In support of "Stand Your Ground"

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

    Re: In support of

    Will the Aaron Hernandez trial (assuming there is one) become another racially divisive case? After all, Hernandez is as white as Zimmerman. Both are hispanic, both killed a black man with a gun. One in a fight, and one execution style, but that's a small difference. The main thing is a white hispanic (whatever that is) killed an innocent black man.

    Is there anything else different? Oh wait, Obama didn't say that Odin Lloyd could be his son, and the media isn't running pictures of Lloyd as a sixth grader. And they didn't manipulate a 911 call. And we haven't heard from Al Sharpton. And the DOJ didn't pay anybody to organize anti-Hernandez demonstrations.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Inokea4coolaid. Show Inokea4coolaid's posts

    Re: In support of

    "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."

     

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Inokea4coolaid. Show Inokea4coolaid's posts

    Re: In support of

     

    if peeps are going to debate, they may as well read the statute.

     

    http://floridastandyourground.org/

     

    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

    776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

    (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
    (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

    (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
    (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
    (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
    (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

    (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.

    (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

    (5) As used in this section, the term:

    (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
    (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
    (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

    776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from gr82bme. Show gr82bme's posts

    Re: In support of

    You picked a creep to be a hero and a kid who did nothing wrong to be the fall guy.

    Bad judgement. But and if you want to prejudge the two you ought to take a good long look at the past history of the creep Mr Z. Out of line, out of control, bad judgement, violent streeks, etc.

     

    I did not pick a creep to be a hero, nor did I display bad judgment, nor did I use predjudice.  I merely suggested that those that don't agree with the verdict stop trying to make a "hero" out of TM, because he wasn't one - and you're right, neither was Z.  I did bother to read the testimony of the trial, something you and others obviously did not do because you had your minds made up before the trial even started.  And I'll suggest you had your minds made up based on one-sided media reports, based on a proclivity to cast African Americans as the victims of society, and based on a proclivity to not support rights to bear arms.  If you had read the testimony without these predjudices, I doubt that you could come to a different conclusion thant the jury.

    Also, there are two evidentuary standards - for criminal trials, it's "beyond reasonable doubt."  For civil trials, it's based on a "preponderence of the evidence."  We learned this from the OJ trials.  If the family of TM want to go after Z civily - fine - sue and take your chances in court.  But for our government to try to drum up "civil rights" BS, IMO isn't right.

    You're entitled to your opinion as I am mine.  I just wish you'd actually look at the testimony of ALL witnesses at the trial before bloviating about how TM and the black community were wronged.  But I suspect I'm asking too much of people - to make up their minds after actually reviewing ALL of the facts instead of swallowing the pap fed to you by the media.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    If I were re-writing the Florida self-defense laws

     



    The world is a better place for you not writing any laws.

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

    Re: In support of

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    If I were re-writing the Florida self-defense laws

     

     



    The world is a better place for you not writing any laws.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Amen.

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

    Re: In support of

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:

    I admit, I was not much in favor of the Florida law of "Stand Your Ground"...

    But then I read some 400+ boston.com posts on the George Zimmerman thread...

    And I find myself newly enlightened...

    "Justice was carried out," I learned today...

    That poor George Zimmerman...

    Victim of the race-baiting liberal media...

    Received the verdict that was well deserved...

    At first, I was saddened to hear the news...

    I thought the senseless killing of an unarmed boy...

    Should not go unpunished in a land of laws...

    But, alas, that was just the bleeding-heart side of me...

    The side that must have---though I can't remember---been listening to Sharpton/Jackson...

    But I learned today that I was sooooo wrong...

    That the evidence did not support a conviction...

    And that race was not a factor in the case...

    My heart was overjoyed to learn this, on this thoughtful Boston.com thread...

    From all the scholarly, eloquent statements therein...

    So much so that now I have completely changed my mind...

    I now understand the sensibility of "Stand Your Ground"...

    And accept that it must be a good and fair law...

    And, well, since it is the law of Florida...

    I hope Floridians will gather and obey the law...

    I pray that those who weep over the loss of a young boy...

    Well---those with the legal permit to carry firearms...

    Will diligently, peacefully pursue Mr. Zimmerman...

    Not to intentionally harm him, mind you...

    But simply because he seems "suspicious"...

    Well, that is---to the few who might be foolish enough to believe...

    That shooting an unarmed boy seems more suspicious than buying skittles...

    I hope that this group of concerned watchmen...

    Will ignore police warnings to stay where they are...

    As---of course---any innocent, law-abiding watchman would do...

    And gather about Mr. Zimmerman in the dark of eve...

    To confront him regarding his obvious "suspiciousness"...

    And if Mr. Zimmerman so much as raises a hand...

    To strike fear into the watchmen in any way...

    I pray that the group surrounding him will be good citizens...

    And obey the law...

    And Stand Their Ground...

    So that the wise posters on Boston.com...

    Can collectively exalt, saying, "Justice was served"...

     

    So, now, I weep no more---well, except for one...

    Yes, my heart does hurt for one, Aaron Hernandez...

    For if only he had led Odin Lloyd to Florida---rather than North Attleboro...

    And simply waited for the condemned to land a punch out of fear...

    Mr. Hernandez would be declared innocent of all charges...

    And---hallelujah---justice would have been served.

     

     

     

     

     




    GREAT JOB IGNORING THE EVIDENCE.... 

    SUPER JOB IGNORING THE FACT THAT TRAYVON CAME BACK TO "Z" AND WAS THE OPEN AGRESSOR....

    MARVELOUS JOB TELLING ALL OF THE WORLD THAT THEY BETTTER BE ABLE TO OUTRUN AN AGRESSOR OR DIE..... 

    TERRIFIC THAT YOU CAN IGNORE THAT "T" WAS ON "Z"Z CHECST ROUNDING HIS HEAD INTO THE GROUND

    EXCELENT THAT YOU CAN IGNORE THAT MARTIN WAS BIGGER THAN "Z"....

    WONDERFUL THAT FAIL TO NOTICE IF "Z" DIDN'T HAVE THE GUN- HE'd BE DEAD... but he doesn't look like the president's boy so that is okay.

     

     

    STAND YOUR GROUND LAW WAS NEVER EVEN USED IN THIS CASE..... except by morons who kept pretending to know what it meant.

    Simply it says if you are agressed upon you have the right to use anything "even a gun" to eliminate the threat upon you when your life is in danger.  It gives a person the right to use all means at his/her disposal to protect their right to life.  I understand those of you on the liberal side do not understand the RIGHT TO LIFE portion of that statement... but so be it.

    IF someone ever attacks me ( or my family) they will not be able to walk away... because you see, I do believe in the right to stand my ground.  IF you turn to walk away like the foolish left demands... you just take one in the back.... I shall stand and fight....because me and my family have as much right to live as the attacker.

    Trayvon was away from "Z"... he could have continued to his dad's home.... there was a 4 minute period between when "Z" stopped following him and Trayvon hit him the first time.  WHY DID HE COME BACK?  Why did he throw the first punch ( which I accpet as being fearful and standing HIS ground).... but then WHY did he jump on the man's checst who was down and proceed to pummel him?  SORRY but those are the facts.... be he 17 or 30.... he was the agressor....  He was bigger than "Z" whom he attacked.....  he sat on "Z's" chest and continued to hit him.   SORRY... but Stand Your Ground was not even the defense's contention.... it was strictly "SELF DEFENSE" the man feared he would be killed by his attacker so he stopped the attack....

    STAND YOUR GROUND just states that the person being attacked need not run... and has the right to protect his/her own life with any means possible including the taking of the agressor's life if need be.,... IT is a good law.... in it's simplest form... NO ONE should be forced to surrender their life to an agressor in fear that they are not able to stop the attack cause the leagal system will stick it to them.

    OH did you know there is also a case where another person heard someone pounding on his front door... YELLING/ SCREAMING HE WAS GOING TO KILL THE BAS---- WHEN HE CAUGHT HIM?  The agressor was in his 40's.... the person in the home in his late 60's.... He loaded the shotgun, and unloaded it through the front door into the agressor.... killing him.

    Amazing how this one does not get any media coverage....  NAW.... the older black man feared for his life when some FREAKY CRACKER was pounding on his door- and he stood his ground.

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: In support of

    http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

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

    Re: In support of

    In response to digger0862's comment:



    Now that's what I call enlightened, responsible governance: enacting a municipal ordinance because some town in another part of the country that has zero effect on your community passed one to the contrary.  We need more leaders like that.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: In support of

    We get it Mel, you know how to cut-and-paste. Congrats.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from gr82bme. Show gr82bme's posts

    Re: In support of

    Gee Mel, got anger? Or the mental acuity of a Q-Tip?   I'm guessing both.  Rant, rave, and rage on - nothing going on here.  A waste is a terrible thing to mind.

     

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Inokea4coolaid. Show Inokea4coolaid's posts

    Re: In support of

    am for "Stand Your Ground".  Adding to my stock pile, and carrying within the law.  

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: In support of

    Peace through strength.

     

    http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/9776/secondamendment.jpg

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: In support of

    In response to agill1970's comment:

    I think this case is the most misconstrued, misunderstood, and media manipulated story in the long sad history of white on black violence.  The amount of attention this case has gotten is a damn shame when you look at the actual evidence of what happened that tragic evening.  Yes racial profiling was used by GZ, but considering the neighborhood wasn't far from a high crime rate black neighborhood I give him a pass on that.  And contrary to what almost everyone is saying, he did break off pursuit once told to by authorities, but rather than go back to his vehicle, he went in search of a street sign.  When going back from that location to his vehicle is when he encountered TM, who decided enough was enough and he was going to confront this strange scary man who had been following him and looped back around to find him.  Things went swiftly down hill from there. 

    The story broke soon after that, and whether it was anti 2A agenda, race baiters, or just the misinformation we were repeatedly smacked over the head with, GZ was found guilty in the public eye almost immediately, and even the President stepped in to say something.  So many people want to make this about race, about hate, about negligence, about an innocent being gunned down.  Where was the outcry and media attention when legitamite wrongful deaths largely due to race occured?  Like with Oscar Grant?  Or Aaron Campbell?  Or Steven Washington?  Or I could keep typing until my fingers or keyboard gave out?  There is a horn of plenty when it comes to wrongful death or down right murder of young black men minding their business and being gunned down by white men because of the fear that they have because they are dealing with a young black man.  This, is not one of those cases. 

    I would argue that GZ made some huge mistakes that evening, mistakes that should not be made by a civilian carrying a firearm.  These mistakes helped lay the foundation of the tragic death of TM, but that ultimate fact would not have happened without him (TM) making a horrible mistake in his own right.  While not guilty in a criminal court, I have little doubt he will be found guilty and liable in a civil one when that case ultimately happens. 




    WOW, great synopsis.... definitely a tragedy....

     

    AND TODAY GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS A HERO..... helped a family out of a rolled over SUV.....  hmmmm?  WEIRD!

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: In support of

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    The jury instructions referred to "stand your ground"  because it's now part of the regular self-defense law in Florida (which DontQuestionBB quotes above), and therefore stand your ground did play a significant role in the jury's decision.

    What wasn't used is only the provision in the stand your ground law that allows for a pre trial immunity hearing.  I'm surprised at how few people in media and in general seem to understand this.

    Stand your ground was very much in play.  The defense simply passed on taking advantage of the pretrial immunity hearing.

     

     



    I am still wondering why the judge was bullied and why the jury were all morons. Was the judge paid off only, or did the jury get in on it, too? They asked for manslaughter and then the defense balked about that, where they dictated it not be added as a charge.

     

     

    The defense lawyer (the bald one) was standing there stalling, hands on his hips, trying to show up the judge for about a week. Very poorly handled. Terrible judge. Very weak and that is somewhat concerning.

    As a citizen, why can't we get it right? I don't really care what the official charge is to hold someone accountable for killing someone. I just want justice within an effective system.

    Everything is bought and paid for if there is enough money and incentive behind it. Truth hurts sometimes, but that;s what our justice system has become.

    We have people in jail for possession of drugs and Zimmerman thinks what he did was right.

    Amazing.

     

     




    What on earth are you talking about?  You did not watch a bit of the trial.  They DID ADD MANSLAUGHTER.  More misinformation, stated as fact, by the resident loon.

     

    Seriously, you seem to have a problem with authority and right or wrong and good or bad and lies or truth.

    You have them backwards.  Done much time?   How about institutional?

     




    You're wrong, dummy. NAS, your fellow troll, advised this board, manslaughter was not allowed.

     

    lmao

    I love this. I love playing one troll against another so they can contradict one another.

    You can't align with a troll and then contradict one another. There is no possible way on this earth that Zimmertool is not in jail for manslaughter and the maximum.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Manslaughter plus 3rd degree felony child endangerment was added. They couldnt convict him on anything because the evidence didn't support it. 

    and, how do you know how Zimmerman felt? How do you know he doesnt feel sorry or terrible? I guess the same source that tells you Brady is running the offense and calling all the shots..hmmm

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

    Re: In support of

    Encourage peeps to get their CWP, buy whatever they want, and carry w/i laws of their state. God Bless S&W and Springfield Armory

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share