Good for SYG laws!!!!!!!!!!
This is a discussion on "Stand Your Ground law saved my life" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Florida Jury deliberated 3 minutes... Not guilty. Story here: http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content...fF-7g8iOQ.cspx This is not an attack on SYG, so I don't think it belongs in the ...
Florida Jury deliberated 3 minutes... Not guilty.
Story here: http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content...fF-7g8iOQ.cspx
This is not an attack on SYG, so I don't think it belongs in the other thread, but mods: move it if you wanna.
And, it appears to be a real SYG case, though self defense is mentioned...
Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
It could be worse!
Good for SYG laws!!!!!!!!!!
NOT LIVING IN FEAR, JUST READY!!!
I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness,
nor the arrow for its swiftness,
nor the warrior for his glory.
I love only that which they defend.
Nice post-nice result.
If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Strange. If it was so crystal clear to twelve "peers," then why on earth couldn't the DA have understood it as well, at the point when charges were being considered? It's not as though the SYG statute is that unclear.
Been to the Pier several times...surprised you brought you "heater" to the Pier...you just not have been patronizing any drinking establishments....glad it worked out for you....
Re SYG laws, there is so much hype and so much misinformation bandied about by the news media.
When I took my LFI-1 course in the early 90's, Massachusetts law still required that a homeowner had a duty to retreat if he was attacked in his own home - there was NO affirmative defense for the use of deadly force within your own domicile. (Mas lived in NH and was familiar with laws in the northeastern states; I was a MA property owner, so I took note.) Correcting the unbalance of that kind of misguided law is what SYG laws are all about. Sadly, the ignoramuses blabbing on TV seem (as well as some legislators) seem to think SYG/castle doctrine laws are "vigilante empowerment" laws.
NRA Endowment Member
NROI Chief Range Officer
Looks like he realized what most of us already know: violent crime can spring up anytime, anywhere.Originally Posted by From the article
A "pier" seems like a nice little cul-de-sac from which there is little chance of escape from assailants, short of jumping into the ocean. That mere fact might well embolden some of the more-brazen sorts. And, as with any other venue of the sort, it can attract a younger, more-athletic, more-hormonal type of visitor than some venues might otherwise tend to do. Ya never know.
ccw9's comment is the real deal .... with a case this clear, why did the DA prosecute it anyway? Unless maybe he's pro-gun and wanted to make a point. This guy should not have been on trial IMO.
I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
1 Thess. 5:16-18
In such a clear case as this one appears to be, it might well just be the typical case of being the one left standing, in a county with a zealot DA who dislikes people "taking the law into their own hands" ... even those who are bloodied and left for dead in the gutter.
to take responsibility for the outcome and get accused during his next campaign of failure to prosecute. It is safer
to bring it to trial and let the blame go somewhere else. In states which use a Grand Jury the DA can use the GJ
to no-bill and that protects him. At election time he tells everyone, "I brought that shooting to the GJ and they no
billed it. Never mind that I can indict a ham sandwich, your peers didn't think there was a case."
Lots of states somehow sidestep the need for a GJ and the responsibility falls on the DA; his safest course
is to let it go to trial. Its the legal equivalent of "shoot 'em all and let G-d sort 'em out."
It sems a bit odd that the guy would allow himseld to be beaten bloody and then pull his gun. Not many details in the article, but that is how it reads. Jim
1911 responds much quicker than 911
Confused: was the guy with a gun also the guy who got beaten down, or was he a 3rd party who saved the guy who got beaten down?
Here is (believe it or not) an unbiased examination of Castle Doctrine (that also touches on SYG) from the Harvard Journal On Legislation from 2010. It does a very good job of tracing the English Common Law antecedents of Castle Doctrine, how they were adopted in the US and how Castle Doctrine was expanded outside the home into SYG laws. The author also notes that the common MSM view that Castle and SYG is a Left/Right issue is wrong. He says it is really a Libertarian/Statist issue, with the Libertarians of course favoring CL and SYG
Last edited by bklynboy; July 27th, 2013 at 12:30 PM.