First salvo at the “Stand Your Ground” law. - Page 3

First salvo at the “Stand Your Ground” law.

This is a discussion on First salvo at the “Stand Your Ground” law. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; IMHO, I don't see how FL's law is at variance with Common Law on self defense. See: Lisa J. Steele's great write-up on Defending the ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61
Like Tree49Likes

Thread: First salvo at the “Stand Your Ground” law.

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    IMHO, I don't see how FL's law is at variance with Common Law on self defense.

    See: Lisa J. Steele's great write-up on Defending the Self-Defense Case @ Defending the Self-Defense Case and on a goodly number of Pro Self Defense sites.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array xXxplosive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,817
    Well.....Sharpton the antagonist is now there.........told ya, they always gotta play the Race Card......Sad that this is what it always comes down to.
    Not the facts or let the investigation carry on it's course by the professionals.....but Federal Investigators, Constitutional Rights Are Violated and the All Mighty Race Card...........what a show.

    Let justice prevail.............

  3. #33
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by bolocanolo View Post
    Bigmacque.....One scenario you didn't cover. What if Zimmerman get's tried and acquitted? If you've lived in Florida as long as I have, you have to remember the Riots (in Miami) of the 1980's. Because this news has gone nationwide, the civil unrest may be nationwide. What do we do then? Innocent people were killed in those riots, just because they found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    First of all, I believe the law is written so a reasonable person could understand it. It has become pretty standard procedure these days for people to define the meaning of words to suit their own agenda. Bill Clinton wrote the book on this and the media has read it chapter and verse. The wording and context of "confrontation, aggressor and provoking" are the crux of the matter and clearly stated. If civil unrest occurs and innocent citizens are killed or injured as a result of riots, the blame should be laid at the feet of the media and no place else! They are blowing this case all out of proportion, acting the judge, jury and executioner without any solid facts. Hearsay and circumstantial evidence, lack of credible witnesses and playing the race card is going to get somebody lynched and the media is shoveling the coal on the fire. This is a prime example of freedom of the press run amok!
    DaveH likes this.

  4. #34
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,880
    bolocanolo, I do remember those riots well, it was nasty.

    I like Lisa Steele's commentary on defending self-defense. It's very possible that the law itself is in the way -- if it's truly self-defense, then even without the stand your ground law people should be able to get a fair and square say at trial. And if it's truly not self-defense, then when the facts come out and a jury deems someone guilty of manslaughter or worse, then the law did it's job.

    What if Z is acquitted? Then we may well have some humongous riots, and here's the deal with that: the cause of those riots need to rest squarely on the shoulders of every media pundit that fanned these flames, on the shoulders of any person with notoriety that has made it a point to get on television and mouth off about the injustice of it all, and on the shoulders of the sheep that followed them. I'll protect myself and my family.

    I cannot tell you how much I despise our media. Loaded language in on-air reports and in print, biased attitudes that don't even grasp their own peril at stake, a pure profit motive when it comes to 'reporting' the news. It's sickening. The right to a free press and the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms ..... are all heavy rights that we Americans share with almost no one else in the world. And with great freedom comes great responsibility. The media is not responsible, nor held accountable for their actions. If Z is found guilty of manslaughter, then he was not responsible with his freedom and should be held accountable. And if he is held accountable, then even the pro-gun guys like us should stand up and shout 'hallelujah': the system works just as it should.

    So much is at stake, and even the media doesn't understand the great risk they're taking by pushing for gun bans, more gun restrictions, tighter gun control. With that little freedom out of the way, who's to say the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press cannot also become more restricted, under tighter control and in many cases outright banned? But they press on, trying Z, trying the SyG law, trying the state of Florida as a bunch of hicks and hooligans -- never mind that more than half of our population came here from the midwest and northeast, we could not possibly be as refined and educated as those that still live in the frozen North.

    Our media is at fault here. This needs to play out, and if it does play out the media MUST be held accountable in how they report on it, how they present the FACTS.
    bolocanolo likes this.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array xXxplosive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,817
    I mostly agree..........but this case should not be swayed....IMO.... by media bias, racial bias, federal governmental bias or the threat of civil unrest unless they get what they want.
    IMO......this BS has to be halted......let justice prevail.
    rigel42, msgt/ret and DaveH like this.

  6. #36
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,935
    The media certainly shares blame, but if there is a riot, those engaging in the riot need to be the ones held accountable and be blamed. Should such a thing occur, I too will protect myself and mine. As a whole, though, we can let the threat of riot control us or govern our actions.

    With regards to the media, some mechanism to keep truth in news needs to be put in place. What form or forms this mechanism is needs to be determined, but it is clearly out of control and being used as a tool of influence.

    Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

  7. #37
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,880
    Here's a thought. If you can read it to the end, you'll be treated to a pearl.

    On Trayvon, race and being Christian
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  8. #38
    VIP Member Array xXxplosive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,817
    Can we leave the religious zealots out of this also................read it.
    If anyone here is acquainted with the facts of this case.....there was a point where Z was walking back to his car after he lost site of T.....that's when the confrontation happened.....was he blind sided by T or ambushed ? We don't know yet.....but let the LE professional do their work.
    IMO............the religious finatics are as bad at the uncivil rights activists.
    No Thanks...

    I commend the Sanford Police Dept. for not acting out of haste in making an arrest untill they are sure that laws were broken....it's under investigation.

  9. #39
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by GunGeezer View Post
    First of all, I believe the law is written so a reasonable person could understand it. It has become pretty standard procedure these days for people to define the meaning of words to suit their own agenda. Bill Clinton wrote the book on this and the media has read it chapter and verse. The wording and context of "confrontation, aggressor and provoking" are the crux of the matter and clearly stated. If civil unrest occurs and innocent citizens are killed or injured as a result of riots, the blame should be laid at the feet of the media and no place else! They are blowing this case all out of proportion, acting the judge, jury and executioner without any solid facts. Hearsay and circumstantial evidence, lack of credible witnesses and playing the race card is going to get somebody lynched and the media is shoveling the coal on the fire. This is a prime example of freedom of the press run amok!
    You are exactly right sir.
    The media appears to be the worst enemy of freedom, and our Constitution.

    If you think back to 2008, The media was trying so hard to sway the election, they kept "harping" on the economy, and how bad it was.
    In reality, at the time the housing market was down, otherwise our economy was pretty strong. The media kept on and kept on with the bad economy until they actually scared the American public. People stopped spending, and began holding on to their money, resulting in the worst recession since the "Great Depression".
    The responsibility for last three years of financial gloom and doom rests squarely on the shoulders of the media.

    Now look what their sensationalizing of this tragedy is doing/causing. This could very well bring about "race riots" like we saw back in the mid to late 60's.
    When I truly don't think the core of this whole tragedy was racial.

    We could end up with GOOD LAW being repealed or re-written for no good reason at all. Law that took years and years of work to get in place.

    Anything for greed, fame and ratings.

    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  10. #40
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,001
    I don't see anything wrong with the FL CD/SYG law. I suspect its author is either 1) uninformed on the actual facts in the Z/T case, 2) in CYA mode and acting like a pol or 3) both.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  11. #41
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,001
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmacque View Post
    I like Lisa Steele's commentary on defending self-defense. It's very possible that the law itself is in the way -- if it's truly self-defense, then even without the stand your ground law people should be able to get a fair and square say at trial. And if it's truly not self-defense, then when the facts come out and a jury deems someone guilty of manslaughter or worse, then the law did it's job.
    I agree that, in a perfect world, taking a shooting to a jury should give a proper outcome. BUT, there are several issues with this as follows:

    1. Most people cannot afford to hire a good criminal defense attorney
    2. Even if you can afford the criminal attorney, you will then have to hire a civil lawyer as if the CD law is removed, so is civil immunity
    3. A jury trial is not about finding the truth, it is a drama and the best actor usually wins
    4. There are other factors best left unmentioned

    Now, if you defend you castle in the middle of the night in a clear cut case of self defense - I mean a slam dunk case - do you want to go broke because the authroities have to take you to trial even though they know what happened and that you acted responsibly? Or a worse outcome would be going to jail because you could not afford a competent defense.

    Finally, ask youself this. Do you think Zimmerman could actually get a fair trial at this point?
    bigmacque likes this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  12. #42
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by GunGeezer View Post
    First of all, I believe the law is written so a reasonable person could understand it. It has become pretty standard procedure these days for people to define the meaning of words to suit their own agenda. Bill Clinton wrote the book on this and the media has read it chapter and verse. The wording and context of "confrontation, aggressor and provoking" are the crux of the matter and clearly stated. If civil unrest occurs and innocent citizens are killed or injured as a result of riots, the blame should be laid at the feet of the media and no place else! They are blowing this case all out of proportion, acting the judge, jury and executioner without any solid facts. Hearsay and circumstantial evidence, lack of credible witnesses and playing the race card is going to get somebody lynched and the media is shoveling the coal on the fire. This is a prime example of freedom of the press run amok!
    ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

    Absolutely!

    Not only that, but as I said @ # 31, IMHO, I don't see how FL's law is at variance with 400 years of Common Law and case law on self defense. "Reasonableness" can be hard to quantify. However, the basic concept is used in a wide varsity of statutory and case law. IMHO, those claiming "vagueness" just don't like the current case law and/or the FL law's content and/or RKBA. Again, IMHO, no amount of rewriting will cover every case. That's why we have LEO discretion, Prosecutor discretion, and jury trials.

    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
    - John Adams, 1773 (summation in the Boston Massacre case)

    For this century, I'd add a bit to Adams' quote: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our (or other's) wishes, our (or other's) inclinations, or the dictates of our (or other's) passions, they cannot alter the state of facts, as supported by credible witnesses, and evidence, as supported by forensic investigation."
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  13. #43
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,982
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    I agree that, in a perfect world, taking a shooting to a jury should give a proper outcome. BUT, there are several issues with this as follows:

    1. Most people cannot afford to hire a good criminal defense attorney
    2. Even if you can afford the criminal attorney, you will then have to hire a civil lawyer as if the CD law is removed, so is civil immunity
    3. A jury trial is not about finding the truth, it is a drama and the best actor usually wins
    4. There are other factors best left unmentioned

    Now, if you defend you castle in the middle of the night in a clear cut case of self defense - I mean a slam dunk case - do you want to go broke because the authroities have to take you to trial even though they know what happened and that you acted responsibly? Or a worse outcome would be going to jail because you could not afford a competent defense.

    Finally, ask youself this. Do you think Zimmerman could actually get a fair trial at this point?
    So, under your guidelines who would be fit or what conditions would warrant a trial. Sounds like you just trashed our judicial system.
    And yes, I agree it is not a perfect world. But that is why there is a system in place. An appeal process. The arguement that it is too expensive is true. It is also true that our system favors the defendent. And we can not not bring the kid back now can we to testify.

  14. #44
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,880
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    I agree that, in a perfect world, taking a shooting to a jury should give a proper outcome. BUT, there are several issues with this as follows:

    1. Most people cannot afford to hire a good criminal defense attorney
    2. Even if you can afford the criminal attorney, you will then have to hire a civil lawyer as if the CD law is removed, so is civil immunity
    3. A jury trial is not about finding the truth, it is a drama and the best actor usually wins
    4. There are other factors best left unmentioned

    Now, if you defend you castle in the middle of the night in a clear cut case of self defense - I mean a slam dunk case - do you want to go broke because the authroities have to take you to trial even though they know what happened and that you acted responsibly? Or a worse outcome would be going to jail because you could not afford a competent defense.

    Finally, ask youself this. Do you think Zimmerman could actually get a fair trial at this point?
    I totally understand your point(s), and have no problem with agreeing with you in that they are substantial and accurate. But let me ask you this: at this point, what choice do we have? No trial?

    I don't think that will fly. Even if an impartial investigation, that truly leaves no stone unturned, finds that Z and the local LE did everything within the confines of the law, having no trial will be a difficult and bitter pill to swallow.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  15. #45
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    IMO I don't think we will see the law abolished; it's clear that too many people want it because it protects the legal citizen from law suits and criminal actions while they protected themselves in a high stress moment

    What I do see is that they will add amendments to it to keep it from protecting someone like Z that is clearly the aggressor.

    Texas law has these built in places that say just that; you can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor
    suntzu and bigmacque like this.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

fl sygl white men shoot driver shot in the back
,
hold your ground gun law
,

kentucky stand your ground law

,
nc stand your ground law
,
powered by mybb appraisal
,

powered by mybb law

,

powered by mybb legal

,
powered by mybb legal consultation
,
powered by mybb legal tech
,
powered by mybb performance evaluations
,
powered by mybb self performance review
,

stand your ground law research paper

Click on a term to search for related topics.