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; Originally Posted by bolocanolo It's going to get real ugly before its all over. Prepare for civil discourse if Zimmerman does not get indicted. Also ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 61
Like Tree49Likes

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

  1. #46
    Member
    Array rigel42's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by bolocanolo View Post
    It's going to get real ugly before its all over. Prepare for civil discourse if Zimmerman does not get indicted. Also look for politicians to use this incident to change the "stand your ground law". Just like the NAACP and Al Sharpston is using the power of the media to get Zimmerman locked up by mobilizing the people to demonstrate, we must be ready to mobilize ourselves and demonstrate in unity on the streets if they try to repeal this law. The power is in the numbers and even-though the media does not like us, if they see us demonstrating peacefully in the streets for our G-D given right to bare arms, people will take notice. We're part of the silent majority, we can not afford to keep quiet any longer.

    Local news outlets are reporting that the chief of police of the Sanford Police Dept. is temporarily stepping down.
    If we are anybody protest the changes to the SYG law the MSM will position us to be in favor of lynching people. As absolutely insane as that sounds, they will interview people who will use that phrase every chance they get. That is what we are up against.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    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.
    So, are you in favor of repealing the FL CD & SYG laws and forcing all shootings to go to trial? I favor keeping them as written and giving the cops and DA discretion to determine who to prosecute and who does not need prosecution. I don't think justice is served by taking all shooting cases to a jury trial. Further, I agree with the civil immunity when a shooting is found to be just.

    I am not sure what you are refering to when you say I am trashing our legal system. But if it is item 3, I do believe that while finding the truth should be the goal of every trial, judge & DA, we all know that for many DAs it is all about winning at any cost. What is the one quote most people remember from the OJ case - "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit". That was a circus and Cochran was the ring master - and he got his client off. Was justice served in that instance - you be the judge.
    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.

  4. #48
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmacque View Post
    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.
    So what do we do?
    IF and I repeat, IF the investigation reveals that Z acted within his rights under the SD laws of Florida...what then?
    Do we strip someone of his civil rights, and quite possibly his freedom merely to appease a "rabble rousing" media.

    Bitter pill to swallow or not...this ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT come down to our system of justice kow-towing to an internet lynch mob!
    ksholder and bigmacque like this.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  5. #49
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmacque View Post
    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.
    Why should Z be treated any differently than anybody else? If, after complete and exhaustive review, by the local, state and fed authorities finds nothing to bring to trial, i.e., they find no guilt in Z, what would their justification be for trying him?

    I realize that that may be a bitter pill for Big Al and his band of merry agitators to take, but so what? Why should we allow the rabble rousers to control the legal agenda here? If we do, this is starting to sound a lot like another trial in a different time...
    Stubborn 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.

  6. #50
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,820
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    So, are you in favor of repealing the FL CD & SYG laws and forcing all shootings to go to trial? I favor keeping them as written and giving the cops and DA discretion to determine who to prosecute and who does not need prosecution. I don't think justice is served by taking all shooting cases to a jury trial. Further, I agree with the civil immunity when a shooting is found to be just.

    I am not sure what you are refering to when you say I am trashing our legal system. But if it is item 3, I do believe that while finding the truth should be the goal of every trial, judge & DA, we all know that for many DAs it is all about winning at any cost. What is the one quote most people remember from the OJ case - "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit". That was a circus and Cochran was the ring master - and he got his client off. Was justice served in that instance - you be the judge.
    I stand by what I said. You don't trust the jury system and yes, it was from #3 specifically but you did not elaborate on #4:
    4. There are other factors best left unmentioned
    Also:
    Finally, ask youself this. Do you think Zimmerman could actually get a fair trial at this point?
    You seem to think that the DA and LEO's are infallible in shooting cases or you favor thier discretion even if it might be wrong. There would be no way to ascretain that without a trial. And no, I did not say all shootings should go to trial. Just like a vehicular accidents involving death go to trial. But this case does not appear to be a slam dunk in either direction so far. This is a far cry from the situation in Slinger WI.
    Is there a doubt in your mind at all that the idiot (MR. Z) is totally in the right with self defense and has zero responsibility. If you say no then why should it not go to trial.
    As far as immunity from civil prosection I am in favor of that. But in this situation where I feel the the idiot (Mr. Z) is partly responsible for the kids death he should not be immune from a civil trial. Yes, I know that sound contradictory. Why should a shooting be different than any other "accidental" death. Your not immune from a civil liability if you kill someone in your car.

  7. #51
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    So what do we do?
    IF and I repeat, IF the investigation reveals that Z acted within his rights under the SD laws of Florida...what then?
    Do we strip someone of his civil rights, and quite possibly his freedom merely to appease a "rabble rousing" media.

    Bitter pill to swallow or not...this ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT come down to our system of justice kow-towing to an internet lynch mob!
    They will not find him “not guilty” of everything; he clearly violated the right to free movement in a public area for one for which he has no authority to do so.

    This would have never happened if we have one uniformed law covering all of the USA; A system so simple yet so effective. If all men are created equal then why not a law system that treats them so
    bigmacque likes this.

  8. #52
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I stand by what I said. You don't trust the jury system and yes, it was from #3 specifically but you did not elaborate on #4:


    Also:

    You seem to think that the DA and LEO's are infallible in shooting cases or you favor thier discretion even if it might be wrong. There would be no way to ascretain that without a trial. And no, I did not say all shootings should go to trial. Just like a vehicular accidents involving death go to trial. But this case does not appear to be a slam dunk in either direction so far. This is a far cry from the situation in Slinger WI.
    Is there a doubt in your mind at all that the idiot (MR. Z) is totally in the right with self defense and has zero responsibility. If you say no then why should it not go to trial.
    As far as immunity from civil prosection I am in favor of that. But in this situation where I feel the the idiot (Mr. Z) is partly responsible for the kids death he should not be immune from a civil trial. Yes, I know that sound contradictory. Why should a shooting be different than any other "accidental" death. Your not immune from a civil liability if you kill someone in your car.
    See the mod's note on post 1 of this thead. I am not going to get drawn into a discussion on the particulars of Z's case other than to say that I have been clear that I think all the facts need to be determined before any judgements are made. The facts will take us where they take us.

    To your point on #3, I do think that it is more a show than a search for the truth. If this were not so, we would not have the plethora of cases where the DA does not share exculpitory evidence with the defense. Also, when you talk with a cop, anything you say can be used against you, but the cop cannot be called to be a witness for you as he is then relaying hearsay evidence. That is not a hallmark of seeking the truth.
    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.

  9. #53
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,820
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    See the mod's note on post 1 of this thead. I am not going to get drawn into a discussion on the particulars of Z's case other than to say that I have been clear that I think all the facts need to be determined before any judgements are made. The facts will take us where they take us.

    To your point on #3, I do think that it is more a show than a search for the truth. If this were not so, we would not have the plethora of cases where the DA does not share exculpitory evidence with the defense. Also, when you talk with a cop, anything you say can be used against you, but the cop cannot be called to be a witness for you as he is then relaying hearsay evidence. That is not a hallmark of seeking the truth.
    I agree to disagree. And I forgot what thread I was on when I mentioned the previous case
    But I ask you:Why should a ruled justified shooting have immunity when no other cases where death is involved and no charges filed are not immune from liability. A person can be negligent and cause a death and still not break any laws. What your thought on that.

  10. #54
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by barstoolguru View Post
    They will not find him “not guilty” of everything; he clearly violated the right to free movement in a public area for one for which he has no authority to do so.

    This would have never happened if we have one uniformed law covering all of the USA; A system so simple yet so effective. If all men are created equal then why not a law system that treats them so
    None of us have the facts, we don't know what went down that night.
    The version that most of us are getting now, is that Z was following the "kid" and lost him. He was returning to his car when Martin jumped him and started beating him.

    IF that is the way it went down, under Florida law Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself.
    Was it stupid of Z to follow in the first place? Sure, we all agree on that...but was it criminal? I think not.
    As the neighborhood watch Capt. he had the right to follow, or even inquire if Martin had a reason to be there.

    Simply because a 911 operator told him not to follow doesn't "cut it". 911 operators in Florida are not LE. They are merely operators with no more authority than an AT&T telephone operator.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  11. #55
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I agree to disagree. And I forgot what thread I was on when I mentioned the previous case
    But I ask you:Why should a ruled justified shooting have immunity when no other cases where death is involved and no charges filed are not immune from liability. A person can be negligent and cause a death and still not break any laws. What your thought on that.
    In addressing your current question, I assume it is the same as the last point in your prior post which I did not address. A SD shooting is not an accidental death. It is a response to a criminal activity against you that demands an immediate response. Further, death may or may not occur in a SD shooting. I see no benefit to society in letting perps make an industry of gambling on living through home invasions so they can retire to easy street by suing the HO.
    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. #56
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by barstoolguru View Post
    They will not find him “not guilty” of everything; he clearly violated the right to free movement in a public area for one for which he has no authority to do so.

    This would have never happened if we have one uniformed law covering all of the USA; A system so simple yet so effective. If all men are created equal then why not a law system that treats them so
    Stubborn, I know you're right, and I should have completed my communication with what the guru added here: my point is simply this, all the facts need to come out on the table, and if in the end there is something to charge Z with then it needs to come to trial.

    And, to suntzu's note: there should not be immunity. If he even so much as acted negligently, then it should come to trial. But .... Florida's SyG law does offer civil immunities in the right circumstances, and that's what this thread is about, the potential damage to the SyG law. And I do mean damage .... it's a good law, and it's being unfairly tried in the court of public opinion.
    Stubborn and barstoolguru like this.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  13. #57
    VIP Member Array xXxplosive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,687
    fair trial........? So now the POUS is commenting on Fox about this case....saying if he had son he would look like T......more bias....thank you.
    bigmacque likes this.

  14. #58
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,771
    Wow. Just wow.
    Wish I could comment on that without breaking the rules .... JD, stubborn, *OD, the whole gang would be dropping the hammer on me for what I'm thinking.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  15. #59
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,820
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    In addressing your current question, I assume it is the same as the last point in your prior post which I did not address. A SD shooting is not an accidental death. It is a response to a criminal activity against you that demands an immediate response. Further, death may or may not occur in a SD shooting. I see no benefit to society in letting perps make an industry of gambling on living through home invasions so they can retire to easy street by suing the HO.
    Yes, most justifiable shootings are becasue of criminal activity. But not all. Look at the case in Atlanta with the guy shooting the LEO. The cop was not a criminal. Bad decision on the guy that shot him IMO. Either way, the cop was not a criminal. I googled a bunch of cases where it was a mistake but ruled justified. All that means is the shooter did not break a law. Not that they are not responsible. And I of course am not talking about letting a family of an armed robber file a civil suit. There needs to be a line in the law/statute that will define if the guy that got shot was engaged in criminal activity. If not and it was a misunderstanding, bad judgement, what have you then the shooter should not have immunity. I know, that is not a perfect way of saying it. But like Uncle Ben said to Spidey"with great power comes great responsibility". Well, that responsibility should go further than somebody feeling bad about it after the fact in case a person was negligent.

  16. #60
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    There are Lots of good points being brought up and rightfully so. it’s a crying shame that someone had to die to shine light on a law that is suppose to protect the victims of crime and not the guilty.

    I wonder with the law being aired out how many others in the next couple of months are going to use it in their defense?

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

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 arm and hammer jobs
,
powered by mybb arm and hammer logo
,

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

,
stand your ground research paper
Click on a term to search for related topics.