18
   

Stand You Ground Is For White Folks Only

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 12:19 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyMuLGXxTs[/youtube]
Even so,
when u get attacked,
u STILL need to defend yourself, no matter from WHOM.





David
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 12:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Watch out for those vicious puddy tats, Dave, and keep your bazooka at the ready.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 01:00 pm
@boomerang,
"Separate but Equal" STILL!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 01:02 pm
@boomerang,
It would be interesting and highly educational to see that continued. What did the police do onward? What was their response to the truth?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 01:07 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
I didn't even see any of your famous foot stamping.

What's this nonsense about foot stamping? I posted facts, just as I always do. People disliked hearing those facts, just as they always do.

Meh.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 01:25 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
sickening and disgusting, but certainly not in any way surprising
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/02/18/stand-your-ground-for-black-man/

It’s an unfortunate fact that certain states’ “Stand Your Ground” laws are getting tested more and more these days. In fact, in Florida alone, deaths that are ruled as “justifiable homicides” increased 283% between the time the law was enacted and 2010. This is now a sad reality, but many people would claim that the law is a good one since it allows people to defend themselves when they believe their lives are in danger. Much like the Jim Crow laws of the past, however, “Stand Your Ground” is beginning to look more and more like a racially biased law disguised in the cloak of legal necessity.

An obvious case of “Stand Your Ground.”
In what is quickly becoming a rallying call against the racial bias of “Stand Your Ground” laws, a young U.S. airman, Michael Giles, was sentenced to 25 years in a Florida prison after shooting a man, who happened to be attacking him, in the leg. That’s right: no death actually occurred in the incident, but Giles was sentenced to 25 years. What makes this even more disheartening is the fact that, in an unrelated case, a Missouri man only received 20 years for actually murdering a man who was only leaving a residence.


The Giles case began when the young man, who had just finished out a second tour in the Middle East, went to a nightclub with his friends. At the club, a fight suddenly broke out outside between 30 to 40 different individuals. The young man was not even part of the fight, but fearing for his safety since he couldn’t find his friends, he retrieved a gun from his vehicle, which he had a concealed carry permit for, placed it in his pocket, and went to find his buddies.

A random attack on an innocent victim
While searching for his friends, a stranger came out of nowhere and punched Giles to the ground. This assailant even admitted that he planned on punching the first person that he came upon. In an obvious act of self defense — what “Stand Your Ground” laws are supposedly for — Giles shot his assailant in the leg. Unfortunately, several fragments broke away from the bullet and injured two others.

The young father of three, who was looking forward to a promising career in the military, was quickly arrested, charged with second-degree attempted murder, and convicted of a lesser charge which landed him in prison for what equates to a life sentence. Somehow, Jack Campbell, a Florida assistant attorney general, was able to look at the jury with a straight face and say:

“There is no self-defense that is applicable based on the evidence that’s before the jury.”

Because an admission from the “victim” saying that he randomly attacked Giles doesn’t prove Giles needed to defend himself.

Oh, wait.

Are “Stand Your Ground” laws rotten to the core?
Sadly, Giles isn’t the first to fall victim to a system that seems to pick and choose when it will apply the “Stand your Ground” doctrine. In fact, public outcry occurred when Marissa Alexander, a Florida mother, was sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot at her husband after the two had been engaged in a physical altercation. Even worse is the sad realization that there was a history of domestic violence against the woman who was defending herself. Fortunately, she will get a retrial, but when looking at Florida’s statistics related to the law, it’s not promising that a different verdict will be reached.

In fact, a recent article listing statistics related to Florida’s “Stand your Ground” law shows some disturbing trends. While around 70% of all individuals who use the defense are exonerated, the numbers prove that the law is more geared to protecting white individuals. This can be seen by the fact that 73% of people who kill an African-American and use the defense are freed. Conversely, only 59% of individuals who invoke the defense after killing a white person get the same treatment.

Anyone who isn’t blinded by some form of prejudice would literally have to be mentally defunct to not recognize the Giles case as an open-and-shut instance of “Stand your Ground,” but unfortunately, gun rights advocates aren’t screaming for his release. This task has been left to his parents, who are both veterans, and Americans who are demanding some form of justice. Sadly, Governor Rick Scott is ignoring demands for clemency, and this is even after nearly 80,000 people (as of Feb. 17)
have signed a petition demanding action.
Tell me if I 'm rong, Bear, but so far as I see
your actual objection is not to the existence of the statute,
but rather as to how it is applied, i.e. u perceive it to be
an instrument of hatred against blacks. Yes???
I agree that the statute shud have protected Giles.
( Note that the race of his target is not provided. )
If I were on Giles' jury, I 'd have acquitted him,
or minimally hung up the jury.
The same applies to Mrs. Alexander's case.
I agree that thay both shud be released
and I tried to sign the Giles petition.
I called the Governor 's Office and requested
a pardon for each of Giles and Mrs. Alexander.
(Alas, I did not receive a commitment of acquiescence.)


I believe that the prosecutor was a gun-hater
who wanted to see citizens who actually exercise
their 2nd Amendment rights put in prison.
Such prosecutors are dangerous and shud be fired.

IF I am incorrect and u really DO object to the statute itself,
then will u please explain what woud be better, how
and what it is that u prefer that Giles shud do in that situtation ?
Did u want him to turn his back and run away??





David
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 02:35 pm
Quote:
Why wasn’t this classified a “hate crime?”


Black on white crime, that is why. And the lack of MSM coverage.
http://allenbwest.com/2014/02/wasnt-classified-hate-crime/
blueveinedthrobber
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:04 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
Why wasn’t this classified a “hate crime?”


Black on white crime, that is why. And the lack of MSM coverage.
http://allenbwest.com/2014/02/wasnt-classified-hate-crime/


coldjoint gets his info from Allen West nothing more needs to be said. In addition, a lack of MSM coverage? Are you kidding me?
coldjoint
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:07 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
Quote:
coldjoint gets his info from Allen West nothing more needs to be said


A former congressman and veteran as opposed to whining hypocritical losers.
The fact remains that was a hate crime committed by a black man.
blueveinedthrobber
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:10 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
coldjoint gets his info from Allen West nothing more needs to be said


A former congressman and veteran as opposed to whining hypocritical losers.
The fact remains that was a hate crime committed by a black man.



batshit crazy c**ksucker like you is more like it. Laughing Hate crime my ass.
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:13 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,

Quote:
batshit crazy c**ksucker like you is more like it. Laughing Hate crime my ass.


Tell us why it is not, and list your sources ,or shut up.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:16 pm
It probably was technically a hate crime. I just love to wind you up
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:18 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
Quote:
It probably was technically a hate crime. I just love to wind you up


And I like to see you make a fool out of yourself. Guess we are even.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:19 pm
You will never be even with me or my equal . Never. Or most anyone else here either.
coldjoint
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:23 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,

Quote:
You will never be even with me or my equal . Never. Or most anyone else here either.


Anyone who talks like that is nothing but an arrogant jerk. Enough said.
blueveinedthrobber
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:24 pm
@coldjoint,
I've never denied it
coldjoint
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:29 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
Quote:
I've never denied it


You keep blowing your own horn. I don't hear it, and I doubt anyone else does.http://alien-earth.org/images/smileys/bricks.gif
blueveinedthrobber
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:38 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
I've never denied it


You keep blowing your own horn. I don't hear it, and I doubt anyone else does.http://alien-earth.org/images/smileys/bricks.gif


and yet you run to comment like Pavlov's dog.
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:42 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
Quote:

and yet you run to comment like Pavlov's dog.


And you are right there to sniff my ass. Bow wow.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 03:47 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
Tell me if I 'm rong, Bear, but so far as I see
your actual objection is not to the existence of the statute,
but rather as to how it is applied, i.e. u perceive it to be
an instrument of hatred against blacks. Yes???
I agree that the statute shud have protected Giles.
( Note that the race of his target is not provided. )
If I were on Giles' jury, I 'd have acquitted him,
or minimally hung up the jury.
The same applies to Mrs. Alexander's case.
I agree that thay both shud be released
and I tried to sign the Giles petition.
I called the Governor 's Office and requested
a pardon for each of Giles and Mrs. Alexander.
(Alas, I did not receive a commitment of acquiescence.)


I believe that the prosecutor was a gun-hater
who wanted to see citizens who actually exercise
their 2nd Amendment rights put in prison.
Such prosecutors are dangerous and shud be fired.

IF I am incorrect and u really DO object to the statute itself,
then will u please explain what woud be better, how
and what it is that u prefer that Giles shud do in that situtation ?
Did u want him to turn his back and run away??





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2019 at 03:33:45