Why is the Left attacking "stand your ground" laws?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Why is the Left attacking "stand your ground" laws?

    Post verdict, there seems to be an attack from the left on the whole concept of "stand your ground" laws. 

    Is this part of the lefts plan to emasculate citizenship in this country and make us dependent on the state?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    Why is "the Right" defending them?

    No law is perfect...made as they are by equally imperfect humans.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    Does that really have to be asked? 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Does that really have to be asked? 




    Apparently, in Matty's world, we just curl up in the fetal position and hope that government shows up in time to save us.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    Does that really have to be asked? 

     




    Apparently, in Matty's world, we just curl up in the fetal position and hope that government shows up in time to save us.

     



    Again, I said nothing of the kind...

    ...so stop right now pretending or thinking that you can speak for me.  You don't have the vocabulary, mate.

     

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ppannos. Show ppannos's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Post verdict, there seems to be an attack from the left on the whole concept of "stand your ground" laws. 

    Is this part of the lefts plan to emasculate citizenship in this country and make us dependent on the state?



    Because it's good political playing to their base in a time when they they are desperate.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to ppannos' comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Post verdict, there seems to be an attack from the left on the whole concept of "stand your ground" laws. 

    Is this part of the lefts plan to emasculate citizenship in this country and make us dependent on the state?

     



    Because it's good political playing to their base in a time when they they are desperate.

     

     



    Same goes for those on the right defending the SYG laws playing to their base.

    So, what's your point...?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ppannos. Show ppannos's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to ppannos' comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Wasn't taking a side. I thought the answer was rhetorical.

     

    Post verdict, there seems to be an attack from the left on the whole concept of "stand your ground" laws. 

    Is this part of the lefts plan to emasculate citizenship in this country and make us dependent on the state?

     

     



    Because it's good political playing to their base in a time when they they are desperate.

     

     

     

     



    Same goes for those on the right defending the SYG laws playing to theirbase.

     

    So, what's your point...?




     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

     

     Sorry to say that none of you were in FL prior to the enactment of the 'SYG' law/s.

    The original purpose was to provide property owners a means from being 'ripped off'and simply having to wait for the police to show up.

    Had the property owner of displayed a weapon or shot the vandal/s they could be charged accordingly!

    So the Republicans came up with a stand your ground law in order to enable self preservation of property.

    But the original statute was loosely written to the extent that one could murder another simply by inviting them onto their property, killing them and then 'drop a weapon' beside the body before calling the police.

    One can be certain that many a murder has been planned and accomplished because of the loop-holes in the new 2005 statute.

    Many changes and interpretations have been made to this extremely controversial law since 2005.

    Now .. Due to this controversial trial one can be certain more changes will be forthcoming.

    Yes .. Florida has a really 'screwed up' legal system for sure ...

    ~ 'TRY IT' - 'YOU'LL LIKE IT' ~



    And that's the problem.

    Despite what skeeter and others think, nobody is trying to say that people can't defend themselves when they are physically threatened.  Nobody.

    However, the law is now being used to justify questionable behaviors never intended by the original law...in Florida and elsewhere.

    This is why trying to distance the Martin case from SYG laws is so beside the point.  Like it or not, the case has sparked a discussion about the enmity of these laws, how they're enforced, and how they may need to be questioned or revised.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    Does that really have to be asked? 

     

     




    Apparently, in Matty's world, we just curl up in the fetal position and hope that government shows up in time to save us.

     

     

     



    Again, I said nothing of the kind...

     

    ...so stop right now pretending or thinking that you can speak for me.  You don't have the vocabulary, mate.

     

     



    Well, if we curl up in the fetal position, then we can be confused for a fetus, and the criminal can simply abort us.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

     

     

     Sorry to say that none of you were in FL prior to the enactment of the 'SYG' law/s.

    The original purpose was to provide property owners a means from being 'ripped off'and simply having to wait for the police to show up.

    Had the property owner of displayed a weapon or shot the vandal/s they could be charged accordingly!

    So the Republicans came up with a stand your ground law in order to enable self preservation of property.

    But the original statute was loosely written to the extent that one could murder another simply by inviting them onto their property, killing them and then 'drop a weapon' beside the body before calling the police.

    One can be certain that many a murder has been planned and accomplished because of the loop-holes in the new 2005 statute.

    Many changes and interpretations have been made to this extremely controversial law since 2005.

    Now .. Due to this controversial trial one can be certain more changes will be forthcoming.

    Yes .. Florida has a really 'screwed up' legal system for sure ...

    ~ 'TRY IT' - 'YOU'LL LIKE IT' ~

     



    And that's the problem.

     

    Despite what skeeter and others think, nobody is trying to say that people can't defend themselves when they are physically threatened.  Nobody.

    However, the law is now being used to justify questionable behaviors never intended by the original law...in Florida and elsewhere.

    This is why trying to distance the Martin case from SYG laws is so beside the point.  Like it or not, the case has sparked a discussion about the enmity of these laws, how they're enforced, and how they may need to be questioned or revised.

     



    "nobody is trying to say to say that people can't defend themselves when they are physically threatened. Nobody"

    Except the DNC chair:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/24/dnc-chair-repeal-stand-your-ground-law/

     

    or, the democrat NH legislature:

    http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130413/NEWS06/130419539

     

    i could go on.

     

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    It's not just "the left" that is questioning the Stand your Ground law. There are a lot of people who are questioning it..and even though Zimmerman elected not to use the "Stand your ground" as a defense..it was part of the jury instruction..and according to the jurors who were interviewed..kinowledge of this law informed their decision.

    Any law which legalizes the killing of a human being should be looked at. It's a shame that it took this incident to shine the light on these flawed laws.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

     

     

     

     Sorry to say that none of you were in FL prior to the enactment of the 'SYG' law/s.

    The original purpose was to provide property owners a means from being 'ripped off'and simply having to wait for the police to show up.

    Had the property owner of displayed a weapon or shot the vandal/s they could be charged accordingly!

    So the Republicans came up with a stand your ground law in order to enable self preservation of property.

    But the original statute was loosely written to the extent that one could murder another simply by inviting them onto their property, killing them and then 'drop a weapon' beside the body before calling the police.

    One can be certain that many a murder has been planned and accomplished because of the loop-holes in the new 2005 statute.

    Many changes and interpretations have been made to this extremely controversial law since 2005.

    Now .. Due to this controversial trial one can be certain more changes will be forthcoming.

    Yes .. Florida has a really 'screwed up' legal system for sure ...

    ~ 'TRY IT' - 'YOU'LL LIKE IT' ~

     

     



    And that's the problem.

     

     

    Despite what skeeter and others think, nobody is trying to say that people can't defend themselves when they are physically threatened.  Nobody.

    However, the law is now being used to justify questionable behaviors never intended by the original law...in Florida and elsewhere.

    This is why trying to distance the Martin case from SYG laws is so beside the point.  Like it or not, the case has sparked a discussion about the enmity of these laws, how they're enforced, and how they may need to be questioned or revised.

     



    "nobody is trying to say to say that people can't defend themselves when they are physically threatened. Nobody"

     

    Except the DNC chair:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/24/dnc-chair-repeal-stand-your-ground-law/

     

    or, the democrat NH legislature:

    http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130413/NEWS06/130419539

     

    i could go on.

     

     



     

     

    Ya .. You "could go on" but why waste your/our time?

    Even many Republicans are complaining .. in case you haven't noticed.

    Sheeesh ....

     



    So what if republicans are complaining?  Is that the point?  Which side of the aisle is complaining?

     

    Or is the point that government is weighing in on the side of the criminal, and lessening your ability to defend yourself.

    The government is essentially conferring a right to criminals, that, their victims, must remove themselves from the object of their criminality if they are able.  That has got to be the stupidest concept possible, that the victim is responsible for removing themselves from the aggressor.

    Why would governemnt do that?  Don't you think it is strange that government is on the side of the criminals?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    It's not just "the left" that is questioning the Stand your Ground law. There are a lot of people who are questioning it..and even though Zimmerman elected not to use the "Stand your ground" as a defense..it was part of the jury instruction..and according to the jurors who were interviewed..kinowledge of this law informed their decision.

    Any law which legalizes the killing of a human being should be looked at. It's a shame that it took this incident to shine the light on these flawed laws.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron



    Any law or repeal thereof, that causes a victim to be responsible to get out of the way of criminal activity, say, in their house, their car, their yard, is blindingly stupid, and essentially confers rights to criminals to do their evil deeds unmolested by the victims.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    It's not just "the left" that is questioning the Stand your Ground law. There are a lot of people who are questioning it..and even though Zimmerman elected not to use the "Stand your ground" as a defense..it was part of the jury instruction..and according to the jurors who were interviewed..kinowledge of this law informed their decision.

    Any law which legalizes the killing of a human being should be looked at. It's a shame that it took this incident to shine the light on these flawed laws.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron



    The problem is there will always be gray areas with most any law. Hence the need to prove or disprove that ones life really was at risk and therefore lethal force was appropriate. 

    If someone comes into my home it shouldn't even be a question that I should be able to defend myself and home any way possible. If that means killing the person then that should be ok. The reason, IMO, is that no stranger should be in my home and if a stranger is in my home then that is a threat to my life. We've all read the countless stories about home invasions where the homeowners are killed or raped and beaten, etc.

    Now, out in public, if I am able to get away without a confrontation then that should be the course anyone takes. But if that isn't the case and my life is at stake it's him or me....and I ain't ready to go yet. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    It's not just "the left" that is questioning the Stand your Ground law. There are a lot of people who are questioning it..and even though Zimmerman elected not to use the "Stand your ground" as a defense..it was part of the jury instruction..and according to the jurors who were interviewed..kinowledge of this law informed their decision.

    Any law which legalizes the killing of a human being should be looked at. It's a shame that it took this incident to shine the light on these flawed laws.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     



    The problem is there will always be gray areas with most any law. Hence the need to prove or disprove that ones life really was at risk and therefore lethal force was appropriate. 

     

    If someone comes into my home it shouldn't even be a question that I should be able to defend myself and home any way possible. If that means killing the person then that should be ok. The reason, IMO, is that no stranger should be in my home and if a stranger is in my home then that is a threat to my life. We've all read the countless stories about home invasions where the homeowners are killed or raped and beaten, etc.

    Now, out in public, if I am able to get away without a confrontation then that should be the course anyone takes. But if that isn't the case and my life is at stake it's him or me....and I ain't ready to go yet. 




    Pinkie..I agree completely with your above assessment. I think the second paragraph in your response is the reason that Stand your Ground laws have to be looked at. In FL..at least..the interpretation of SYG seems to allow one to follow someone that they feel is a threat and then use deadly force when they are confronted. This was my whole problem with the Zimmerman case. If only Zimmerman had stayed in his car.

    The jury seems to have been informed by the SYG law..even if it wasn't an affirmative defense. This according to the statements of at least one juror.If we are talking straight up self defense..Zimmerman would have had a hard time proving he made an effort to flee. I think in a public setting..that is fair. I also think that given the grey areas and unintended consequences of this law ( clearly the shooting of Martin should have been an unintended consequence)...it's not unreasonable for these laws to have another look.

    Also..I am sorry..but is anyone else more than a little disturbed that Zimmerman is now going to be free to carry his gun once again..?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    It's not just "the left" that is questioning the Stand your Ground law. There are a lot of people who are questioning it..and even though Zimmerman elected not to use the "Stand your ground" as a defense..it was part of the jury instruction..and according to the jurors who were interviewed..kinowledge of this law informed their decision.

    Any law which legalizes the killing of a human being should be looked at. It's a shame that it took this incident to shine the light on these flawed laws.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     



    Any law or repeal thereof, that causes a victim to be responsible to get out of the way of criminal activity, say, in their house, their car, their yard, is blindingly stupid, and essentially confers rights to criminals to do their evil deeds unmolested by the victims.

     




    Do you consider Zimmerman a victim? I do not. I am more concerned with the aspect of the law that allows one to use deadly force on a public street. In your home or property..I don't have a problem...but on a public street...? In a community where there are lenient gun laws and many people are carrying? Sorry...I think it could get out of hand.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    If you want to stand your ground ..... go enlist in the military ...... this isn't Tombstone of the late 1800's !

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

     

     

    It's not just "the left" that is questioning the Stand your Ground law. There are a lot of people who are questioning it..and even though Zimmerman elected not to use the "Stand your ground" as a defense..it was part of the jury instruction..and according to the jurors who were interviewed..kinowledge of this law informed their decision.

    Any law which legalizes the killing of a human being should be looked at. It's a shame that it took this incident to shine the light on these flawed laws.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     

     



    The problem is there will always be gray areas with most any law. Hence the need to prove or disprove that ones life really was at risk and therefore lethal force was appropriate. 

     

     

    If someone comes into my home it shouldn't even be a question that I should be able to defend myself and home any way possible. If that means killing the person then that should be ok. The reason, IMO, is that no stranger should be in my home and if a stranger is in my home then that is a threat to my life. We've all read the countless stories about home invasions where the homeowners are killed or raped and beaten, etc.

    Now, out in public, if I am able to get away without a confrontation then that should be the course anyone takes. But if that isn't the case and my life is at stake it's him or me....and I ain't ready to go yet. 

     




    Pinkie..I agree completely with your above assessment. I think the second paragraph in your response is the reason that Stand your Ground laws have to be looked at. In FL..at least..the interpretation of SYG seems to allow one to follow someone that they feel is a threat and then use deadly force when they are confronted. This was my whole problem with the Zimmerman case. If only Zimmerman had stayed in his car.

     

    The jury seems to have been informed by the SYG law..even if it wasn't an affirmative defense. This according to the statements of at least one juror.If we are talking straight up self defense..Zimmerman would have had a hard time proving he made an effort to flee. I think in a public setting..that is fair. I also think that given the grey areas and unintended consequences of this law ( clearly the shooting of Martin should have been an unintended consequence)...it's not unreasonable for these laws to have another look.

    Also..I am sorry..but is anyone else more than a little disturbed that Zimmerman is now going to be free to carry his gun once again..?



    It does seem odd that Zimmerman gets his gun back but based on the laws he has every right to get it back. I would like to think if presented with the same situation again that he'll act differently. Honestly he made need the gun now more than ever. It wouldn't surpise me if he ends up dead. If I were him I'd move to a remote area of the country. He's going to be looking over his shoulder for a very long time.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    If you want to stand your ground ..... go enlist in the military ...... this isn't Tombstone of the late 1800's !

     



    You miss the point, except the one on top of your head.

    You can choose to flee, whihc in most cases is the right thing to do.

    However, to demand as a matter of law that you find a way to flee is simply bizzare, typicla progressive logic.  Protect the criminal, scr3w the victim.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    If you want to stand your ground ..... go enlist in the military ...... this isn't Tombstone of the late 1800's !

     



    I hear what you're saying but what would you do if someone attacked you? Grabbed ahold of you and started pummeling you? Would you curl up in a ball and hope for the best or fight back? Now, I realize you can probably take care of yourself in a situation like that but many can't. Most people can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. There has to be some law that allows one to be able to use lethal force if needed. 

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why is the Left attacking

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

     

     

    It's not just "the left" that is questioning the Stand your Ground law. There are a lot of people who are questioning it..and even though Zimmerman elected not to use the "Stand your ground" as a defense..it was part of the jury instruction..and according to the jurors who were interviewed..kinowledge of this law informed their decision.

    Any law which legalizes the killing of a human being should be looked at. It's a shame that it took this incident to shine the light on these flawed laws.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     

     



    Any law or repeal thereof, that causes a victim to be responsible to get out of the way of criminal activity, say, in their house, their car, their yard, is blindingly stupid, and essentially confers rights to criminals to do their evil deeds unmolested by the victims.

     

     

     




    Do you consider Zimmerman a victim? I do not. I am more concerned with the aspect of the law that allows one to use deadly force on a public street. In your home or property..I don't have a problem...but on a public street...? In a community where there are lenient gun laws and many people are carrying? Sorry...I think it could get out of hand.

     



    Stand your ground is not in play in the Zimmerman case.  But, I'll stipulate.  Zimmerman was on the ground getting pummled.  I don't know how you think he could flee that situation.

    If he had been standing, in a common area, and there was no pressing concern, such as school children behind him in imminent danger, stand youur ground could not apply.

    As far as  the nuances for the Florida law:  ifthe law is interpreted suchthat you have the right to fight back if some one grabs you on a side walk and starts pummeling you, well, it is situational, but of course you have a right to "stand your gournd", it is common sense.  Might be stupid, however.

     

    But, all this is a smoke screen.  this is the way the progressives get to have their say about this case being racist without saying it.  "stand your ground" is a dog whistle for racisim.

    But, of course the left sees this case as racist, because they only look at two things:  Martin's race, and that he was shot.  All other evidence is conveniently ignored.

    Don'ty construe this as my saying Zimmerman didn't make mistakes, he sure did.  But, the left has got to answer this question:

    Was the verdict of the trial fair?

    After they answer that, which everyone, except loons, should answer yes, then they should do what comes naturally to sane people:  shut up.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share