is constantly stoked by people driven by the need to sell more guns.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 09:45 am
@FreeDuck,
YES.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2012 10:30 am
@FreeDuck,
Quote:

I am having a hard time making sense of this post. On the one hand you show a poll where a majority of people, including yourself you say, indicate they are not in favor of SYG laws


There is your problem, you cant read the data. This poll indicates that Americans are evenly split on our support of stand your ground laws, and this is AFTER the Martin/Zimmerman case has been hotly debated for weeks.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 01:24:52