"STAND YOUR GROUND"--IS IT A GOOD LAW??

@neologist,

it was included in the instructions to the jury...

0 Replies

@paulrobb,

paulrobb wrote:

Why does no one propose amending the Florida law on the definition of manslaughter (7.7, section 782.07 c) ) to stipulate that provoking a conflict while armed is included in the definition of culpable negligence? The amendment could stipulate that it supersedes a defense under section 776.013 (the stand your ground statue).

Probably because it would be redundant, that already being the understood meaning of the law.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

After the trial I really think we need to take a look at the law that seemingly [??]
makes it ok to stalk and kill people just for some trivial reason.

Farmer, WHERE in the statute does it authorize stalking??
Will u quote the operative STALKING language for us, please ??

farmerman wrote:

I worry that this law may not be tested for its Constitutionality wrt [??]
"Due process" and "civil rights".

Shud a robbery victim be concerned about that, while he is fighting back???
How about our favorite Obama supporter, Zimmy??
Shud he have foned his lawyer, asking that a memorandum
of law be drawn, delineating his duties under the Stand Your Ground Law,
while TM was beating his head on the cement????? Please advise.

farmerman wrote:

I can predict what some of us would say but Id like to hear you
verbalize your reasons for support or rejection of the law itself.

The law shud be crafted to protect the victims, not the predators.
The victims finance the government, not the predators.

farmerman wrote:

"Stand Your Ground", in my thinking, goes beyond self defense.

It means that victims need not
turn their backs and run, to protect the bad guy.
Thay can legally fight back without fearing
that government will gang up with the bad guy against the good guy.

farmerman wrote:

According to the Zimmerman verdict,
its now ok to stalk and confront unarmed people and invoke the law.

It has always been perfectly OK
to follow anyone of your choice (in the absence of an injunction
to the contrary). That is not new.
It was the Zimmerman verdict that if a bad guy
is pounding your head against the street,
there is nothing improper in fatally shooting him. Let's cheer !

farmerman wrote:

Mafia hits will now be considered Stand Your Ground demos no?.

The victims of Mafia hits can freely fight back,
without any need to run away, to protect the hit man.

farmerman wrote:

About me-I own guns for self protection.
I believe in the CASTLE DOCTRINE as originally defined
(wherein I, upon retreating to my home, can kill an intruder since the intruder,
by definition, has presented his credentials and intentions).

Surely, the mothers of Mafia hit men
will desire that u be under a duty to turn your back and retreat
while their sons are shooting at u. I don't see it that way.
Let 's support the good guys, and let the bad guys be damned.
As the 7th US Court of Appeals has put it:
the place where you have a right to defend yourself
is the place where you are attacked.

U need not be on your own real estate
to have the right to defend yourself from the violence of man or beast.

farmerman wrote:

I don't believe I have the license to take my weapon and chase
the intruder into the street and gun him down.

Please quote the statute insofar as it applies to CHASING, if u don't mind.

farmerman wrote:

(The way the CASTLE DOCTRINE has been changed, [??]
the second scenario seems to be protected speech).

That statute bears upon fighting back, not speaking.
It has not been changed.

farmerman wrote:

I do NOT believe in STAND YOUR GROUND
because it is a ruthless depraved law that is gonna get innocent
people killed by these vigilante types.

How are innocent people going to get killed??
It is a common sense law for fighting back in an emergency.
Don't try to put burdens on the victim; the bad guy already did that enuf, without your help.

David

0 Replies

@timur,

Quote:

A statue to Trayvon Martin, maybe..

How about statues for Jack McGurn and John Dillinger?

0 Replies

Walter just posted this late breaking bulletin:

Quote:

TALLAHASSEE (The Borowitz Report)—Opponents of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law are attempting to mobilize support for a new law called Don’t Shoot Me for Absolutely No Reason.

The proposed law, which faces major opposition in the Florida legislature, would make it illegal for people in the state to shoot each other for no reason whatsoever.

0 Replies

@DoctorGotz,

DoctorGotz wrote:

Whether this happened with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, I can't say, . . .

Me and you both!

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote:

Me and you both!

What would be your advice on this to ESLs in the English section, Rog?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You shouldnt be allowed guns in the firstplace unless you have a license, Australia has a much better system in my opinion. If someone enters a persons house they have no right to kill them but they can defend themselves, Murder is murder even in accidental situations its still a life and someone or something is always responsible. In other words if someone enters a home with intent to rob and you have a gun dont aim for kill shot which alot of people do learn to aim.

2 Replies

@Lawsuit,

Cheaper to buy a drum and just whale away at it, isn't it. Saves holes in the walls with all the intentional misses.

0 Replies

@Lawsuit,

Quote:

You shouldnt be allowed guns in the firstplace unless you have a license...

Problem is, that the main reason for the 2'nd amendment is to provide people with power over government, and that simply is not compatible with the idea of government licensing firearms.

0 Replies

Stand your ground is a good law.
There is no way that anyone should have to run away if they or their families are threatened.

However, I do believe it needs to be tweaked and clarified.
There is no way that Zimmerman should have been allowed to use it as a defense.
The law was written so that people don't have to run away.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Stand your ground is a good law.
There is no way that anyone should have to run away if they or their families are threatened.

However, I do believe it needs to be tweaked and clarified.
There is no way that Zimmerman should have been allowed to use it as a defense.
The law was written so that people don't have to run away.

Zimmerman didn't use it as a defense. Since he had no opportunity to run away, he was able to use a good old fashioned "regular" claim of self defense.

That said, there is no justification for denying Zimmerman the ability to use Stand Your Ground had he needed to. He has the same rights that everyone else has.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

mysteryman wrote:

Stand your ground is a good law.

The law was written so that people don't have to run away.

They don't have to run away as long as they know how to aim the gun and pull the trigger. That's all that's necessary to protect yourself.

1 Reply

@Miller,

a measure of force equal to the threat is what is implied in Pa's similar self defense law.
Anyone who shoots an unarmed person isn't automatically protected as in Fla's bogus law.

1 Reply

@neologist,

It was mentioned in the judge's instructions.

This was mentioned before - I don't follow all this that closely.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Miller wrote:
They don't have to run away as long as they know how to aim the gun and pull the trigger. That's all that's necessary to protect yourself.

a measure of force equal to the threat is what is implied in Pa's similar self defense law.
Anyone who shoots an unarmed person isn't automatically protected as in Fla's bogus law.

Florida's law is not bogus, and it does not automatically protect everyone who shoots an unarmed person.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

neologist wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong. I was under the impression the Zimmerman defense did not invoke "Stand Your Ground".

It was mentioned in the judge's instructions.
This was mentioned before

Mentioned before, yes. But it is still just a silly excuse concocted by Freedom Haters who wanted to try to use this event to launch an assault on our Constitutional rights.

And it seems that the Freedom Haters have largely gotten the message. They understand that they have no chance of breaching the NRA's defenses, so they've mostly given up and gone home to lick their wounds.

ossobuco wrote:

I don't follow all this that closely.

So what's new? You always use the fact that you don't know what you're talking about as justification for posting nonsense.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Florida's law is not bogus, and it does not automatically protect everyone who shoots an unarmed person

The fact that an unarmed kid was blown away and his murderer gets off with a recommendation for a "medal" by anarchists is an example of the bogosity of the law in Fla. Other states with gun defense laws are much more measured in their allowable responses.

This case was an act of poor prosecution and "world turned upside down" logic used by the defense. Whether the law itself wqs invoked during trial is immaterial. It loomed out there in every minute during all the proceedings .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The fact that an unarmed kid was blown away

That "unarmed kid" was possibly high on dissociative hallucinogens (probably the most messed up drugs ever to hit the streets), was carrying ingredients to brew even more dissociative hallucinogens, was casing houses to break into later, and was in the process of violently assaulting Mr. Zimmerman when he was shot.

And just think of the disaster that would have ensued if Trayvon had broken into a house where a family was home while he was hopped up on his "Poor Man's PCP".

farmerman wrote:

and his murderer gets off with a recommendation for a "medal" by anarchists

Self defense is not in any way murder.

And "people who sigh in relief that Trayvon was stopped before he butchered an entire family" are not anarchists.

farmerman wrote:

is an example of the bogosity of the law in Fla. Other states with gun defense laws are much more measured in their allowable responses.

Pretty much every other state in the union would also have found Mr. Zimmerman not guilty by way of self defense.

farmerman wrote:

This case was an act of poor prosecution

There is very little that the prosecution can do when there is no evidence that any crime was committed by anyone other than Trayvon.

farmerman wrote:

and "world turned upside down" logic used by the defense.

All the defense did was point out reality. Trayvon was violently assaulting Mr. Zimmerman, and Mr. Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.

farmerman wrote:

Whether the law itself was invoked during trial is immaterial. It loomed out there in every minute during all the proceedings.

The NRA is not going to allow any repeal of SYG laws. Period.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

That "unarmed kid" was possibly high on dissociative hallucinogens (probably the most messed up drugs ever to hit the streets), was carrying ingredients to brew even more dissociative hallucinogens, was casing houses to break into later, and was in the process of violently assaulting Mr. Zimmerman when he was shot

could you post the evidence on that silly statement?

Skittles are not, as far as I know, a hallucinogen.

My theory is that Martin, walking home, sensed that he was being stalked by this weirdo. He gets ff the trail a bit and is able to confront Zimmerman when words fly in anger and MArtin jumps the "Lone Ranger' and, for his trouble , gets blown away by this sociopath .

That's more like the real story which th gun nuts just want to continue spinning into some justified homicide rant.

The jury could only deal with the evidence in this case (None of which included Martin being a "dealer" or concoctor of meth). The simple fact was that an unarmed person was blown away by a sociopath/

Id like to see this same case in Pa where our laws of elf defense are differently defined. (" mortal danger" must show evidence of some weapon of equivalent capability), and concealed weapons can only be under 3 feet in length

If I lived in Fla, Id fear these gun toting vigilantes more than life criminals and cops.

3 Replies

"STAND YOUR GROUND"--IS IT A GOOD LAW??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know