E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images file
State Sen. Chris Smith says changes are needed to Florida's Stand Your Ground law.
As a governor’s task force appointed to review Florida’s Stand Your Ground law convened for its first meeting Tuesday, a rival panel formed by a state senator is recommending a major overhaul of the controversial self-defense bill.
State Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, put together his own 18-member panel on April 5, saying he was frustrated that Republican Gov. Rick Scott was moving too slowly to re-examine Stand Your Ground in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin shooting.
On Monday, Smith’s panel released a report that recommended significant revisions to the 2005 law, which allows citizens to use deadly force in public places if they reasonably believe their life is in danger.
George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer, told Sanford, Fla., police he acted in self-defense when he shot the 17-year-old Martin, who was unarmed, on Feb. 26. Police didn’t immediately arrest Zimmerman. He was charged with second-degree murder on April 11 – 46 days after the shooting – following high-profile protests and a review of the case by a special prosecutor.
“Stand Your Ground has been on the books for seven years now. There is ample and overwhelming documentation of the law’s use, and more importantly, its abuse,” Smith said Monday in a letter to Gov. Rick Scott accompanying his panel’s report.
George Zimmerman's attorney defends move as a counter to fake sites. WESH's Cara Moore reports.
“The Sanford shooting should not have been a cause for delay; to the contrary, it was a compelling call to action that something needed to be done about the law’s confusing and often misapplied provisions.”
Smith’s panel didn't call for a repeal of the law. Instead, it unanimously recommended that cases of people claiming self-defense under Stand Your Ground be presented to a grand jury to determine what a “reasonable" person would do in the situation. It also called for educating the public and law enforcement; creating a system to track self-defense claims in the state; and adding language requiring “imminent” danger.
“Weeks ago when I stood here, I called for the governor to act immediately. And when the governor didn’t act, I decided to act,” Smith, an outspoken critic of the current law, said at a press conference on Monday to present the findings.
Brendan Mcdermid / Reuters file
Florida Gov. Rick Scott appointed a panel to review Stand Your Ground and rissue recommendations on public safety policy.
“Stand Your Ground has been used way before Trayvon Martin and will be used way after Trayvon Martin. But in order to make sure we have a just, legal and safe society I still believe that the Legislature should act soon and make sure we clarify how we should live in a civilized society.”
Read the full report by Sen. Chris Smith's panel
Meanwhile, the governor’s official task force to explore Stand Your Ground met for the first time Tuesday in Tallahassee. The 19-member panel is led by Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll, who co-sponsored Stand Your Ground in 2005 and voted for it.
She opened the meeting by saying the panel has no "preconceived notions" about what it will recommend. She said its mission is not to “try the Zimmerman-Martin case.”
“This law is not specific to any one area of our state or person, it can apply to any area of the state,” Carroll said, Sunshine State News reported.
Tuesday’s meeting was mostly organizational and held to discuss the panel’s mission. At future meetings the panel will take public testimony. Smith has been invited to present his own panel’s findings at a future meeting.
The panel will make public safety recommendations to the governor and the Legislature.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
So in the future you can't shoot unarmed people you pick fights with in Florida?
Apparently not. Though I do still find it funny how Zimmerman felt his life was threatened to the point that he used a firearm against another human being... yet never went to the hospital for proper medical treatment. One blow to the head can create a subdural hematoma, and a full exam in a medical facility is the only way to detect problems such as that; Zimmerman claimed to have had his head hit against the pavement multiple times. Yet neither Zimmerman, the police nor Zimmerman's family had him get checked out by an actual M.D., only paramedics. He felt in danger enough to take a life, yet not to take steps that would ensure that he'd truly saved his own life with this act?
Clearly the head pounding theory was just an excuse. Any rational thinking person knows, if he'd really been having his head pounded into concrete a hospital visit would be necessary.
SYG law was convenient!
I know it is hard for you Progressive to understand but if Zimmerman did not shoot he would have been going to the Hospital like Matthew Owens. The Alabama man beaten to a comma by a lynch mob of black neighbors when he stopped their kids from stealing. Killing anyone is the last thing anybody wants to do unless they want to live. I wish the same people commenting would address the epidemic black on black shootings or is the problem it does not fit the white on black narrative the lame stream media loves to fabricate. Zimmerman was Hispanic or put another way as white as Obama!
Danfortruth,
That is just a ridiculous claim with NO facts whatsoever to back it up! Trayvon wasn't committing any crime, he was walking through the neighborhood, minding his own business!
I love the way the rwnj's deflect from the issue at hand, by throwing in some other incident, or incidents, that have NOTHING to do with this incident!
@Jo-Ann so pounding someones head into the concrete is not considered a crime by you????? Here it's considered assault...............Are you really that clueless?????
Correction Mike Owens was beaten up for being a bully to kids in the neighborhood. He had on several occasions chased and threatened young children who just wanted to play basketball!! The parents are wrong they should have just called the police but sadly Owens took a beating instead.
Roscoe2u,
No evidence of head pounding, sorry, a little blood on the back of zimmie's head is a sign of a fight, which obviously happened, but that is all!
Zimmie was getting his ass kicked so being the puss he is, he took out his gun and shot the kid!
Wakehead you did it! Right when you think you have heard about every stupid remark up pops words like on your silly post! Meaningless, unless you were an eye witness(if you were you need to go testify) if not keep your childish ignorance to yourself!
No mater what the level of head contact with concrete might have been, one thing is certain, if Zimmerman hadn't pursued T.Martin, as he was instructed not to by the 911 operator, the fight would never have happened in the first place.
Who was the aggressor? If anyone had a right to "stand their ground" it was Trayvon.
"matter"*
The only reference to the kids in Alabama stealing anything is from his sister who stated she saw them stealing something (unidentified) off someone else's porch. Instead of calling the police she got her brother who just told them just to go home. (bs) Martin was within 100 feet of his front door when he turned to stand his ground. Zimmerman forgot to identify himself something even the police are required to do before shooting. Unless you want to go back to people stepping out into the street and shooting at each other these SYG laws need to be revised.
Ah, so Jo An, you were there when the incident took place and can tell us all exactly what happened? My god, this is the single greatest break in the case! Call the Sanford special prosecutor as soon as possible! They'll need your expert testimony forthwith! You owe it to justice to provide this new eye-witness account into evidence at your earliest convenience.
WMG-21,
One thing's for certain, ole zimmie is a puss!
Maybe, maybe not. As I wasn't there to witness the event, I reserve judgment, rather than passing it like loose flatulence. You would be wise to do the same.
Free country, I'm entitled to my opinion, so you may reserve YOUR judgement for yourself!
My earlier comment 1-13 was in response to Danfortruth's comment 1-3
Daryl You almsot understand finally. HERE in Texas you can shoot someone breaking into your home weather they are armed or not cause you are in danger, Its does not take a gun to kill someone so weather they have a gun or not does not mean they are not a danger! YES WE execute, unlike other states you will not have to worry about a multiple time murderer escaping and killing again. tooo bad we pay for them to sit on death row tooo long.
Indrid-Cold
Maybe you are a marathn runner most are not. The worst thing you can do when in danger from someone bigger faster or stronger is turn your back to them because now you cannot defend yourself at all. Someone with a board, rebar, tire iron, knife, rope, or many many other things can all be lethal.
You want to see permanent body injury, why should someone have to be injured for life, unable to maybe work,, have a full functioning brain, or not be able to fully enjoy life from lingering pain befor they defend themself??? I recomend you defend yourself B4 you are permanently injured for life!
And we all know what opinions are like...
@ bluthunder: You're wasting your breath on these self-professed progressives, as they've proven themselves to be just intelligent enough to outsmart themselves... Constitutional doctrine states that I have the right to protect me and what is mine at any cost, regardless of what any "legal" law may state... I do not have to run from what is mine, and if anyone tries to take it... "WARNING: Driver carries more than $50 in Ammunition."
Let us straighten out some mis-interpreted facts;
Before stand your ground, the law said you must attempt to flee from a attacker, after the law was passed, it says if you were not the attacker, then you do not have to attempt to flee first, and you may use reasonable force to protect yourself from bodily harm;
the Zimmerman case is not a stand your ground defense, it is one of self-defense. was the force used reasonable under the circumstances to prevent Zimmerman from bodily harm.
Why The Gun In Civilization?
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old, and a homosexual on equal footing with a carload of drunks with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Leave it to the minorities, to want to have it changed.
Spiddas good essay but the true author was marko kloos
munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) reposted this
I want to make one thing clear. I am a Dem. Progressive and liberal. I am for this stand your ground law. I live in Michigan and we have the Castle law sense 05. It used to be that if someone was breaking into your home you could shoot them after they are in. Well now we don't have to wait until they are in. And we can now shoot someone if they are breaking into your out building. If a Repo man comes on your property to steel you car, you can shoot them, if its in the middle of the night. You see the law says they can only do Repo's during business hours. Some of these people that live from steeling from others know now they are playing with there life's when they break into someones shops to steel there tools or what ever. They can use there life for it and most thinks its not worth it now. If someone is on your land and you feel unsafe, you can shoot. I support the law. And I support Zimmerman according to the SYG law. If this kid was within 100 yards of his dads home, then why did he attack Zimmerman in the first place. The police said Zimmerman was beaten and EMT's treated him for Head wounds and face wounds, that is all it takes. That is why they didn't arrest him. The Law says they can't arrest zimmerman. So get off the police ,they followed the law.
Funny but on the Walking Dead episode, the same weekend that this news broke, one of the people killed another and then bashed his own face on a tree so he could blame the person he killed for assaulting him.
I wonder if the zimmerman nazi watches t.v.?
That law violates my Constitutional right to due process. The Department Of Justice needs to ban those laws country wide.
Any people that I run into from Florida will be dealt with swiftly as they are ALL a threat to me.
Thanks bluthunder.
Verified and corrected my files.
Correction for post #1.23
What a bunch of idiotic comments, especially from the looney liberal bin. First, stand your ground and ccw have been around for years. Now, idiots, stay with me, if people are just going around blowing people away for the last 7 years, do ya think the laws would still be on the books!? This shooting has caused controversy, ONLY because the uneducated fools got brainwashed by the media. Sharpton, Jesse Jackass, really? Anything, and I mean anything, those two get involved in is not worth anyone's time to even look into. Stand your ground and ccw work!! Get over it!! This special prosecutor is a joke, looking to play the bleeding heart card. According to all the legal analysists I have seen she has overcharged Zimmerman. 2nd degree murder will never stick. Manslaughter was the only hope she had. You dingbats want to change a perfectly great law because of one controversial event. Get educated!!! These laws that you fools battled 8 years ago, are still here!!! There is a reason for that. Get a clue.
@nobsartist; my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness trumps your right to due process. In fact, SYG ensures a very streamlined and economical form of due process where the attacker actually decides his or her own fate. As for your comments about Floridians; don't come down here. CCW holders are better trained than you; you wouldn't stand a chance.
As a matter of fact; all of you liberals who don't like our laws here in Florida should stay out of our politics. So tired of people from other states thinking they have a say in our gov't. Your protests, your attempts to get the feds involved; stay out of it, we stay out of your state's business. In fact, I left the state of my birth to come here because I hated the liberal laws there. If you live here, vote. If you don't like the way it goes, leave. Please.
@nobsartist
So let me get this right, you think Zimmerman called the police so they could come and potentially witness him murder a "harmless" black boy, but instead he decides to just shoot him and bash his own face in? Do you even read what you type, or do you just post whatever comes out?
Good luck trying to convince ANYONE that you were defending yourself when you go on your demented murder spree.
Daryl - Purchasing firearms for others is a federal crime. It's a question on the form when you are purchasing a firearm. It CLEARLY statess that as well. You sir, have purjored yourself on a document, therefore, commiting TWO crimes.
So the irony is, you and your "liberal" friends are violating the law while you chastise concealed carry citizens that have done everything by the book...legally.
The problem with the law is that it allows anyone to instigate a fight, then kill the person when they try to defend themselves.
Basically, this law allows you to kill anyone you want by simply instigating them to attack you. Everyone has buttons that will push them over the edge, all you have to do is say right thing, and they will attack.
For example: Let's say someone wants to use this law on a Republican. First you find one, and tell them that you support Obama. At this point, you will see the Republican get angry, his face will start to turn red as he gets upset. Then you tell him that Bush caused all our problems, and say "f*** Reagan". Now you are going to see the Republican start pacing back and forth. He is not attacking yet, but he is mad as hell. Next, call Christianity a "cult", and a "fairytale". Religion is very important to them, and thus an easy button. Now you have him on the edge, he is at the brink of attack, ready to pounce... but he needs one more little push. So you finish by insulting his children, call them "gay" or "pieces of s***", and BAM... full fledged attack. It's basically the holy trinity, if you will, of bringing a Republican to the point of rage: insult their politics, their religion, and their family. And once they start attacking you, SYG gives you the right to kill them. You could legally wipe out half the population of Texas with this strategy.
All joking aside, the point is that everyone has their buttons... you push them the right way, and you can get them to attack you. Have you ever watched parents at kid's soccer games? One insults the child of another, and fists start flying. Does the original instigator have the right to shoot the parent of the child he insulted? Have you ever watched people at a bar, or an event where alcohol is involved? One tiny insult and a fight breaks out. Does the original instigator have the right to make the insult, wait for the punch, then shoot the person?
That's the point. Self-defense laws are good, unless it allows the instigator to kill the person they picked a fight with. Do you really want to give criminals the right to make you feel threatened, through technically legal actions, and then kill you when you fight back? All they would need to do is follow legal, but threatening actions... like stalking you at night, saying certain words, a few insults, coaxing you into a fight... and BAM! They get to shoot you. Is that the world you want?
This is not about removing self-defense laws... it's about giving criminals the ability to kill anyone they want. Why is this so hard to understand?
@IndieParty
I disagree with your premise. Insulting people is not against the law, except in certain locations (you can't cuss in a courtroom, for example, as it would be contempt of court). However, assaulting someone is. No one has the right to assault someone else just because they said something they didn't like. The difference is really quite simple:
Hurling insults: protected by the 1st amendment (in almost all settings).
Assault: not protected by any amendments and factually against the law everywhere.
See the difference? You seem to be confusing a verbal argument with a physical altercation, or at the very least, blending the two as though they were of the same gravity. They aren't. If the offended party isn't smart enough to use their words, walk away or otherwise diffuse the situation, that does not give them any right to resort to physical assault (although, ironically, that's exactly what we do in the arena of international politics-- go figure).
@WMG
Uhhh... that was my ENTIRE POINT. Read it again.
This law allows ANYONE to instigate a fight with insults, and kill the person they started insulting. Insults are legal, and human behavior is well documented. Everyone has their buttons, where if you push them it can drive them to rage. So you can legally insult someone, and coax them into a fight, and then kill them.
You were in the military, supposedly... imagine if someone starts insulting you. Maybe they picket the funeral of your buddy, calling his a f**. Maybe they insult your religion, and then your family. They insult your children, right to your face. Or your wife. Whatever it is, eventually someone finds your button, pushes it, and you punch him. This law gives him the right to shoot you. And don't even try to say you would just walk away... I know enough military men to know exactly what buttons to push that will trigger their anger. It's surprisingly easy.
Maybe it's not insults, maybe it's just behavior. Rapists can stalk women, follow them, scare them, terrify them, make them feel their life is in danger. Woman fights back, rapist can legally shoot her.
The point is that any crimminal can abuse this law by simply instigating altercations. It's human behavior. Push the right button with insults, scare them with behavior, get them to attack you first, and you get to kill them. THAT is the issue... the ease of abuse.
Hell, I remember a Republican on these very boards who was called a "coward"... he responded by saying that if the person said that to his face, he would "beat their a$$". That's all it takes, one little word, he hits the guy who insulted him and BAM... he gets legally killed. The person picked a fight, knew he would get a violent reaction, and gets to legally kill him.
I have a problem giving criminals the freedom to kill anyone by simply instigating an altercation. I would rather a law that protects the victim, not the criminal instigator.
You know, that last line about politics got me thinking...
The president is the perfect example of what I'm getting at. Insult the president? Sure. All day long. Look at what Republicans in congress say about him, much less the tea party pundits. All fine. Now, try and take a swing on ol' Obama and see what kind of whupass gets unleashed on you. Or, let's get more specific to your original scenario, and let's say that the president is insulting you. He calls you names, makes fun of your kids, whatever. He'll probably take a drop in the polls, but oh well. Let's assume he's willing to take the negativity associated with the uncharacteristic tirade. Nothing illegal has been done. But if some @!$%# who can't take criticism comes along and tries to fight the president, well, the secret service are going to shoot him down. And, most importantly, they'd be right to do it.
Your misreading the law. I see your confusion now.
1. You must reasonably fear for your life or great bodily harm before lethal force can be employed. "Reasonable" is determined by witnesses (if extant) and responding police, identified through the lens of the specific set of circumstances that led to the shooting.
2. You cannot actively be engaged in a crime and claim self-defense. A burglar can't claim self-defense for shooting the home owner who came out of his bedroom with a shotgun. Stalking is a crime-- a rapist can't say he was attacked by a woman he was stalking. It's also unlikely that responding police would take an armed male at his word that he felt his life and limb were threatened by a woman who is likely smaller than he is and has evidence of defensive wounds.
You are focusing too much on the example. The point is whether you believe that people have the right to instigate an altercation, then legally kill the person they instigated the fight with. You want to be able to pick a fight, then kill the person... when you started it.
I just realized something, you are basically the bully who picks on the little guy... and when the little guy finally can't take anymore, and stands up for himself, you give the bully the right to kill him. Just terrorize them, by technically legal means, and when they snap you get to kill them. THAT is your position.
I just don't think we should give criminals the right to kill anyone they want, by simply picking a fight or instigating the altercation.
Read comment 1.38. If a criminal shoots someone in the process of committing a crime, they cannot use this law (or those like it) as a defense. And by the way, harassment is a crime and can be reported to authorities. As much as you may like to distort my position, I am not an advocate for bullying or any other sort of negative social confrontation. I do, however, advocate for a living creature's right to self-defense. If you start arguing with someone, that person snaps and starts hitting you in the head with a crowbar, you have every goddamn right in the world to shoot that person down before he cripples you, regardless of who started the argument. Proportionate response-- look it up.
Man, I hope they fix this dangerous law.
Law or no law - if I'M ATTACKED, I'm going to defend myself by whatever means necessary. The ATTACKER has no rights in that position. Who is anyone to say that I need to first 'retreat' before defending myself. What if I'm on my back and my attacker is punching me and slamming my head into the ground? How am I supposed to 'retreat' then? I'm going to stab or shoot - better stated, I'm going to end the ATTACK AGAINST ME immediately without hesitation.
Zimmerman was the attacker. For him to pull his gun and then the "self defense" card when he got his ass handed to him in a fight which he provoked is beyond hypocritical, it's unmanly.
Chris '12 and MikeyMike are both right. By no standard was Zimmerman attacked, so he doesn't get to claim SYG.
I'm not talking about the Zimmerman case. I'm not talking about cases in which you are attacked and trying to defend your own life. I am talking about any law that is written so vaguely that one could chase someone else down, start an altercation, realize they are overmatched physically, and then use lethal force because they got in over their head.
When laws like that protect the pursuer, no one on the planet is safe. If you pick a fight and then kill someone in the process, why should a law protect that behavior. What protects a person from picking a fight with you, determining in their mind that they feel threatened, and then shoot you dead? The Florida Stand Your Ground law currently does.
So I will say it again: I hope they fix this dangerous law.
Trayvon, the thug, was trying to kill someone and got shot...end of story!
@those above who reference travon/zimmerman - nothing in my post talks about that case. You don't know the facts, stop pretending that you do. Once we see the actual evidence about who attacked who, then we can form an opinion on where 'stand your ground' falls into this discussion.
@daryl-2183015 - I can't find any comparison to what I typed and what you typed. I simply stated that if I'm attacked, I'm going to defend myself. Please explain where I said I was going to steal/rob/do anything to someone else.
Anyone against Stand Your Ground laws or Castle Doctrine laws are ultimately helping criminals by taking away the VICTIM's rights. One of the most basic rights a person can have is to protect themselves by any means necessary against unwarranted attacks.
@sadmoronsvote2 - You are misrepresenting the Florda Stand Your Ground law. It is still illegal to pick a fight with someone and then kill them. It's a very common sense law, actually they just modified earlier existing laws which required the person to retreat first.
Please Google about the case of 77-year-old James Workman, this is what inspired the law that became Stand Your Ground - If you read the circumstances that existed before, it's hard to find a fault with the changes in Stand your ground..
There is a reason it passed the house/senate with votes of 131 for and only 20 against.
The law isn't that dangerous. People just have to think before they act. The old days when you want to kick someones ass, You have to think now they might have a gun and you might be shot.
Of course the Democrats do. They want to take away all of our rights and freedoms and let the government make all of our decisions for us. Because Democrats are too stupid and lazy to think for themselves, they feel the rest of the country is that way as well. Sorry, some of us like to think for ourselves and arent afraid to work for a living.
Perfect example of why the law needs to be repealed. Read Chris12 who imagines he is Zimmerman and agent 007 all in one.Role acting the world is out to get him. Rule number one in self defense, do not put yourself in a situation where you need self defense. Rule number two, RUN AWAY.
There was no case before hand where the existing laws were not strong enough.
Actually there had been SEVERAL cases where those using "deadly force", which is not always lethal, to defend themselves were prosecuted, eventually found not guilty, and sued, exonerated, by the perpetrators of crimes. Those cases should have NEVER gotten to court. Those who had defended themselves had to spend a fortune to prove it was self defense. The only mistake some of those using self defense made was only wounding their assailant.
Yeah, like make it required in every state!
The problem is that with each law like this one it creates a slippery slope. Now a woman that is truly attacked where in the past the attackers flesh under her finger nails was evidence she fought back. Now it will be the attackers evidence she faught at all and he had a right to defend himself from this crazy woman bent on ........ well preventing him from raping her. It will be her word against his and his flesh under her nails will be evidence against her and for him. Especially if he is smart enough to use this law to kill her, and call the cops and report he was the one attacked, just check her nails.
So lets call this law a victory for stalkers and potential muggers and rapist where this law exists.
You leave a door of opportunity open, opportunist will come through it.
RDG6
Trayvon, the thug, was trying to kill someone and got shot...end of story!
And where's the proof? The only "proof" we have is the word of a hot-tempered man with two arrests for assault (one against an off-duty cop, another against his wife), and after the second assault he was ordered by the court to seek anger-management training. His wife was so afraid of him she had to file for a restraining order. And by listening to his voice on the 911 call, he was anxious for a confrontation. But of course, he would never lie to avoid a murder charge, now would he?
Kevin S
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Not so fast kevin.
The poll asking about the stand your ground premis is misleading and difficult to answer as it does differentiate where or locations, under what circumstances..
Should people be able to stand their ground in their home? Yes. In other places like in say a bar or on the road etc, the stand your ground premis may have some merit, but it should have to go through a full investigation and decided on by a jury imo.
Peace....
Stand your ground is clear about what is acceptable, it is people who are messing it up with misunderstanding and frivolous lawsuits. Most of the people who object to the law are potential victims who would not be able to defend them selves anyway. One can ask why they think they have standing jsut because they lack the skills, motivation and techique understanding about being able to defend themselves!
We need to teach American children about the law and their responsibility to society. End the reign of terror in our cities by GANG BANGERS!
The law doesn't need to be fixed. It just needs to be enforced.
I recently had 2 people burglarize my cars and assault me when I caught them in the act. I didn't kill them, but I did get physical with them. They were both found guilty and attempted to sue me for "pain and suffering". If it weren't for SYG, my house would now belong to 2 scumbag punks. With the old laws, I would have been required to cower in my house and by the time the police arrived; they would have been gone and would have gotten away with it. So what y'all are saying is: I should be a victim. My reply: Get bent!
Defending yourself is one thing, but killing an innocent teenage boy who's in his own neighborhood, out to buy some Skittles and an Iced Tea then tracking the kid down, following him, and then killing him is NOT what I'd call "self defense".
TO: COYOTEHUNTER who wrote:
Bull___! Keep your backward laws to yourselves and QUIT trying to impose your crap on everybody!
Republicans really don't understand what "imposing themselves on OUR freedoms" means!
Who the heck do you think you are trying to run the entire country based on ignorance!
It's just like Republicans who want to waive their own rights to try to waive everybody else's too!
Mind your own business, and impose your backwards ways on your next door neighbor, NOT on the entire country!
So criminals are free to harm you, however you are not free to defend yourself?
It seems the only freedom you want to allow Republicans to have is to work hard and make money so that we pay taxes to subsidize the programs for those that don't want to work.
How was zimmerman the attacker? He was only following trayvon. Last time I checked the only thing you're doing wrong when you're doing that is stalking someone.
He was instigating an attack. You stalk someone at night, their gut reaction is that YOU are a rapist, mugger, kidnapper, murder, or some other crimminal. They feel threatened by YOU, the stalker. They feel that their life is in danger from YOU, the stalker. They will defend themselves from YOU, the unknown and potential deadly stalker.
This law lets the stalker kill his victims, when the victims try to defend themselves. It is a "get out of jail free" card for any mugger or stalker.
Look, without this Law, we would be in this same place. Without this law, the police would have arrested Zimmerman and a trial or hearing would be held to determine if he was defending himself or not. As it should be, there were no witnesses other than Zimmerman and the young man who is dead, so the proper way is to let the courts decide. With this law, we are just taking Zimmermans word for it that it was self defense and the police are making an on site determination that he is innocent. I dont know about you, and I have a ton of respect for police , but I dont always believe that is enough. There were enough questions surrounding the incident for it to progress to the level it has. Bottom line, if he can prove self defense, then he will go free, but it will be decided in a court of law, not by a couple of cops on the street. We all have the right to defend ourselves and no one is saying that should not be allowed, that is crazy. But I agree wholeheartedly with previous comments about someone starting a fight, realizing they are in over thier head, and deciding to use lethal force, cause they are DEFENDING themselves, kinda a lot potential for abuse, dont ya think.
They both were probably thugging each other ,one just happen to have a gun.
Nice spelling. And first off You stalk someone at night you don't attack them for the first thing you do unless you have a guilty conscious. (Trust someone who has had experience with that too. I got in a lot of trouble for supposedly stalking my girlfriend in my car because she didn't know I drove.) you turn around and yell at them to leave you alone or ask them what you want.
TheWhiteJudge:
Why persist with this bold faced lie when you know a prosecution witness heard Zimmerman approach and engage Trayvon with questions? That's more than following him.
Wishful think and ignore the inconvenient evidence if you must though -George won't have that luxury in court. Thank God. So continue your childish lies -won't help George though. He's going to Prison.
TheWhiteJudge: Ha-ha!!! WOW!!!! You have EXPERIENCE AS A STALKER OF WOMEN!!! WOW!
You supposedly stalked your girlfriend? And got in a lot of trouble for it?
Wow!!! No wonder you are a Zimmerman fan -he's one too.
We're getting stronger laws to catch guys like you and Zimmie -damn stalkers.
He stalks Black Kids and you stalk women -you both belong in Prison.
I'm not zimmerman fan perry. And I was in someone elses car so she didn't know it was me. And besides what evidence do you have that over looks the polices evidence that even stated that he had started asking questions or even drew the gun before treyvon attacked? If I remember right the only person he talked to before the event unfolded like it did was 911.
TheWhiteJudge:
Well you seem to be rooting for him pretty heavily; probably because you are both proud stalkers.
Ah, you changed cars so she wouldn't know you were stalking her? Thank God you got in a lot of trouble for it; obviously not enough though because you are not even ashamed of it. Are you registered as a stalker of women? Aren't there laws requiring you to be in your state?
Your Zimmie comment above I don't understand. Please clarify it for me -I only have a high shcool diploma not a crystal ball. So please simplify what you are saying in that comment.
Well the car thing is really inaccurate because I never owned a car when me and Sasha were dating. And I'm not rooting for him there is a strong line that separates self defence and manipulating a law to your own advantage. He chose to manipulate it. But I only follow police evidence. I've never taken a side in this whole Zimmerman case.
I was young and stupid three years ago it was meant as a simple prank. And I'm not registered as a stalker but I am registered as a car thief. (The law seems scary but I think Sasha's rage is a lot worse.) And I never said that I wasn't ashamed of my actions. I had actually beaten myself up for doing that. I still do to this day and I will always beat myself up for it. No matter how much you apologize for something like that it never seems adequate.
So... let me get this straight... a Republican politician sets up a panel. A Democratic politician sets up a panel. The GOP traditionally supports rights of gun-owners and the legal use of firearms. The Democrats traditionally support gun control measures and increasing restrictions on their use across a wide range of situations.
Yep, we should expect a bi-partisan plan to improve the Stand Your Ground law.
Sarcasm aside, does anyone think that either group is not going to have an underlying political agenda to base their "report" on?
Perhaps if both panels were forced (by public pressure) to merge and present a unified set of recommendations............
A voice of reason. We are more polarized in this country than we have ever been.
...........Or, maybe leave the law alone since the people voted for it.
What makes lawmakers think they can override the will of the people? These clowns were elected, they are not our overlords. Leave the law alone.
“thou shall not kill”.ever heard that before? Sure the republicans are being slow to amend this law, because they have to wait for the NRA, to tell them what to do. I don't think I will ever go nor vacation in Florida ever agains. Boycott Florida, and all states with loony laws. A state of loonies, who don't now seem to believe in the Ten Commandments? Guess the NRA has its own Bible to quote from.
It's properly translated "thou shall not murder", not "thou shalt not kill". There's a difference.
I don't particularly care about that, except for the Jim Gaffigan version:
Mary: Joseph?
Joseph: Yes?
Mary: You know how I'm a virgin?
Joseph: YES....
Mary: Well, I'm pregnant.
Joseph: Jesus Christ!
Mary: Oh, you know about it?
@jw101...Nobody voted for this law.
@Rusty
You rarely get to vote for bills directly, that's why you vote for representatives.
And that would be my point. Hijacked by special interests. The NRA specifically. Bought and paid for!
Once again, the Democrats are going to save US. Thanks for all your help but I wish you would find a better victim who needs saving. It is so sickening listening to the SHEEP of the country. And one fairy tale even said, "don't put yourself in the position of having to defend yourself" Are you kidding me??? Do all the people who are in a bank or even better, inside a McDonalds when a gunman walks in and starts shooting, there because they knew it would happen?? Democrats, phlug.
I'll read the actual report, and it may change my initial impression, but I don't much care for the "reasonable person" approach. What if I see a robber shoot a clerk in a convenince store and then threaten a patron. Would a reasonable person run into the store and shoot the robber? I think not. But that person would normally be called a hero. Under the recommendation, a grand jury would have to say that the action was not what a reasonable person would do, and the HERO would be tried for battery or homicide. I hope they really think this through.
Stupid is as stupid does. what if the person was in the store when it was being robbed, and had a gun, and he pulled his gun and shot the robber?
An armed resonable person WOULD shoot the robber/murderer. An unarmed resonable person who sees it would call the cops
Things might have changed in the past 4 years since I have payed attention to poltics, but last I checked democrats hate citizen heros, but when one happens to come along, they tend to at all for them just to look good. I might be wrong nowadays, so that is why I am trying to study up on who is who and what they stand for, as I will be able to vote this presidential election.
Stand Your Ground threw both Zimmerman AND Martin under the bus by letting local-yokel cops make a decision of guilt or innocence outside of a court of law. If your loved one either was killed or killed someone, would YOU trust a legal decision to the local police officers, who are untrained in the finer points of the legal system, after nothing more than an "initial investigation"? Or in a situation where there was only one survivor... and that survivor was the perpetrator?
"Innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW." That means, for you Zimmerman supporters, that his guaranteed innocence as would have existed IN A COURT OF LAW was erased. For you Martin supporters, that meant that due process was denied the family of Trayvon Martin in the taking of a life.
This law needs to go away. Plain and simple. It is unconstitutional and unfair to both parties involved in an incident such as this.
Due process was rendered BEFORE all the professional racists and far left wing nut jobs got into the act.
I have read the Castle Doctrine, witch Fl has also. SYG just goes feather. The law as I understand it says that the police make the call on the spot. The Law says that the police can not arrest the shooter if there is't prof of wrong doing. There was no prof that Zimmerman did anything wrong. That is why the police couldn't arrest Zimmerman, According to the law he didn't do anything wrong.
Ahhh, Jackoff, I see, since its "unfair" its not a good law...
RDG6 you are one to talk about racism. But then you said professional raicst, you are just a amatuer....... lol. You only have strength on the web with your thuggery. Most likely a weak little man broke other than money for internet so you can watch horse porn. Some brother must have boned your ex wife because you have a lot of pent up rage against blacks. Small penis, big mouth. Ric Grenell could use your services.
I hope one day you have to use your hands to defend yourself. I am sure you were weak and bullied your entire life because its pay back time here on the web and you are really fighting it out big boy.
Kudos to your mom for at least trying to abort you. How did you surive?
StandUpJokeOff
I seem to have missed that in the Constitution... I didn't see where victims received due process... only the accused. The legal system is meant to seek justice and is supposed to be blind.
trust_verify:
You didn't miss anything -you know full well that according to Zimmerman Trayvon was a burglary suspect, that's why he called the police and reported him as such, then followed him as such; tried, judged convicted and executed him -all without any Due Process Rights being extended to the kid.
The kid's constitutional rights were deprived here; the family will handle that later though.
Zimmerman did seem to be judgmental. Search news for "Zimmerman's 2005 MySpace page" Lots of crude remarks. It's breaking news being reported only by newspapers at this point.
why did they hide the myspace photo's on trayvons page of the flashing gang signs ? actually Rap music needs to be outlawed, giving all the stupid teenagers ghetto ideas !!!
Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, Nothing but another Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson. Totally useless.
Just another political opportunist coming out from under a rock.
Exactly, this moron is trying nothing more than to see if he can further his career with another circus.
how many times has he been arrested ?
Stand your ground in principle is not a bad law. Hunting someone down, provoking them and then shooting them becasue you have a gun..., and they don't..., is criminal.
When this happens it will be addressed! So far it has not happened. If you imply it happened in Zimmermans case then you are either stupid, rac ist are just a trouble maker! Now if you KNOW your post is FACT you need to drop what you are doing and report your EVIDENCE to the police! If you are just speculating-then shut the fu c k up!
With the possible exception of the word choice "hunting", for which I would have substituted "pursuing" (but that's a trivial matter of semantics), everything else Dougie stated are well known FACTS supported by numerous recorded telephone calls.
While a little dramatic, his version of the events is basically correct. Maybe you should "Shut the F up".
"But in order to make sure we have a just, legal and safe society I still believe that the Legislature should act soon and make sure we clarify how we should live in a civilized society." Does that mean he will also push for laws that criminalize placing a bounty asking for the death of a person and advertising it publically? What about a just, legal and safe society for the targets of the NBP? Don't get me wrong, any time armed and unarmed individuals have an encounter and the armed person comes out alive, there should be close scrutiny. But this just screams selective enforcement, election year politics, and divisiveness. It seems that justice is also a casualty here.
As usually the Democrats failed to read a bill and do not understand the stand your ground law, until they can properly understand the current law they should not be suggesting changes to it. Gee you would think Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale would at least read the law and understand it, maybe he is not the correct person to represent FT Lauderdale! I am not surprised by the current croup of Progressive Democrats and their lack of wanting to support the constitution or our laws as they are following President Obama, Harry no bill will pass ever and of course Nancy Pelosi, AstroTurf Nancy.
I support the 2nd amendment, concealed carry, and stand your ground laws, but these laws have been abused by the paranoid few who go out looking for trouble. I'm so sorry it's come to this, but I'm siding with the democrats here. Until everyone with a gun can show maturity, we have to have restrictions.
The Second Amendment has no restrictions about "maturity".
So you would advocate that kids should be allowed to carry guns to school?
In the 70s-80s, my high school had a shooting range in the basement, and kids would do just that. We even had a competition shooting team.
So you would return to the Jim Crow "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" laws that Stand Your Ground replaced?
Some scary people here!
UChi Student: I'm glad you support us Democrats, who, by the way, support the right to shoot someone in defense of a deadly attack. The radicals who oppose that right are not real Democrats.
Jo-An
You are one of the scariest with your know-it-all-attitude that is quite opposite of what an eyewitness at the scene said. Libbies have been "spinning" for so long that they think that everyone is to believe them no matter what eyewitness experts have sworn to.
RDG6 Not all Libbies are against this law. Like all laws its not perfect. Show me a law that is. I think the problem is that when we do a law like this, It goes to far, They over correct. A lot of laws do that. They take so long to get a law on the books. Maybe we need to come back to the center a bit.
The law itself - in concept - is common sense. However, as written, the idea that someone can just say "well, it was self defense" and as long as there are no other witnesses or contrary information, they can skate free, is the problem. Smith's suggestions....
"Smith’s panel didn't call for a repeal of the law. Instead, it unanimously recommended that cases of people claiming self-defense under Stand Your Ground be presented to a grand jury to determine what a “reasonable" person would do in the situation. It also called for educating the public and law enforcement; creating a system to track self-defense claims in the state; and adding language requiring “imminent” danger."
....are generally quite reasonable and should be applied. Don't know if it is the perfect fix, but it is a start.
Charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree was a stretch - I don't think he'll get that based on the evidence. But manslaughter - yeah, that fits and he'll get that.
First you implied Zimmerman "skated free", then you acknowledge he's up for murder. Which is it?
The law needs to be enacted across the entire U.S. - promoted and followed correctly. The flaw in the law is the disconnection with carry permits and training. Anyone that carries a gun needs extensive training in retention and what is called the continumm of force. We will [probably] find out through the court system that GZ lost control of the weapon in the scuffle which resulted in his having to use it. Getting into a hand to hand fight with a weapon results in one of two events... loss of weapon [you get shot] or loss and [regain] of weapon [they get shot] and in both cases someone is going to have to answer for it in court. Neighborhood watch citizens should never be allowed to carry... and they should always work in pairs. Camera and phones are their defenses. People who carry weapons better sit up and pay attention to this case as GZ could do serious time... and if he doesn't there will be social consequences and unrest resulting in more shootings and death.
I wonder whether GZ pulled his gun before or after he had a reasonable expectation of great bodily harm or death.
I know - let's mandate that all guns be equipped with functional muzzle-cams so that we'll be much more likely to know what actually happened.
Stupid-is-as-stupid-does:
Hey, that's neither stupid nor all that far fetched. I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.
So honest people should be required to either surrender or flee from criminals and/or attackers, and only to defend themselves if there is no other alternative? Is that what we want for "the home of the free and the land of the brave"? Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned, but I rather doubt that most Americans are desirous of the type of society some of these "leave everything to the government" types seem to want ...
A reasonable person who was having their head bashed against the pavement would shoot to defend themselves.
A reasonable person would have listened to the instructions of the 911 operator and would have broken off pursuit.
Why didn't Martin have the right to defend himself? He was 100 feet from his front door and turned to defend his homestead. Zimmerman had witnessed no crime and had no legal reason to believe Martin was there to commit a crime. I realize he was only visiting his soon to be step mother but my point is still valid. This happens when you live in fear. Did any of you read Mr. Zimmerman reason for having a CWP? It was to shoot his neighbors dogs which he claimed where vicious.
economykiller:
Too bad more than one witness saw ole Zimmie and the kid struggling on the grass before the shot rang out. If his head had been banged on the pavement it certainly was not happening when Zimmie shot him. There's witnesses to that -another thing ole Zimmie's handcuffed his lawyer to contend with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcH1B20oW9A&feature=relmfu
The democraps say to elderly gentleman 86 years old who had to shoot two punks, who along with 3 friends tried to rob and beat him. Well you should of tried to run first!!!!!!!!! Yea O>K> this old gentleman is supposed to RUN from punks in their early twenties and late teens! Just how d a m far do you think he would get??? These far-left jokers are almost not human!!!
Along with the right to "stand your ground", or even carry a concealed weapon, comes the obligation to use that right wisely. Gun education is the safest way to get across what is right and what is not. Just as we have driver's education we should have educational classes on appropriate behavior, and for carrying of concealed weapons a standardized educational program nation wide.
They can change the law if they want to, it doesn't change anything. They can say that you have no right to defend yourself, that doesn't mean that you have no right to defend yourself. They can tell you that if you are attacked in the streets that you must run away and hope you are faster than your attacker. When it comes down to it, every person has the right to defend themselves, whether in their homes, or wherever they may be. However, with that comes responsibility, if a person uses lethal force when it was not called for then that is murder and should be prosecuted as such.
They won't change the law to say you can't defend yourself. They will make it clear, that you can't "profile, follow, confront, and kill" and then claim self defense!
SYG doesn't say anything to the contrary right now.
@Jo-Ann
The activities you just outlined are already illegal.
Self appointed guardians of 'justice'. It couldn't have been any more biased if sharpton and Jackson were the co-chairs!!!
Yea, a panel formed entirely of people who voted against the law the first time around. Not exactly an objective group of people doing an unbiased evaluation of the law.
"Hand guns are made for killin'
They ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like to drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some ol' fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me"
-Lynyrd Skynyrd
Lets see - I'll take advice on self defense from a bunch of drunk stoner millionaires who contribute nothing to society singing songs they didn't write to take meth addicts money - and who travel with hired bodyguards (with handguns).
The anti gun activists are using the Martin case as their new ralley call since Holders Fast & Furious failed to generate the basis for new gun regulation. The Stand your ground has reduced crime in Florida and has enabled innocent law abiding citizens to protect their persons and property from those who have no respect for lives or the homes they invade. When a criminal knows that the house he may be entering has an armed citizen within, he thinks twice before knocking down the door. Too, remove the guns and the criminal elements will use screw drivers and bats to kill and harm citizens they prey upon. Democrat's are the least qualified to be brining suggestions for changing Stand Your Ground Laws. They are the very ones who want to impose Obama's socialist rule upon America and that requires first of all the disarming of the citizens who may rise up against such slavery ideology.
Actually the rate of justifiable homocide has increased. Not all of those homocides should have been justifiable but they met the letter of the law. Now if the criminal leaves you dead and calls the cops they stand a good chance under this law of getting off. They need only proove they had reason to fear harm. Crimnals are smarter than you give credit and prisons are just training grounds. Now instead of being robbed or raped, they will make sure they kill you and claim self defense.
Score one for the bad guys.
patriotson,
NOT TRUE!
According to data provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, examples of the rise in cases of justifiable homicide in states that have passed “shoot first” laws include:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2012/04/mayor-bloomberg-end-stand-your-ground-laws
Thank you Jo-
I do not understand your post. Is not "justifiable homicide" a legal defense in a court of law or is the term used for manslaughter in Florida?
Justifyable homicide is not a crime. The statistics you provided just go to show that the previous Jim Crow "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" laws were flawed. Do you support returning to the previous Jim Crow gun laws?
ken-2082649
Clearly it's a term used to incite and disguise Murder and Manslaughter. I'll let KennyFreeThinker explain:
Jo-s numbers concur:
So yes, it directly incited more crime -even if disguised under Justifiable Homicide abuse.
patriotson: And I do not see how anyone can measure a reduction in crime that's attributable to Justifiable Homocide?
How is that measured? Still waiting on your answer to that Patriotson.
Included in this number have been cases where actual gang members fired upon rival gangs leaving some dead, but it is now considered not a crime so long as the other gang shot first or threatened harm. Used to be a time it was illegal to be a participant in gang warfare on either side. Ah ...... SYG!! Works not just for the law abiding, but criminals as well.
@Jo-an So you cite one example of an increase in a specific type of crime. What Patriotson was trying to explain to you is that crime OVERALL is down in Florida which is true, but you ignored his statement and tried spin it to fit your rant.
"Justifiable Homicide" is not a crime! Murder is a crime. The fact that you can't comprehend the difference is the reason I don't want you determining whether or not I should be allowed to defend myself. Liberal jackasses, Can't live with em, they don't want you to live if you have to defend yourself to do it.
Roscoe2u,
Violent crimes started dropping in Florida is 2000, so it's not "because of the SYG law"
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/mar/23/dennis-baxley/crime-rates-florida-have-dropped-stand-your-ground/
Jo-An-4354969:
Fine Job Jo -
Chirp, chirp...silence.
Murdering somebody while abusing and hiding behind the ill-concieved "Justifiable Homicide" rules is still Murder too. And you don't want to comprehend that.
Running people down and blasting them is MURDER, whether under the guise of this law or not.
Kevin S:
EXCELLENT!! Another excellent argument against SYG, and this JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE FOOLISHNESS!
Fine job Kev!!! Fine job.
patriotson:
Please show how that was measured, and by whom?
chirp, chirp...
LOL...Hyena here!
Chirp, chirp; then silenced when challenged. Wait a while and chirp, chirp the same foolishness they failed to defend when asked the first time.
Crickets -get'em Hyena!!!!
He hasn't been online since he posted that. Oh wait I'm reasoning with two complete idiots what use is there in pointing something out to them.
TheWhiteJudge
Well you are here speaking for him -so why don't you answer the question instead of chirp, chirping?
Here's his outrageous lie and my question again (the 3rd time):
patriotson:
Please show how that was measured, and by whom?
Do you have an answer TheWhiteJudge, or not?
Until then....chirp, chirp, chirp. That's what idiots like you and Patriotson are driven too. Silence on the hard questions. All you've done is add another chirper to the one we already had. Thanks.
Mrperryrice...LOL
:)
Hi Jo-
Did you check out Kevin S's post above concerning how criminals other are protected by the SYG rule??!!
I missed his post until just now -GANG BANGERS even abuse the law and hide behind it for protection -YIKES!!!
Trust me I'm not saying that it's reduced crime there because if you look at the statistics crime has risen. I think the law should be fixed but not removed.
Oh and I'm an idiot for pointing something out to you two ignorant morons? I had been elsewhere after I posted that statement up there. Yes patriot is an idiot but he's always been like that so what can't a man spew what he believes whenever and wherever he wants. Oh but where he got his statistics were from wikipedia because it says the same thing there. Thing is being impatiant for an answer like you two were for those days only proved how childish you acted. I never realized you two had commented after I said that until someone pointed it out to me. You know why? I don't live on this place. I'll open up four or five tabs say my peace and leave.
TheWhiteJudge:
Humm, you might not be so bad for a stalker after all -for you there's hope.
Thanks; but how do you know? Can you provide a link or title so I can find and see for myself? I'd like to see how they measured it to come about that conclusion. Do you know?
There's the link. The lie is under the Effects on crime rate section.
Well that's not right I had a link right above that post. Let's try that again this time just the link though.
Drop the http: and perhaps the www as well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
What would I do without you verify?
I think every concealed and unconcealed law should be amended. The language of stand your ground is fine. Some people call it the castle doctrine. Both authorize deadly force to counter deadly force and Martin presented no deadly threat except in the mind of a coward. George will find that out when they drop the gavel on him. The amendment should require anyone carrying deadly weapons to have, at the ready, a nonleathal alternative. All the people I know are carrying strobing LED flashlights. They almost negate the need for a firearm. You can't come near me or look in my direction when I have it trained on you. It is the best self protection made so far and is much more dependable than sprays, and more utilitarian than TAZER type products. It simply disorients an attacker. They can't even look at you to fire a weapon at you. But wheather Mace, pepperspray, stunngun, or my light, CCW carriers should be required to have an alternative like cops are required to do.
If a person breaks the law for Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground then they get charged with Manslaughter or 2nd Degree Murder. Don't change the laws, let the police and the courts do their job.
Haroldwolf:
They didn't in Zimmerman's case. Took all this hoopla -adjust the laws to better clarify who it does not cover.
They didn't do their job in the O.J. case either so what's your point????
Roscoe2u
Thank you -the laws need to be changed to chatch these murderers, and not free them.
That's my point -you even help me make it by mentioning OK's slithering away. Thanks.
Adjust the laws.
State Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale is as left leaning as they come. His agenda is to undo this law so less brothers are killed in the commission of crimes.
"less brothers are killed in the commission of crimes"....right, maybe if more "brothers" would stop committing crimes there would be less"brothers" killed...
that makes perfect sense !!!