The EFFECT of the Stand Your Ground law, though, has been to get a kid
who had gone to the store to get an iced tea for his brother and was only [??] talking
on the phone to his girlfriend shot dead.
I doubt that was the "only" thing he was doing.
My sense of the situation is that he attacked Mr. Z from the rear,
based on media reports. Admittedly:
I remain uncertain about it.
I can't help but wonder if he was trying to rob Mr. Z of his gun when it discharged.
That sort of thing has happened b4.
Let us the important thing here. A KID IS DEAD. You talk about
the right to self-defense as some sort of primary right.
, indeed! More basic than any
other right; I do.
The right to life is considerably more primary,
That is nonsense
. There is no "right to life". There never was.
If there was, then if u die from a heart attack or a lightning strike,
your rights woud have been violated. If u fall down in medical distress in front of me,
there is a fairly decent chance that I will call 911, but I owe
If I see that u r about to accidentally walk over a cliff,
there is a moderately decent chance that I 'll mention it to u,
but I have no duty
(moral nor legal) to do so.
( I think that it was Justice Kennedy who referred to that fact
in the law of torts during argument of obamacare. )
If I see u smoking I have no duty to counsel u qua its dangers.
That is because we live in a free country.
and Trayvon Martin was deprived of that.
My sense of the situation is that he probably brought it on himself,
that Mr. Z chose to assassinate him, knowing that police were about to arrive in a few minutes or in a few seconds.
If he DID
violently attack Mr. Z, then I 'm glad that the rest of us r safe from him.
I am sure that if I had been in his position, I 'd remain in pristine condition.
There 'd have been no violence.
Any law that leads to that consequence is bad law.
Its terrible law for predatory, violent criminals.
It gives their victims a much better chance of survival,
at the expense of the safety of the predators.
From interviewing violent criminals in prisons,
we know that thay fear & disapprove of well armed victims.
Gun control is O.S.H.A. for violent criminals
, protecting them on-the-job
from the defenses of their victims.
Stand Your Ground Laws re-inforce the danger to violent predators.
Not to mention that prosecutors and the police are angry at the law,
the function of the law
to make our public employees HAPPY
Their due is to get PAID
their salaries; that 's all.
because they say it's let those left standing in gang wars go free,
When criminals decide to fight among themselves,
thay will do so. Thay always have. Its OK with me.
MontereyJack wrote: GOOD!
it's let those left alive in bad drug deals go free,
There is no Constitutional reason that anyone
shud be confined for selling drugs. Its better that the politicians
who supported the unConstitutional War On Drugs be in prison for raping the Constitution.
and it's let people who succumb to road rage go free. It's bad law.
It reflects Man's natural rights; the right of self defense, without hindrance from his lowlife employee, government.
It is bad enuf that someone falls victim to the predatory violence of man or beast.
It is beyond ineffably bad that his servant, government, shud put salt in his wounds
adding civil or criminal litigation to the victim 's problems.
The liberal position against freedom of ez self defense shows liberalism's affinity with the purest essence of evil.
It annoys u to have the bad guys exposed to the dangers of victims successfully defending themselves.