What do you call a law that allows a person to shoot and kill another human being when they could otherwise walk away safely?
I can only call it immoral.
With George Zimmerman soon headed to a pre-trial hearing to evaluate whether he will be protected by the “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida, it is important to understand exactly how the law has made permissible the use of lethal force and legalized acts of murder that previously never would have been deemed “justifiable homicides.”
In the wake of Zimmerman’s slaying of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, I have frequently heard people claim, “The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law does not allow you follow someone!” Often, the people claiming this are the ones responsible for the law, like the bill’s sponsor, Florida House Representative Dennis Baxley and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who signed it into law.
But, of course, Zimmerman had been carrying a gun and following — some would say stalking — young black men in his community for months before he ever encountered Trayvon Martin. He even notified police when he did so. More important, however, is the fact that Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law removes an individual’s duty to retreat from a conflict in public even when he can safely do so:
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.
Prior to the enactment of these laws, Americans always had a right to “stand their ground” on their property and use lethal force against home invaders. Centuries of English and American common law have long recognized that there is no place to retreat to when cornered in one’s own “castle.”
The law did, however, require individuals to retreat from physical confrontations in public if they could safely do so. If you were cornered in an alley, pinned to the ground or otherwise out of options to retreat, you could defend yourself with lethal force. But if it’s possible to just turn around and walk away, go home and sleep it off, and avoid escalating the conflict, the law required you to do so.
That’s no longer the case in the 25 states that have enacted “Stand Your Ground” laws at the behest of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). In those states, if you’ve had a terrible day, if you just don’t like the other guy very much or if you want to try out that new handgun you just bought, you can feel free to escalate the level of violence in a physical altercation by shooting him. Even if you kill him, the law has got your back. You’ll be immune not only from criminal prosecution, but also from any potential civil lawsuits.
Why is the NRA pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws? For the same reason it pushes a number of other laws meant to deregulate the purchase, possession and use of firearms — to sell more guns. Gun ownership has declined dramatically in the past 30 years, to the point that only one in five Americans now owns a firearm (and only one in 10 women). The gun industry’s challenge is to sell to men who already own multiple firearms. Industry marketing is focused on doing this by aggressively promoting military-style firearms (such as semiautomatic AR-15s and AK-47s) and “carry” guns (compact, semiautomatic handguns with “stopping power”).
By pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws, the NRA sends a clear message to the hotrods and wannabe vigilantes that’s it’s okay to buy yourself that new carry gun, bring it out into public and even use it without fear of legal repercussions. Then, when the rest of us realize that we are walking our streets surrounded by armed individuals with questionable backgrounds and terrible judgment (like Zimmerman), the NRA is hoping that we too will feel compelled to arm ourselves in public. It is a strategy that is both cunning and sick.
The NRA has shown us a roadmap to a society that relies solely on private violence — and the threat of private violence — to keep its citizens in line. Such a society absolves people of the responsibility to learn how to manage conflicts nonviolently, without escalating them. It’s not a society I want to see my daughters grow up in.
This morning, in anticipation of Mother’s Day, the Second Chance at Shoot First campaign has released a special video from Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton. Second Chance at Shoot First is a national movement launched by Color of Change, the NAACP, the National Action Network, the Urban League and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. In the video, Sybrina Fulton asks viewers to “spare other mothers the pain” she has experienced by “calling upon the governor of your state to reexamine … ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws … to keep our families safe.”
You can heed her call right now by signing and sharing the following online petition from Second Chance at Shoot First.
No one should ever be allowed to walk our streets with a hidden handgun and kill at will. If we don’t start standing up to the NRA and ALEC, however, Zimmerman will be far from the last gun-toting vigilante to spill innocent blood.
Absolutely right! Stand Your Ground laws legalize cold-blooded murder.
No Emily. Only people with an IQ of 70 or less believes it is a “kill at will” law.
I wouldn’t say an IQ of 70, that’s just mean. However, those who have never been in a violent situation and had to use force to keep themselves safe will not realize what a blessing the law is.
Why would anyone “need” a law that allows you to kill someone when you can otherwise walk away safely?
“Kill when you could otherwise walk away”
Good thing your not too much of a drama queen, Ladd.
The purpose of the law is designed to protect the victim of a violent attack who is forced to use justifiable deadly force to defend themselves, or in defense of another. The law protects the victim, the user of deadly force to defend themselves from frivolous wrongful death lawsuits emanating from the family of the deceased, and it basically neuters an overzealous prosecutor from charging the victim of the attack with murder even though it is found to be justifiable homicide by the investigating law enforcement agency. If the victim is charged with a crime, the “SYG” laws also puts the burden of proof on the prosecutor, instead of the victim being forced to prove his innocence!
Without “SYG” laws in this nation, it was commonplace for the victim to be charged with a crime, and them being a victim yet again to frivolous wrongful death lawsuits from the deceased’s family. Imagine defending your life, you do so successfully, only to have a civil suit against you because you came out of a criminals violent attack alive. This is what the “SYG” laws stop.
You opposing this law is nearly the same as you opposing the “Good Samaritan” laws that grant immunity to injury suits against the person who helps remove a car accident victim from a burning automobile wreck to save their life, and later gets sued for personal injury because they allegedly injured the person while rendering aid.
>What do you call a law that allows a person to shoot and kill another human being when they could otherwise walk away safely?
I would call it a fantasy dreamed up by sensationalist bloggers trolling for clicks.
But I think you referring to Florida’s stand your ground law.
“A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is law in certain jurisdictions within the United States. The basis may lie in either statutory law and or common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the “stand your ground” law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense, permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justify the accused’s conduct.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
If you think that “Walking safely away” is a viable alternative to self defense then you have never been in a violent confrontation.
I guess a non violent option would be pray to God that you can run faster than your attacker, and that only works if the attacker is not equipped with ranged weapons.
When this was originally reported as a white man murdering a black child. Anyone who has heard the 911 call knows that to be total BS. http://videos.mediaite.com/audio/Raw-Audio-911-Call-George-Zimme
call transcript
Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. … Zimmerman: Hey we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic? Zimmerman: He looks black. Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing? Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He’s [unintelligible], he was just staring… Dispatcher: OK, he’s just walking around the area… Zimmerman: …looking at all the houses. Dispatcher: OK… Zimmerman:
Now he’s just staring at me. Dispatcher: OK–you said it’s 1111 Retreat View? Or 111? Zimmerman: That’s the clubhouse… Dispatcher: That’s the clubhouse, do you know what the–he’s near the clubhouse right now? Zimmerman: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me.
Dispatcher: OK. Zimmerman: He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks? Zimmerman: He’s got button on his shirt, late teens. Dispatcher: Late teens ok.
Now take from the transcript what you will. But the pictures
http://www.wtsp.com/news/photo-gallery.aspx?storyid=255685
of George Zimmerman indicate that he was attacked from behind.
Perhaps when he tried to “walk safely away” he didn’t move fast enough?
Why ‘Stand your ground’ is ‘Kill at will’ is because your trolling for clicks.
‘Stand your ground’ is attack first and your victim has the right to defend themselves and if you die in the process or survive they cannot be held accountable for protecting themselves.
Trayvon’s criminal history
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/04/16/part-7-the-trayvon-martin-cover-up-sgt-lourdes-hodges-trayvon-foia-14/#more-61679
not reported because TV and websites like this one make money from “If it was my son” syndrome.
“Why would anyone “need” a law that allows you to kill someone when you can otherwise walk away safely?”
Can you cite an example of a person being convicted for failing to retreat when it was safe to do so?
“Without ‘SYG’ laws in this nation, it was commonplace for the victim to be charged with a crime, and them being a victim yet again to frivolous wrongful death lawsuits from the deceased’s family.”
“Vladd,” do you have any evidence to show that the circumstances you describe above were “commonplace” before the advent of NRA/ALEC “Stand Your Ground” laws?
The NRA has been unable to produce even a single example of a gun owner being wrongfully convicted for a legitimate act of self-defense prior to the enactment of “Stand Your Ground” laws. And the “catalyst” for the Florida “Stand Your Ground” bill, according to its sponsor, Rep. Dennis Baxley, was a case in which the shooter was neither charged with a crime nor sued by the deceased victim’s family.
Finally, I’m not sure what you’re referencing in terms of my supposed opposition to “Good Samaritan” laws. I’ve never commented on such laws, nor has my organization, CSGV.
“A Critic,” the excellent 2007 report by the National District Attorneys Association, “Expansions to the Castle Doctrine: Implications for Policy and Practice” addresses your question and cites a real-life case in which a senior citizen shot and killed a 10 year old boy despite being under no imminent threat and fully able to retreat to “safety” (although, in reality, the boy and his friend did not pose a threat to the man). He was convicted in this case but likely would not have been had Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law been in place at that time:
http://apainc.org/files/DDF/Castle%20Doctrine.pdf
@Ladd Everitt
““A Critic,” the excellent 2007 report by the National District Attorneys Association, “Expansions to the Castle Doctrine: Implications for Policy and Practice” addresses your question and cites a real-life case in which a senior citizen shot and killed a 10 year old boy despite being under no imminent threat and fully able to retreat to “safety” (although, in reality, the boy and his friend did not pose a threat to the man). He was convicted in this case but likely would not have been had Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law been in place at that time:”
That is not an example of someone exercising their right of self defense and failing to retreat and then being convicted for it. That’s an example of someone committing murder or manslaughter. SYG does not protect people who commit murder or manslaughter.
That’s precisely what it is. An example of a man who was convicted of murder prior to the enactment “Stand Your Ground,” but who would almost certainly have been protected by the law had it been in effect at the time. And the report goes through that in great detail.
When/How? do you KNOW when you can walk away? Does walking away mean turning your back on an agessor?
Ladd Everett is full of it, making claims that are not true, twisting words people say to suit his agenda. It discredits everything he says and the overwhelming majority of the people are against him and his campaign and it is all backfiring on him. This is why he is desperate and has to lie and manipulate the fake liberals. all it takes is a little research outside of fake liberal/propaganda websites to figure this out.
The thinking behind this law is macho, male ego, nonsense. Not backing down, what kind of consideration is that when lives are at stake?
The other underlying idea is that a criminal’s life is not worth as much as a gun owner’s.
“Not backing down, what kind of consideration is that when lives are at stake?”
Retreating from a criminal who is attempting to kill, rape, or seriously injure you sends a message “kill, rape, or seriously injure me, I won’t fight back”. The consideration is that adult men and women WILL fight back.
“The other underlying idea is that a criminal’s life is not worth as much as a gun owner’s.”
Correct. The would be rapist or murderer’s life is worth less than their intended victims. This stands in stark contrast to those who believe that the lives of victims are worth less than those of their attackers.
“Why would anyone “need” a law that allows you to kill someone when you can otherwise walk away safely?”
And you can guarantee that you can “walk” safely away? Awesome!!! I need a few lottery numbers while you’re at it.
“A Critic,” you seem to be cherry picking the worst, most easily judged scenarios available (i.e., a crazed murderer or rapist attacking) in order to make your argument.
The reality of “Stand Your Ground,” however is that we’ve seen many cases where it’s much harder to determine exactly who the “good guy” is. Zimmerman is the most obvious example. Is a guy who has assaulted a cop and been under a restraining order for domestic violence a “good guy.” Not according to my personal moral code.
The overwhelming majority of “Stand Your Ground” do not involve frothy-mouthed serials murderers or rapists (where one always would have been able to use lethal force in defense before the advent of these NRA/ALEC laws), but individuals of various criminal/psychological backgrounds engaging in mundane and entirely unnecessary arguments/physical altercations that escalate into lethal violence.
You lie and manipulate your followers, it will not work and will only backfire on you. You have nothing to back your claims while we have entire history to back our truth. You are trying to turn our nation into a nation of jellyfish and we will not stand for it. If you are insinuating that Trayvon was not dangerous and did not try to kill George you are just plain lying. What makes you think you are better than the officers who were in charge of the case? Just seen your interview about the Duck Dynasty guns and everything you said was propaganda, twisting truth to suit your agenda. One point I want to make to you is your lie about Phil saying “men” marrying 15-16yr. old girls. This really shows your intelligence, it is either really low or you know you are lying. my bet would be on the latter. Phil did not say “men” as in old redneck pedophiles, he clearly meant a 15-16yr. old boy marrying his High School sweetheart, before either one had sex since it is meant to be that way. That is how Americans used to marry when marriage was taken more seriously and when marriages lasted. You are dishonest and we see right through your manipulation!
@Ladd Everitt – thank you for responding.
““A Critic,” you seem to be cherry picking the worst, most easily judged scenarios available (i.e., a crazed murderer or rapist attacking) in order to make your argument.”
No, it is you that is cherry picking. There are over 3 million gang members in this country and there are over 7 million people under the control of the justice system. There are an unknown additional number of criminals. For example, there are at least 90,000 reported rapes per year – and most aren’t report. Hundreds of thousands of violent crimes vastly outnumber the hundreds of questionable assertions of self defense.
“The reality of “Stand Your Ground,” however is that we’ve seen many cases where it’s much harder to determine exactly who the “good guy” is. Zimmerman is the most obvious example. Is a guy who has assaulted a cop and been under a restraining order for domestic violence a “good guy.” Not according to my personal moral code.”
As I said above – the numbers prove you wrong. Zimmerman is one man and no matter what he did it does not compare to hundreds of thousands of violent crimes.
Thank you for demonstrating your utter lack of respect for the rule of law. Zimmerman was arrested for “contempt of cop”, he touched the hand of an undercover cop if the report I read was accurate. That’s very different from a violent assault,and I do believe he was never convicted of that charge. The restraining order is a common tactic in divorce and other bitter break ups. It is not evidence of any wrong doing or guilt on Zimmerman’s part.
I don’t know anything about Zimmerman’s character, but I’m not willing to judge him based on two non-convictions. The traditional American moral code is “presumed innocent until proven guilty” – yours can be summed up as “presumed guilty based on the non-proven accusations of others”.
“The overwhelming majority of “Stand Your Ground” do not involve frothy-mouthed serials murderers or rapists (where one always would have been able to use lethal force in defense before the advent of these NRA/ALEC laws), but individuals of various criminal/psychological backgrounds engaging in mundane and entirely unnecessary arguments/physical altercations that escalate into lethal violence.”
There has yet to be a comprehensive study so you don’t know that. And no, one would not always be able to legally use lethal force in defense against rapists or murderers under the duty to retreat. For example – a man is running at you with a bloody knife as you are getting into the car and he is screaming he is going to murder you. Under the duty to retreat if he is sufficiently far away, as determined later by a prosecutor, then you have to get into the car and drive away. I asked a NY prosecutor how far the crazed killer would have to be before one would have to drive away. He couldn’t tell me, but at some undefinable unknowable distance one can not defend oneself.
And that is what you are advocating in favor of – an unknowable standard that can not be defined, measured, or quantified. Mas Ayoob, the NH policeman and handgun expert and defense expert, recently gave an excellent lecture on why SYG is necessary. The example he gave was of a black man in Ohio who was accosted by two white thugs. The black man shot one of them, non-fatally, in the chest. The victim in this case spent 112 days in jail. He lost his job. He lost his apartment as he wasn’t able to fight the eviction as he wasn’t informed of it. The apartment complex took all of his property and put it out on the street to be stolen, so he lost all of his possessions.
And that Ladd Everitt, is exactly what you and CSGV are fighting for – the power to put innocent people in jail and to take everything away from them because they dared to resist a violent criminal attack as is their right. That is wrong, so very wrong.
Thank you for responding.
“The thinking behind this law is macho, male ego, nonsense. Not backing down, what kind of consideration is that when lives are at stake?
The other underlying idea is that a criminal’s life is not worth as much as a gun owner’s.”
The thinking behind your comment…..estrogen ego…nonsense.
The problem with you fake liberals is you base all of your claims on pure emotion. in this instance you are basing you opinion on the title of the law without knowing any truth to the law. We base our opinions on fact and you fake liberals can only respond with name calling and race baiting. Truth always wins so all this nonsense Ladd Everett is spewing will backfire unless they change our laws by force which would incriminate all who are involved.
A criminal that is attacking me or another potential victim is the one who has downgraded another persons safety and worth. Force should be escalated only as needed.I am guessing you have never been robbed try to imagine being out with your significant other and person(s) unknown apporach you and tell you to give them your money. I can tell you had I not had a weapon I have no idea what these guys would have done. I was fourtunate that the display of a weapon was enough to make them turn and leave quickly.The criminal lowered his/her own worth when they choose to try and take from others.
No, the thinking behind ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws is that a person who decides to use unprovoked force on someone in public has *less* right to be there than the victim of said force.
Without ‘Stand Your Ground’, if you are attacked, you have a duty to retreat. That means, according to the law, the person committing a violent felony has *more* right to be in that public place than the law-abiding citizen he has chosen to assault.
Does the idea that violent felons have more right to attack you than you have to defend yourself make any sense to you?
@Voice Well said!
I have been the victim of violence. For 18 months, I tried in vain to escape an abusive ex who stalked me, broke into not only my home, but, my parents home. This man even stalked my parents and my siblings. He backed off of me when I got married, but, he still stalks and harrasses my family, asking them questions about me and my oldest daughter (who is my husband’s daughter, not my ex’s–yes, he’s that crazy). We only dated for a month before he physically and sexually assaulted me. I dumped him and avoided him only for him to up his harrassment of myself and my family. Even going through all of that, I don’t–nor will I ever–own a gun, and I don’t agree with Stand Your Ground laws, either. (Also: my IQ is 135). Don’t you dare try to speak for me or any other victim of violence, John Q. Violence against violence never solved anything, and SYG laws only make it easier for people who aren’t mentally stable enough to begin with to play Dirty Harry. Google Renisha McBride. I am so tired of people who have never been in violent situations making comments about others who haven’t either, just to defend their “Dirty Harry” law.
Ben, you just named half the population in this country! That doesnt include drug addicts, crazy bipolars and gang members!!!
Careful, your ignorance is showing.
I am a health care professional, IQ quite a bit higher than 70 BTW.
See some of us do not believe in killing and therefore do not have guns.
Hence, we are at a distinct disadvantage to you gun nuts. I am afraid for my family and myself, that someone like Zimmerman may cross their paths….a clear fear killer. He could have walked away just as he was told to.
I am fine with the Castle law but not the wild wild west on the streets mentality.
I’ll bet you believe the Ten Commandments should be at the courthouse too. One of them is “Thou Shall NOT kill”.
Your comment shows your ignorance rather blatantly by way of two statements.
First, Zimmerman was never told to walk away. As evidenced by the non-emergency 911 call, and the ensuing conversation with the dispatcher, he was told “we don’t need you to do that” after being asked if he was following the suspicious person. At that point, that same 911 recording shows that he *did* stop attempting to follow. (The wind noise dies down, and Zimmerman his heard catching his breath.)
Second, when Zimmerman was being attacked, he could *not* have walked away, since the assailant (Trayvon) was sitting on top of him, punching him, and beating his head against the paved sidewalk.
Zimmerman’s case is one where Stand Your Ground doesn’t even come into play. And it never did, despite the (sadly) uniformed media playing it up as if it were some crucial part of the trial.
I like the part sheer us says…”The law did, however, require individuals to retreat from physical confrontations in public if they could safely do so. If you were cornered in an alley, pinned to the ground or otherwise out of options to retreat, you could defend yourself with lethal force. But if it’s possible to just turn around and walk away, go home and sleep it off, and avoid escalating the conflict, the law required you to do so.”.
You forgot about including that if someone is on top of you, bashing your head into pavement, how you’re supposed to retreat. Looks like the old law can be used as a defense. Thanks for pointing that out, Ladd.
Ben, your comment doesn’t seem to make sense, as you quote the exact sentences where I acknowledge that centuries of American and English common law did not require someone to retreat if they found themselves cornered or pinned down.
That is one element in this case: Did Travyon Martin have Zimmerman pinned down in a way where Zimmerman (who outweighed Martin) could not extract himself from the situation?
Another important question, of course, is whether that should even matter. Zimmerman, of course, armed himself and stalked an innocent and unarmed teenager that night, a kid who was simply trying to walk home from a convenience store to catch the latter half of a ballgame. What “right” did Zimmerman have to precipitate that confrontation in the first place? None as far as I’m concerned.
Another issue is should gun-toters be able to escalate violence and kill human beings in response to fear of “great bodily harm.” Again, my answer is no.
“What “right” did Zimmerman have to precipitate that confrontation in the first place? None as far as I’m concerned. ”
They were both in a public space. Zimmerman was a concerned citizen. He exercised his right of locomotion (by driving and walking) and his right of free speech (by asking Martin what he was doing). Foolish, unwise, ill advised, tactically incorrect, rude, all of those things perhaps and maybe even more – but all within his rights. It is disturbing that you don’t recognize that he was within his rights to follow and question Martin.
“Another issue is should gun-toters be able to escalate violence and kill human beings in response to fear of “great bodily harm.” Again, my answer is no.”
So when a man tries stabbing a woman she should not be able to shoot and kill him? Submission to evil enables evil, but it is a personal choice. To coerce all others to submit to evil is in itself an evil act. This is shown by the only means you have to keep people from being able to defend themselves – you have to use the state to undertake violent actions against those who arm and defend themselves. That is an offensive action, not a defensive one, and it most certainly is a violent one that of course is backed by guns.
There is a way to approach someone in a NON-THREATENING manner. With that gun in his possession and his frustration with them “always getting away,” I doubt Zimmerman spoke to Trayvon in a friendly “concerned citizen” way.
Now place yourself in Trayvon’s shoes: It’s dark, raining and you are just walking down the street talking to your girlfriend. You notice a man FOLLOWING you. Same man gets out of his vehicle and approaches you in an offensive manner. You don’t know if this man is gonna rob you, kidnap you, etc. You would automatically go on the defensive.
Nobody honestly knows what happened from beginning to end but God (Omnipotent), Trayvon (can’t tell his side of the story) and Zimmerman (lying to save his tail…again) GZ’s stories do not add up and the lead homicide investigator knew that on February 26, 2012.
“You would automatically go on the defensive.”
True, but being on the defensive doesn’t mean going on the offensive.
“the lead homicide investigator knew that on February 26, 2012.”
Last I read that is not correct and that was an incorrect rumor possibly begun by Martin’s mother.
Wow, M. Christmas…. You “doubt” GZ spoke friendly to TM.
You then claim, “Nobody honestly knows what happened from beginning to end but God.” Then turn around and claim Zimmerman is, “lying to save his tail”…
Thanks for acting like you care about the evidence ….while coming to your own conclusions that you made up…. Typical of anti’s…
What M. Christmas said. There is a way to engage with others in your neighborhood that is positive, productive and which promotes both safety and understanding.
Arming yourself with a gun, driving around in your SUV at night, and following/confronting kids who have done absolutely nothing wrong is not that way. Zimmerman had no business whatsoever following Martin that evening, and the fact that he continued to engage the young man even after 911 told him explicitly to stand off proves that whatever vendetta he was on had little or nothing to do with promoting public safety.
One can only imagine what the response of the pro-gun activists commenting here (“A Critic,” “Ben”) might be if you were walking the streets minding your own business and found yourself being followed by an armed individual for no good reason.
Somehow, I suspect you’d be far less tolerant with the behavior of THOSE individuals than you are being with that of Zimmerman here. Far less.
“What M. Christmas said. There is a way to engage with others in your neighborhood that is positive, productive and which promotes both safety and understanding.”
I agree, with the exception of when one encounters violent criminals, or even non-violent criminals. Hard to be positive and productive if you are dealing with a destructive vandal.
“Arming yourself with a gun, driving around in your SUV at night, and following/confronting kids who have done absolutely nothing wrong is not that way.”
I agree – people shouldn’t act like the police. I include the police as people. Still, if people want to be jerks, that is their right.
“Zimmerman had no business whatsoever following Martin that evening, and the fact that he continued to engage the young man even after 911 told him explicitly to stand off proves that whatever vendetta he was on had little or nothing to do with promoting public safety.”
Nonsense. You have the mindset of a coward, Zimmerman has the mindset of a do-gooder. Running away or following and confronting someone aren’t the best way to promote public safety, but that doesn’t mean either of you weren’t trying to promote public safety in your own non-ideal way.
“One can only imagine what the response of the pro-gun activists commenting here (“A Critic,” “Ben”) might be if you were walking the streets minding your own business and found yourself being followed by an armed individual for no good reason.”
It’s pretty simple – I’d say “Good evening sir! Is there anything I may assist you with?”
“Somehow, I suspect you’d be far less tolerant with the behavior of THOSE individuals than you are being with that of Zimmerman here. Far less.”
I am a libertarian and I am far more tolerant of the behavior of others than you will ever be. Let’s say Zimmerman did follow me, and then acted like a wanna be cop, calling me names, accusing me of crimes, etc. I would then say “Good night” or “Peace!” and I would walk away.
“A Critic,” I’ve asked you now to refrain from personal insults and name-calling on several occasions.”
Is it the part where you are being deceitful and you’re called out for it…that bothers you?
Ladd why has Mike Beard not posted a Mon.With Mike for a long time? Why do you have so few “likes” on Facebook? Do you see where this is going?
“A Critic”, since Zimmerman was patrolling his neighborhood under the auspices of Neighborhood Watch, his only duty was to report his suspicions to the police, which he did. But he broke from his role to pursue the teenager rather than wait for the police officer, as he was instructed to do. He had no right to confront Martin, and anything that transpired afterward, Zimmerman was responsible for.
John..define Confront. Then tell me where that boarders on illegal activity.
Oh..and by the way, the 911 operator told GZ he…, “Did not have to do that.” Do you know what GZ said right after that? “OK.”
“He had no right to confront Martin, and anything that transpired afterward, Zimmerman was responsible for.”
Wrong. He had every right to confront Martin. Zimmerman has some moral and practical responsibility for the situation, but if Martin did criminally attack Zimmerman, then Martin is responsible for the attack.
Martin was walking home from a convenience store to watch the rest of a ballgame after buying a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. Zimmerman not only had no right to confront Martin, he was expressly told by police not to. He ignored their instruction and an innocent teenager is dead as a result.
@Ladd Everitt
“Zimmerman not only had no right to confront Martin, ”
FALSE. That is a lie. That is a falsehood. That is an untrue statement. If you do not understand big words such as “right” then you should not be using them and you shouldn’t be a public advocate against the things you don’t understand.
Which is it Ladd – are you deliberately and willfully lying, or do you simply not understand basic rights such as the right to move freely in public and the right to free speech? You are either an incredibly dishonest or you are an incredibly ignorant man – either way you aren’t fit to speak or advocate on anything to do with law and order.
Or prove me wrong – cite the statute that prohibits Zimmerman’s actions prior to the shooting/altercation. Oh, wait, you can’t because there is no such statute in any state ever in the history of this country?
“A Critic,” I’ve asked you now to refrain from personal insults and name-calling on several occasions.
I’d be happy to carry on this conversation, but only if we can do so civilly.
““A Critic,” I’ve asked you now to refrain from personal insults and name-calling on several occasions.
I’d be happy to carry on this conversation, but only if we can do so civilly.”
Please copy and paste any insult or name-calling. You can’t, because I haven’t insulted you and I haven’t called you any names.
What I have done is explicitly call attention to your false and dishonest statements and tactics. You respond to this criticism with what? Oh, just more false and dishonest statements and tactics.
If you don’t want me to say you are lying…STOP LYING.
This is why gun banners always prefer to approve all comments. I was really shocked to see you comment on an open forum as you aren’t able to censor opposing views, and you aren’t able to keep me from pointing out that you are a professional liar.
I respect people who believe in non-violence. I don’t remember Gandhi, King, or any other advocate of non-violence routinely lying about laws or anything else for that matter. That’s why I respect those people – and it’s why I don’t respect you.
“I’d be happy to carry on this conversation, but only if we can do so civilly.”
No, you won’t. I’m not willing to do a tally, but you won’t respond to my point-by-point criticism of every false claim you make. For example, you didn’t provide any evidence that Zimmerman didn’t have a right to confront Martin. Nor will you, because he did have a right to do so.
This isn’t really a conversation. A conversation involves a give and take process in which each party seriously considers the views of the other. I am doing so with you – that’s why I address each and every lie and error you make. You on the other hand ignore almost everything I say and often when you do respond it’s with a very slick attempt to spin me as one who is attacking you with ad hominums. This isn’t a conversation – you dance to evade the points I make and I destroy your false philosophy and statements with facts, logic, and the law.
Well, Ladd like your son supposedly said “cukoo,cukoo, when can anyone who was not part of an attack/crime know with any real degree of certainty what they would do when faced with type of situation? What you smugly call escalate I would call ending violence. What color is the sky in your world?
It makes me sick to my stomach to hear you talk or read your lies. You say (who outweighed Martin) like you are an expert in combat and self defense. Trayvon was much bigger than the 12 yr. old pictures your state run media were showing, he was much taller than Zimmerman so just because Zimmerman was overweight does not mean he can overpower a tall, athletic, fit young man. Your statements are completely and utterly ridiculous and the only ones who take you serious are the ones with low I.Q. (your target audience) and others like you who are spreading propaganda to disarm America.
As long as you’re talking hypotheticals, if you are armed and despite this someone managed to get “on top of you” and is “bashing your head into pavement,” what odds are you banking that you aren’t pinned to the point that this attacker finds and accesses your weapon before you do?
That’s a great point, Spider. If there was indeed a physical altercation between Zimmerman and Martin, Zimmerman might have been deeply afraid of Martin gaining access to his handgun in the melee.
The problem is that an individual in that scenario might feel that he HAS to escalate the level of violence in order to remain safe (“If I don’t shoot him, he’s gonna grab my gun and shoot ME!”).
Keep that gun at home and what you likely have at the end of the day is a brawl where two combatants walk away with bruised egos but minor injuries (like Zimmerman).
“Keep that gun at home and what you likely have at the end of the day is a brawl where two combatants walk away with bruised egos but minor injuries”
And if the perp has a gun or a knife and wants to rape your wife?
Here’s the part to can say that it will not happen…. Because you’re psychic.
“Keep that gun at home and what you likely have at the end of the day is a brawl where two combatants walk away with bruised egos but minor injuries (like Zimmerman).”
That is mere conjecture. Many others have conjectured that Martin would have seriously hurt or killed Zimmerman. I personally lean towards agreeing that Martin was not a serious threat or else he would have seriously hurt Zimmerman. Martin was a punk, a wannabe thug, but he wasn’t a real thug or Zimmerman would have probably died, even with his gun.
Also, even if Zimmerman had no gun, he could have killed Martin with a knife, or his hands, or his feet, or any of the other weapons available to him. Or maybe Martin would have killed Zimmerman – a single blow to the head can always possibly kill someone. We’ll never know – but taking the gun out of the situation is no guarantee that both would have been relatively unscathed.
And a few serious questions for you Mr. Everitt if you would be so kind to answer. Is it morally and legally okay by you if people such as myself and Zimmerman carry knifes for self defense? Would you be equally outraged if Zimmerman had stabbed Martin to death? Would you or will you ever advocate restricting access or carrying of knives for self defense?
I’d appreciate a response as I try my best to understand your very foreign perspective.
And FYI, things you may not have considered before: I carry a gun to prevent violence, as it is well demonstrated that showing a gun almost always makes a criminal run away. It also means that if I do have to use violence to stop a criminal they are far more likely to live, as bullets are notoriously unreliable and handguns are infamously inaccurate and difficult to use with absolute precision in a combat situation, and knives are very simple and very reliable and very accurate in the hands of someone with some simple training. Have you ever considered that by restricting or prohibiting guns you could actually create many more serious injuries and deaths?
Fair questions, “A Critic.” Given that 2/3 of homicides and 1/2 of suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms, we think that laws governing the regulation of these weapons needs to be an absolute priority.
Knives certainly aren’t a weapon of choice for either those looking to commit murder or take their own lives. The notion that they are more lethal than firearms is asinine.
What studies are you referring to that prove that “it is well demonstrated that showing a gun almost always makes a criminal run away”?
What studies show you that law abiding citizens are looking to commit murder? And their are many things more lethal than guns, you overlook them cause you only wish to disarm us, you do not care if people die or not. For starters, Government is more lethal than guns. Cars are more lethal than guns. Alcohol is more lethal than guns. Tobacco is more lethal than guns. Obesity is more lethal than guns. Medical Malpractice is more lethal than guns. And the number one killer in this country is abortion. it is far more lethal than guns and the victim never gets a single chance in their short life to ever defend itself, it gets tossed into a trash can but we do not hear you standing against any of this so all of your propaganda against guns is most certainly not about saving lives.
“Fair questions, “A Critic.” Given that 2/3 of homicides and 1/2 of suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms, we think that laws governing the regulation of these weapons needs to be an absolute priority.”
Regulation or prohibition? According to Wikipedia your organizations original name was “National Coalition to Ban Handguns” – and the name was changed because your organization also wants to ban “assault rifles”. Is that true? Are you lying and saying “regulation” when you are really meaning “prohibition”?
“Knives certainly aren’t a weapon of choice for either those looking to commit murder or take their own lives. The notion that they are more lethal than firearms is asinine.”
I’m a former United States Marine rifleman who has spent 20 years studying combat – the art of killing. Your qualifications with regards to expertise about violence are…none.
There’s a saying people who know what they are doing say. “Run at a gun, run away from a knife”. If you were correct the authorities in self defense and combat would not say that.
“What studies are you referring to that prove that “it is well demonstrated that showing a gun almost always makes a criminal run away”?””
1) Common sense. Anyone who observes the world and studies the observations notes that most people who claim to have used a gun for self defense say “I drew/retrieved my gun and he ran away”. In addition anyone who studies humans in general can’t but help note that the usual reaction to having the business end of a firearm pointed at them is to run away. Further, anyone who has studied criminals knows perfectly well that they are cowards who prey on the weak and they usually flee at the first sign of resistance.
You have to be living in a fantasy world to think that the laziest people around are willing to fight a gun battle against citizens, proceed with the crime, and then deal with the cops who show up to a “shots fired” report before the crime is completed.
2) Formal studies have been done, I know dang well you’ve had them posted by others on Twitter and the rest of the Internet. Otherwise I’m sure they are on http://www.GunFacts.info for anyone who wishes to learn the truth.
Let’s ask someone who has been
killed in a fistfight, what exactly
‘deadly force’ is. Learn to behave.
I’ll be damned if my family is left
without a provider because some
jerk’s parents didn’t raise their kid
right and has ALWAYS minimized
his behavior as victim of some
sinister plot designed BY idiots, FOR
idiots.
“vaccuum,” exactly what crime do you think Trayon Martin had committed before the evening of February 26, 2012 that he deserved to die for?
“what crime do you think Trayon Martin had committed before the evening of February 26, 2012 that he deserved to die for?”
A loaded, intellectually dishonest question. Right on par L.E.
Ben and “vacuum”, you forget that Martin had not committed a crime, and was not suspected of criminal activity, other than appearing “suspicious.” What behavior had Martin not learned?
John.. you forget…I never claimed TM actually committed a crime. But since we weren’t there…how do you know how anyone was acting?
I’d still like to know from “vacuum” exactly what Trayvon did either that night, or previous to that night, that he deserved to die for.
“Learn to behave.” How was a kid returning home from a convenience store with a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea not behaving?
Well, now that you’ve rephrased the question such that it *includes* his actions on that night, I can give you an answer.
Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, using potentially lethal force, putting Zimmerman in fear of his life, or of grave bodily harm. How? By punching Zimmerman (google ‘1 punch kill’, and by beating Zimmerman’s head against a concrete sidewalk. By law, that gave Zimmerman the right to use lethal force to defend himself.
Zimmerman managed to survive with only superficial wounds, but that is due to *luck* rather than the nature of the attack on his person.
I’ve seen a number of posts here harping on ‘Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon’, which is true. It’s pretty common that an in-shape teenager will be outweighed by a clinically obese adult. That, in no way shape or form, gives any indication that the clinically obese adult is in better ‘fighting form’ than said in-shape teen.
“I’d still like to know from “vacuum” exactly what Trayvon did either that night, or previous to that night, that he deserved to die for.”
The part when TM physically attack GZ and pummeled him, leaving GZ nowhere to go. However, it takes intellectual honesty to grasp this.
If (big if) the scenario played out as Zimmerman claims.
That Zimmerman had gotten out of his car in an attempt to clarify his current location in the neighborhood and where Martin’s last location was. While returning to his car was assaulted and battered by Martin. During the struggle Zimmerman believes he is in danger of dying and shoots Martin once in the chest.
At that moment Martin may not have deserved to die (who are we to make that determination) but Zimmerman was legally able to defend himself with lethal force.
The crime as described above was Assault and Battery. This does not mean he deserved to die. Just that he put himself in a situation where another individual was allowed to defend himself and it cost him his life.
I’d have to agree that it is a “kill at will” law. No, a person cannot initiate a confrontation/fight, get their tail whupped, shoot and kill then try to claim self defense. That just makes you a NON-FIGHTING aggressor. Take your whuppin then think twice before you FOLLOW the AGGRESSIVELY ROLL UP ON someone else!
Common sense moment: If Zimmerman was beaten so bad to the point he was “one more head bash from needing to be spoon fed,” he would’ve taken that trip on the ambulance. Would’ve been checked for severe internal trauma. He simply hunted Trayvon down, started something he couldn’t finish without his gun. Classic punk ish!
Marissa Alexander, however, simply stood her ground to an abusive husband. She just fired a WARNING SHOT. Because she did not “kill at will” she was denied the SYG defense and sentenced to 20 MANDATORY years under FL’s 10-20-Life law…smh!
FLorida has backwards laws where a man with prior history of violence can MURDER an INNOCENT TEEN and gets the benefit of the doubt for less time than a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM who was beat on minutes before she fired a warning shot. Oh yeah…Rico’s oldest son came forth with the truth and said he nor his brother were ever in danger. Yet, the judge hit her hard anyway. Shameful!!!
Amen. Nicely laid out. I will take it a step further…Yes. As far as being a “concerned citizen” read some history. We don’t need to go back to the days of the Concerned Citizens Councils.
Way to go M. Christmas!!! You realize you anti’s make this way too easy… In one comment you claim “only god knows what happened” then turn around…AGAIN.. and make this unsubstantiated claim,……”He simply hunted Trayvon down, started something he couldn’t finish without his gun. Classic punk ish” Please feel free to demonstrate you have no idea what you’re talking about. This is fun.
Secondly, you claim….”Marissa Alexander, however, simply stood her ground to an abusive husband.” She left the house and returned with a gun. That is not “standing your ground”. Please read a book or something. You’re looking really silly.
Dear Ben,
The things I am “anti” against are ignorance (Which you clearly display), horrific gun laws (10-20-Life) and blatant injustices served up in OUR justice system. Anyone closely following both stories (Trayvon and Marissa) can see the injustices and the lies that law enforcement/judges have been allowing to carry weight.
Technically speaking, the garage is still part of the house. You act as if she went to a friend’s house a got a gun. She had to go back in where Rico was because the garage door was stuck and she didn’t have her keys. She grab her gun for protection.
The thing that disturbs me is how hypocritical some people are when it comes to gun laws and the application of them! Zimmerman kills an unarmed teen, some people are cool with that…smh! Marissa fires a warning shot and the same guys who backed GZ say she wasn’t standing her ground (against her abuser). Lock her up for 20 years! Really?! Backwards laws and backwards people who think like that.
As far as me posting my comments, I posted this one at 9:31PM and the other comment at 11:34PM. Hmmm…maybe someone needs to go read “How To Tell Time For Dummies”
“As far as me posting my comments, I posted this one at 9:31PM and the other comment at 11:34PM. Hmmm…maybe someone needs to go read “How To Tell Time For Dummies”
In otherwords…since to posted them at different times…you should not be taken to task for your hypocrisy?
So which is it? God only knows? Or is it God and YOU, only know?
I know from the evidence that’s out thus far (911 recording, Trayvon’s gf’s phone records, the lack of LIFE THREATENING injuries, Trayvon being dead, $204,000 building up SUPPOSIDLY unnoticed, GZ use to being slapped on the wrist for his crimes, etc) that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, approached Trayvon with preconceived assumptions (“he looks like he’s on drugs,” “they always get away, etc) and ended up killing Trayvon. Then later on states, “I thought it would JUST BLOW OVER!” Really?! Smh!
I will say it again Ben my friend, God is the only one who knows exactly what happened from start to finish. However, He has also blessed me with a BRAIN and COMMON SENSE to look at the details of this case and know that Zimmerman was wrong for his involvement in the incident.
Now go ahead with your lil quotations of what I just said to try to pick apart my comment. Do what you do playboy. I do notice you failed to “quote” and and address me stating Zimmerman turned down a trip to the hospital IMMEDIATELY after he killed Trayvon. So much for life threatening…sorry my common sense just kicked in again!
M. Christmas, I do agree that at initial glance Alexander should have been protected by Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. The law is so broad and insane that she only had to fear “great bodily harm” to attempt to kill her husband that day. She was certainly in a place where she had a right to be, her home.
That said, there is a great deal of conflicting evidence as to whether she was indeed trapped in the house that day. And she was even involved in an assault on her husband AFTER the shooting incident in which she actively sought him out.
Uneven application of the law in Florida? You betcha. But did Marissa Alexander make the right decisions that day in retrieving her handgun and firing that shot? I think we should look at that critically.
Ladd, there is more to what happened AFTER she bonded out. Marissa did not go to Rico and start trouble. She went there to get paperwork signed (ch childs birth certificate and divorce papers) Rico got mad and began beating on her. Marissa went to the hospital that day. She had bumps and bruises on her head. Also, there were bruises on her arm from her trying to block him.
Listen to Marissa’s interview: http://m.blogtalkradio.com/ocg/2012/05/11/live-interview-with-marissa-alexander-may-11-2012-2-pm-ed
A law cannot be “insane” only humans can be insane.I think you cant or wont look at this issue critically because you dont even consider the fact that illegal drugs that cant be made or processed in the U.S. (heroin and Cocaine) arrive here every day by the tons what would happen when the stockpiles of real AK47s ect. start coming directy to the smugglers that bring in the drugs.Please explain how you would curtail that,Mr. Everitt.
“I do notice you failed to “quote” and and address me stating Zimmerman turned down a trip to the hospital IMMEDIATELY after he killed Trayvon. So much for life threatening…sorry my common sense just kicked in again!”
I’ve known of people refusing to go to a doctor after an an accident of some sort, an accident that was potentially life threatening and DYING later that night because they didn’t go to the hospital. I suppose that the incident never really happened, because they refused to to go the Doctor. Right?
And sir…you did have something “kick in”….but it wasn’t common sense. That is an incident foreign to you.
Ben my friend:
Thanks for proving my point that Zimmerman LIED about the severity of his injuries.
“…an accident that was potentially life threatening and DYING later that night because they didn’t go to the hospital.”
The last I checked, G. Zimmerman is STILL ALIVE. N’est pas? He refused REAL medical treatment after being “one more head bash away from needing to be spoon fed.” GZ goes to the police station (where he looked and walked just fine), gets questioned and then released. He then waits until the NEXT DAY to see his FAMILY PHYSICIAN. I have to throw the BS flag on that…smh!
Nowhere in that medical report did it list any LIFE THREATENING injuries. The only injuries listed are those that are sustained in a normal brawl (cuts, black eyes, swelling and a broken nose). No cat scan was done to see if there was any internal bleeding or severe head trauma.
There was a lot of time between the encounter with Trayvon and him FINALLY seeking real medical attention. Who’s to say GZ didn’t have someone else rough him up a lil more before going for a medical report? Afterall, his track record is a bit shady…
So try again slick!
I also suggest you try not to over sleep the next time God is issuing COMMON SENSE. Get some…
A few points you seem to be ignoring.
1) She went to *his* house, supposedly to get the rest of her things while he wasn’t home.
2) She then proceeded to stay overnight.
3) She left the house, got the gun, and returned to the house.
4) During the investigation, the police were unable to find any issue with the garage door which would cause it to be ‘stuck’ as she claimed.
5) During another incident, she assaulted him (as evidenced by his black eye).
6) He had a protective order out on *her* at one point, which she violated. (I’m not clear whether this was active on the night of the shooting incident which landed her in jail or not.)
M. Christmas, I’d have to agree with you regarding Zimmerman’s claim that he was in some type of “life or death” struggle before killing Martin. The video we all saw does not show a man who had been in a life or death struggle. It shows a man with injuries so minor (if there were any) that police didn’t even their hands on him as Zimmerman exited their vehicle, injuries so minor Zimmmerman (apparently) needed no follow-up care whatsoever.
As for Marissa Alexander, I will have to look at what her stepson said. It was my understanding they were both standing beside their father in the kitchen when she fired the shot. Is that incorrect?
Yes that is incorrect about Marissa firing the shot near the boys. The oldest son later came back and testified that neither he or his brother were ever in danger. Rico had that same son lie for him in a previous incident with one of his other child’s mother. Her her in an interview telling of a time when she and Rico had gotten into it. She had left from near him, but Rico went a grabbed a fork, repeatedly poked himself with it, and then tried to blame it on her. I guess his son got tired of lying for him.
When people who clearly know nothing about the case talk trash without knowing the facts, I just smh at their ignorance and shrug them off. If you’d like to know more about her case I be more than happy to get you some info on it. I have a link for an interview she did the day she was sentenced. Very enlightening…
Ladd: I forgot to mention that Rico did that poking with a fork in front of his son. He then had his son lie for him about that…smh! Sick bama! Rico has a long history of violence against women (4 of his 5 “baby mamas) which he boasts about and telling lies. So how is it that a court of law allowed him to change his 66 page story from the deposition (where he admitted to being a woman beater) when the trial began?! Aren’t evidence and CREDIBILITY the key factors to winning in court? Leaves me scratching my head…
Yeah, the guy is definitely a bad actor who takes pride in being abusive toward women. There seems to be no doubt of that, and his comments are beneath contempt.
I still have some questions about the decisions that Alexander made that day and subsequently, however (when she sought out her husband and was charged with domestic battery for assaulting him). I worry that holding her up as a “hero” in this case could actually be very damaging to the safety of women in similar situations in the future.
“What do you call a law that allows a person to shoot and kill another human being when they could otherwise walk away safely?”
I have never been able to conceive of, or find an example from real life or anyone’s imagination, of any scenario in which one can safely walk away from someone who is attempting to murder, rape, or seriously injure you. If you can provide an example, I would appreciate it.
“The law did, however, require individuals to retreat from physical confrontations in public if they could safely do so.”
That wasn’t and isn’t true in California and New York, neither of which had or have SYG laws. Two of the most populous states with the strictest gun control laws have not and do not require people to retreat from criminal attacks on their lives. This doesn’t fit into your narrative so I can see why you left these important facts out.
Further, what you said was never true in any state. The duty to retreat doesn’t apply to “physical altercations”. It applies to the lawful use of self defense from persons who pose a reasonable threat of seriously injuring or killing you.
“If you were cornered in an alley, pinned to the ground or otherwise out of options to retreat, you could defend yourself with lethal force. ”
Not true. If the neighborhood bully has you cornered in an alley or on the ground and he’s about to give you a Wet Willy then no you could not defend yourself with lethal force.
“In those states, if you’ve had a terrible day, if you just don’t like the other guy very much or if you want to try out that new handgun you just bought, you can feel free to escalate the level of violence in a physical altercation by shooting him. ”
Not true. In all 50 states, including SYG states, if you shoot someone in a fist fight because you had a terrible day, or you don’t like him very much, or you want to try out that new handgun you just bought, you are looking at facing a murder charge. If you went out looking to get in a fistfight for any of those reasons it’s a murder one charge. In Florida for example that is a capital crime, they can and will fry you for it.
“Gun ownership has declined dramatically in the past 30 years, to the point that only one in five Americans now owns a firearm (and only one in 10 women).”
The number of people willing to admit to complete strangers on the phone that they have valuable easily fenced goods in their home has declined dramatically in the past 30 years. This correlates with the general increase in awareness of the danger of discussing personal details with potential scam artists or criminals.
“The gun industry’s challenge is to sell to men who already own multiple firearms”
That is not a challenge! My uncle bought his last gun, a very nice Remington. Then he bought a Kahr! The proper number of guns for a gun owner is “one more”, so no that is not a challenge.
“By pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws, the NRA sends a clear message to the hotrods and wannabe vigilantes that’s it’s okay to buy yourself that new carry gun, bring it out into public and even use it without fear of legal repercussions.”
Hot rods and wanna be vigilantes don’t read the latest statutes. The only people sending the message that SYG means what you said are you, your groups, and other anti-gun advocates, and you aren’t saying it in a press release on the NRA site that only law nerds read, you are saying in a national campaign on television, in newspapers, and on the Internet. If some hot rod or wanna be vigilante does exactly what you are saying because of SYG, it will because they heard you or one of your fellow travelers completely misrepresenting the law.
“Then, when the rest of us realize that we are walking our streets surrounded by armed individuals with questionable backgrounds and terrible judgment (like Zimmerman), the NRA is hoping that we too will feel compelled to arm ourselves in public. It is a strategy that is both cunning and sick.”
I haven’t seen any evidence of this conspiracy theory. If you have any evidence I’m sure you would have posted it long ago. There is no basis for this claim, especially since those of us who are not naive (including the NRA) know that everywhere on earth there are armed individuals with questionable backgrounds and terrible judgment. The notion that the NRA plans on enabling concealed weapons carriers to act dangerously and irresponsibly in order to scare people into buying and carrying arms is absurd. It doesn’t make any sense – wouldn’t that provide CSGV and the Brady Campaign ammunition against people owning and carrying arms? Yes it would. Wouldn’t the NRA and it’s teams of lawyers and lobbyists and strategists think of that? Yes they would.
“The NRA has shown us a roadmap to a society that relies solely on private violence — and the threat of private violence — to keep its citizens in line. ”
The day the NRA calls for the abolishment of the state is the day I join the NRA. Until then it’s just another pipe dream.
“Such a society absolves people of the responsibility to learn how to manage conflicts nonviolently, without escalating them. It’s not a society I want to see my daughters grow up in.”
Please explain to me how you will teach your daughters to manage a conflict non-violently with multiple armed criminals bent on raping and murdering them.
“No one should ever be allowed to walk our streets with a hidden handgun and kill at will.”
And no one can. Anyone who kills merely because they have the will to kill is going to be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced…assuming they aren’t shot and killed by one of their intended victims.
A Critic. Sir, you are exactly what anti-gunners fear. Rational and reasonable thought. Ladd cannot counter your reply. Not with anything other than emotion and half-truths.
“Not true. If the neighborhood bully has you cornered in an alley or on the ground and he’s about to give you a Wet Willy then no you could not defend yourself with lethal force.”
Actually if you kill the only other witness to the altercation, it’s pretty easy to claim that you feared “great bodily harm” and get away with a disproportionate deadly response. That’s why this is a bad law that needlessly costs innocent lives by setting a very low bar for imposing a death sentence on a fellow human being.
That’s right. Dead men don’t talk. Zimmerman killed the only other direct witness to whatever confrontation occurred that night. Wonderful for a defense team in a “Stand Your Ground” case.
Should someone shoot to wound? Whats really sad here is that you show a blatent lack of what goes on in a confrontation. People who have escaped violence or defended themselves rarely remember exactly what happened at the time.Face it you want guns banned it wont happen. Not because of the NRA Ect. but because Self defense is a human right not one that should be limited by people who know that they really want a ban on guns and try to chip away at the issue instead of coming right out and saying what the long term goals of the VPC CSGV ect really are.
“If the neighborhood bully has you cornered in an alley or on the ground and he’s about to give you a Wet Willy then no you could not defend yourself with lethal force.”
The neighborhood bully….should have not been a bully.
You can claim “great bodily harm”. When have criminals NOT made that claim? You still have to prove your case. This law changed NOTHING. Even if you “stand your ground”, you have to PROVE IT.
“Anyone who kills merely because they have the will to kill is going to be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced…”
Some rose colored glasses you have on there, A.C.
If only.
It’s amazing how pro-gun activists suddenly have such inspired faith in an omnipotent justice system when it comes to avoiding laws regulating personal behavior with firearms.
Brilliant.
” pro-gun activists ”
You really need to come up with another line, the one quoted above is getting old and tired.
I soon expect you to sink into your typical name-calling, emotional rants because “A Critic” has shown every single one of your assumptions to be wrong and fully flawed.
“I soon expect you to sink into your typical name-calling, emotional rants because “A Critic” has shown every single one of your assumptions to be wrong and fully flawed.”
You are correct. “A Critic”…. nailed him.
It’s amazing how pro-gun activists suddenly have such inspired faith in an omnipotent justice system when it comes to avoiding laws regulating personal behavior with firearms.”
He was speaking…IN GENERAL. Which has always been the case. Turn on the intellectual honesty…it at least makes you appear genuine.
As for regulating personal behavior. Explain please….
“It’s amazing how pro-gun activists suddenly have such inspired faith in an omnipotent justice system when it comes to avoiding laws regulating personal behavior with firearms.”
I have no faith in the “justice” system. As I mentioned, I don’t even support the existence of the state, so I surely don’t have any faith at all in the justice system.
However…the conviction rate on people who “kill at will” strangers on the street is still over fifty percent. If you were to study the conviction rate where the identity of the killer was known I’m sure it’s over 90 percent. Excluding cops as the system excludes them, it might very well approach 100 percent. If you go out in public and kill people for your own personal reason you are probably going to be convicted of the crime.
And again, in SYG Florida, going out to kill someone to try out your new handgun is Murder 1.
“A Critic,” this comment or yours stood out glaringly:
“The day the NRA calls for the abolishment of the state is the day I join the NRA. Until then it’s just another pipe dream.”
What did you mean by it?
“What did you mean by it?”
I am an anarcho-capitalist. That means I oppose the existence of the state. By the state I mean the human organization that has a monopoly on crime including offensive acts of violence (and often also a monopoly on defensive acts of violence).
I am not sure what specific form of politics your personal views fall under, but as you favor gun control it is surely some variant of statism. That means you support the military and police and politicians – the groups of people who in history have killed and hurt many more times the numbers hurt and killed by individuals. I am opposed to all offensive violence, you are only opposed to violence by non-state actors, and you are also opposed to defensive violence by non-state actors. Now, you can and probably will claim that you at least oppose offensive acts of violence by the state – but that’s like saying you oppose lung cancer but support smoking cigarettes.
I hope that gives you some food for thought. Thanks for asking that question, and don’t hesitate to ask more.
Oh, I’m familiar with anarcho-capitalism. I’ve even blogged on that subject here at Waging Nonviolence.
Anarchy certainly ain’t my cup of tea, nor is the privatization of “law and order.”
“Anarchy certainly ain’t my cup of tea, nor is the privatization of “law and order.””
You prefer the hypocritical institution which begins upholding the law by breaking it? I thought about it for about 25 years. I read every argument in favor of it. None of them made sense. Criminals should not be allowed to commit crimes with immunity from prosecution so that they may in theory uphold the law. It’s one of the craziest and most foolish ideas in history, if not the craziest and most foolish ever.
And what political philosophy do you subscribe to? I realize this won’t reflect on CSGV which has a diverse group of backers, but what exactly are your views that allow you to believe that CSGV endorsed totalitarianism is a good idea?
Your claim that a “Stand Your Ground” law essentially is a “Kill At Will” law is patently untrue. And quite frankly, I have yet to see any report that says Zimmerman plans to defend his actions with that law.
If the version of event actually went the way Zimmerman states it was, he has a solid defense using simply the normal self defense law as his argument.
His version of events states he had confronted Martin, asked what he was doing there, and, satisfied with the reason he was there, turned to leave. He was then attacked from the rear, and knocked to the ground. After getting him on the ground, Martin was on top of him, beating his head into the sidewalk. THIS FACT is backed up by an independent witness. At that point, Martin ceased being a victim, and became the aggressor.
I saw one reply above asking if he knew the next “bash” of his head into the sidewalk would certainly kill or maim him. The standard for self defense is not knowing the next hit, or bash will kill you, it’s to remain alive to live another day.
There is NOTHING in the evidence released so far to support the claim that Zimmerman had made it a point to “stalk” every person of color in his neighborhood. And he didn’t do so in this incident either. If you listen to his conversation with the police dispatcher, prior to the dispatcher saying “We don’t need you to do that”, Zimmerman clearly sounded “winded”, as if he was following someone. After that statement was made, Zimmerman’s replies are clearly normal conversational statements, as if he had ceased following Martin. He was then telling the dispatcher the area of the community that police would find him and Martin.
Regardless of what side you fall upon in this case, Zimmerman was not doing anything criminal when he followed, or encountered Martin. Any citizen has the right to inquire as to what a person is doing in their neighborhood, whether they’re a stranger, or a resident of the area. That is not a aggressive act, whether you’re a Hispanic male, or the little old white lady that lives on the corner.
Yes, I’m sure Martin felt he was disrespected by Zimmerman. Most anyone would feel that someone who followed them was trying to cause them harm. But that situation was dealt with and solved prior to Martin’s attack from the rear of Zimmerman. And trust me, a can of iced tea in a bag, crashed into the rear of your neck, WILL drop you to the ground. It’s the same as the old police “sap” hit.
Now,I’ve offered my view of what happened that fateful evening. I have tried to offer a constructive explanation of what I see this case comes down to. Yet, somehow I feel, unless the administrators delete this post, I’ll see the personal attacks, and hateful language directed towards me. Take your best shot!
Pat, it’s true that Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, has not yet indicated what type of defense his client will pursue. It would be shocking, however, if Zimmerman’s legal team didn’t file a motion to dismiss the charges against him using the Stand Your Ground defense.
Zimmerman would certainly not be protected under the pre-“Stand Your Ground” law because there is no way he could feasibly argue that he could not have retreated safely from the confrontation with Martin that evening. And police have their 911 conversation with Zimmerman, of course, to prove it. Zimmerman was only able to engage Martin that evening because the “Stand Your Ground” eliminated his duty to retreat from a confrontation in public.
As to witness testimony, there is conflicting testimony as to the nature of the confrontation and who the aggressor was. Zimmerman, in the video we all saw from that evening, was clearly not a man who had his head “bashed into a sidewalk,” however. He was absolutely fine.
And there actually is evidence to indicate Zimmerman had been following and engaging minority youth in his community for many months. See the following article from the Miami Herald:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/trayvon-martin-shooter-a-habitual.html
As to your fantasies about “a can of iced tea in a bag, crashed into the rear of your neck,” they are just that. There isn’t any evidence to indicate Martin engaged in such an attack on Zimmerman. To the contrary, the testimony of Trayvon’s girlfriend, who was on the phone with Martin right up until the moment he saw Zimmerman, contradicts that version of events completely.
EXACTLY!!! I don’t know how some people are so gullible and believe Zimmerman’s every word. I guess they also believe that prior to GZ’s bond hearing, nobody knew about the pocket change of $204,000 being in his account…smh! If Zimmerman wasn’t working for a while and that was his main source for income, you best believe he or someone knew about those funds. Prime example of the courts accepting LIES.
“Zimmerman would certainly not be protected under the pre-“Stand Your Ground” law because there is no way he could feasibly argue that he could not have retreated safely from the confrontation with Martin that evening.”
Tell me what illegal activity GZ committed. Then explain how you retreat while laying on your back. (I don’t expect a genuine answer)
“Zimmerman was only able to engage Martin that evening because the “Stand Your Ground” eliminated his duty to retreat from a confrontation in public”
Define ENGAGE. Asking questions have NOTHING to do with “stand your ground”. It is completely LEGAL. ANYONE can do this.How do you look at yourself in the mirror and not smile and wink?
“Zimmerman, in the video we all saw from that evening, was clearly not a man who had his head “bashed into a sidewalk,” however. He was absolutely fine.”
And now, you’re a doctor? You know what it looks like when someone grabs your head and pushes it into concrete? Did it happen? Who knows…..least of all…you.
What illegal activity? Zimmerman might have been drunk or high that night. No blood test was administered, so we’ll never know.
Zimmerman might also have falsely imprisoned Martin that night. He might have committed assault/battery against him by initiating the conflict. But because he killed the only other direct witness to whatever confrontation occurred, it would be nearly impossible to prove that had it occurred.
So conjecture is all you have and since GZ was a gun owner…he guilty in your eyes. Nice.
How about we look at the current evidence? Incredible concept…I know.
The “drug testing” yes Zimmerman may have been intoxicated Treyvon may have been the aggressor Treyvon may have had a bad day and wanted to hit the first person he saw.What may have happened does not really matter. What does matter is what can be proven and thats all.
If people would READ THE LAW, instead of only reading the sensationalized media coverage and the internet posts by thirteen year olds who somehow know everything about how the world works, people would see that the stand your ground law is NOT a license to kill at will.
We have read the statute in Florida. Here is a detailed analysis by my organization’s executive director:
“Arming Zimmerman”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/arming-zimmerman_b_1367648.html
Do you have a specific argument to make citing the statute? I’d be happy to hear it.
However, statistically speaking, the SYG defense is mostly accepted when the other party is unavailable to speak their piece due to them RESTING IN PEACE…
“In the wake of Zimmerman’s slaying of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, I have frequently heard people claim, “The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law does not allow you follow someone!” Often, the people claiming this are the ones responsible for the law, like the bill’s sponsor, Florida House Representative Dennis Baxley and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who signed it into law.”
I forgot to address this part. Why are people including politicians claiming this? It’s most certainly because the SYG law explicitly excludes those who pursue or provoke someone else. It’s not a mere claim – it is the actual letter of the law.
I can respect someone who has a very different opinion than my own. If you want to ban all guns, we can agree to disagree, and we can debate our differing views. What I can not respect is people who are dishonest and who completely misrepresent the law and the facts of the matter. This sort of unethical lying is one of the main reasons why the gun control lobby is failing – it paints CSGV in a very bad light when it’s leader lies every chance he gets and when he deliberately misrepresents reality in order to fabricate a myth in order to justify gun control.
Actually, there is absolutely nothing in the law to prevent you from either following someone or provoking a conflict. The only thing you cannot do is “engage in an unlawful behavior” (i.e., commit a crime) prior to “standing your ground.”
But if you have a homicide where only the shooter is left standing and there are no direct witnesses to the altercation, that can be near impossible to prove. Dead men don’t talk.
And please, name-calling isn’t necessary, “A Critic.” If you have a substantive argument to make, make it. This website has educated readers that appreciate intelligent, thoughtful debate.
“Actually, there is absolutely nothing in the law to prevent you from either following someone or provoking a conflict. The only thing you cannot do is “engage in an unlawful behavior” (i.e., commit a crime) prior to “standing your ground.””
Florida law: “776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: …
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,”
That’s pretty clear to me.
“But if you have a homicide where only the shooter is left standing and there are no direct witnesses to the altercation, that can be near impossible to prove. Dead men don’t talk.”
True. And if there is a duty to retreat, a murderer can easily say “I tried to retreat but he kept coming at me”.
“And please, name-calling isn’t necessary, “A Critic.” If you have a substantive argument to make, make it. This website has educated readers that appreciate intelligent, thoughtful debate.”
I never called you any names. I just reread what I wrote four times and not once did I call you any names. I did accurately describe your dishonesty – but pointing out the fact that you are dishonest isn’t the same thing as calling you a name. I did make a substantive argument in which I demolished your points and your philosophy. You only responded to one tangential item. I’d love to see a response to each and every other point I made.
And to clarify and emphasize – saying that the law that says you can use lethal force against a person trying to kill or seriously injure you means you can “kill at will” is patently dishonest. It’s pure propaganda. There is no factual basis for it. Would you describe the duty to retreat as “kill at will unless you can run away”? No, because it’s not accurate in the least bit. Actually I do suspect you might say that if you were able to get rid of SYG. Serious question for you Ladd – do you believe that people should be allowed to use lethal force in self defense at all?
“A Critic,” there’s absolutely nothing in that language you cited that would prevent Zimmerman from following Martin like he did that night. And Zimmerman, of course spent months following people exactly like that in his community and notifying police (often) when he did so. He had no duty to retreat from a confrontation in public even if he could do so safely, and that is why he avoided arrest that night.
As to whether Zimmerman “provoked the use of force against himself” that night, given that he killed the only other direct witness to whatever confrontation occurred, he’s solved that problem for himself.
And to answer your question, yes I think there are situations where people are justified in using lethal force. I have no problem, for example, with the longstanding common law traditions regarding self-defense that I describe in this blog. But I don’t glorify any type of violence, justified or otherwise.
Again, I would ask you to refrain from personal insults. We can have an intelligent discussion without resorting to name-calling. Thanks.
“Again, I would ask you to refrain from personal insults. We can have an intelligent discussion without resorting to name-calling. Thanks.”
You mean I should not explicitly address your lack of ethics especially your lack of honesty?
I don’t censor myself to enable the advocates of tyranny.
Great spin, I see why they pay you to do your job.
“Actually, there is absolutely nothing in the law to prevent you from either following someone or provoking a conflict. The only thing you cannot do is “engage in an unlawful behavior” (i.e., commit a crime) prior to “standing your ground.””
The law says self defense doesn’t apply if you provoke someone. That includes SYG.
“But if you have a homicide where only the shooter is left standing and there are no direct witnesses to the altercation, that can be near impossible to prove. Dead men don’t talk.”
True, even with a duty to retreat.
As to whether Zimmerman “provoked the use of force against himself” is completely unimportant. Everyone is in command of and responsible for their own actions, so whether or not Zimmerman had started taunting him verbally is unimportant, Martin was the one who made the decision to attack him, no one forced his body to move. I don’t glorify violence either, but I am in support of violence that allows people to protect themselves.
This website has educated readers that appreciate intelligent, thoughtful debate. Yes just not from you.Please answer the one question you seem to avoid. Does “your orginazation” (does that make you feel relavant?) advocate the disarming of the American public?
I once had a woman throw a lit cigarette at me in a movie theater because she saw me reporting her for smoking, and I later watched her do the same thing to someone else. This was in the days before our state went to right to carry. I don’t think that she would have shot me in the movie, but with her temper what if she had been carrying a gun, and I had been following her outside of the theater?
If you follow or go after someone on your own, you could be setting yourself up for some kind of retaliation because a lot of people are going to respond to that. Why provoke violence when it isn’t necessary? And furthermore, why deny an individual the chance to defend himself or herself in a court of law by taking it upon yourself to possibly end his or her life when you don’t have to and when you’re not always sure what that person is doing? Just because a person looks guilty does not mean that he or she is.
On top of the fact that more and more people are armed now, it’s also possible that if I were to bang on my neighbors’ door for help, one of them could shoot me if he or she felt threatened. Great.
Great comments, Jaguar. Thanks for sharing. Sadly, the types of mundane arguments/conflicts you describe here (like the one in the theater) are ones that we see leading to shooting deaths every day in public in the United States, including in the original “Right-to-Carry” state, Florida:
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/concerns-about-concealed-carry/homicides-committed-by-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-in-state-of-florida
Ladd, do you mean Florida? The State that has fewer murders, rapes and robberies now, than when Right to Carry was first implemented?
I mean the state where the number of “justifiable” homicides have tripled since the “Stand Your Ground” law was enacted in 2005.
“I mean the state where the number of “justifiable” homicides have tripled since the “Stand Your Ground” law was enacted in 2005.”
And has the number of self defense homicides changed at all? This hasn’t been answered yet to my knowledge. Since the purpose of SYG was to change most non-charged self defense homicides to being certified justifiable homicides…maybe it has only done exactly what it was intended to do? Perhaps even the number of killings in self defense have gone down?
Oh, so you mean Justifiables are up while un-justifiables are down? Could that mean people aren’t turning around and getting shot and stabbed in the back? Maybe they ARE “standing their ground”…and saving their own lives.
Horrific idea….
What if is a great point now your desperation shows. Talk about grasping at straws. Ones that dont even exist.Thank you again for showing your lack of a valid arguement.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/05/sacred-and-inviolable-aspect-of.html
Good point, Mike. There IS nothing sacred about it. And, of course, individual self-defense with a firearm–whether in the home or in public–was not so much as even mentioned during our Founders’ lengthy writings and debates on the Second Amendment (to include the pronouncements of Second Amendment author James Madison).
“Good point, Mike. There IS nothing sacred about it.”
Life is sacred, the duty to defend it is sacred, the means of doing so is sacred.
“And, of course, individual self-defense with a firearm–whether in the home or in public–was not so much as even mentioned during our Founders’ lengthy writings and debates on the Second Amendment (to include the pronouncements of Second Amendment author James Madison).”
And, of course, the smarter but less numerous Founders who lost the debate made the very astute case that defining some rights would allow future generations to attack all rights.
“individual self-defense with a firearm–whether in the home or in public–was not so much as even mentioned during our Founders’ lengthy writings”
You need to read more. I notice you anti’s never quote our Founders for the taking of our arms. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Please, by all means, cite your source(s) to counter my claim.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with individual self defense against street level violence. Nor did the founders address self defense.
Self defense was a recognized natural right. It was also recognized that arms were the best method of self defense and natural equalizers between naturally unequal opponents.
Ladd, you say there is no mention of a right of individual self defense in the home or in public by our founders, and that’s true. Do you really think they’d imagine a society where the rights of an individual to defend themselves either in their home, or in public, with a firearm, or whatever means necessary, would be questioned? I do not.
I might point out the FACT that the initial conflict in the Revolution happened because the British were on their way to confiscate the powder stores of villages around Boston. Individual homes had a small supply of gunpowder in their homes, enough for a few shots. Major stores of gunpowder for these town was stockpiled in a powder house, where IF something would happen to detonate it, the blast wouldn’t injure townspeople.
You seem to misunderstand the beliefs held by our founders on gun ownership. They saw it as a common thing nearly every home had, for whatever reason. Be it protecting their family from Indians, or other threats. Be it for hunting to provide food for the family.
See, the original Constitution did not contain the Bill of Rights, that was added in a large part to get Virginia to ratify it. Because if they didn’t, Washington could not be elected the first President. They saw the rights listed in the Bill of Rights not something a government ceded to the citizens, rather, those rights were bestowed on a citizen by his creator.
You said above:”As to your fantasies about “a can of iced tea in a bag, crashed into the rear of your neck,” they are just that. There isn’t any evidence to indicate Martin engaged in such an attack on Zimmerman. To the contrary, the testimony of Trayvon’s girlfriend, who was on the phone with Martin right up until the moment he saw Zimmerman, contradicts that version of events completely.”
It was no fantasy of mine, it’s the version Zimmerman stated. He said they had talked, and he turned to leave, obviously Martin’s answer to his question satisfied him. Zimmerman states he was hit from behind and knocked to the ground. That after he was knocked to the ground, Martin sat on top of his chest, and commenced beating his head into the sidewalk. There most certainly is evidence of Zimmerman’s injuries, unless you prefer to resort to the videos ABC altered to make it appear he was fine. How about the enhancements to the audio of the 911 call, and the claims that they heard “racist” comments by Zimmerman?
Yes, Martin was talking to his girlfriend, allegedly until the point where Martin and Zimmerman came together, and Zimmerman asked him what he was doing there. His girlfriend said that was the last thing she heard, and then the line went dead. Explain away why such a fine, upstanding young man as you guys are claiming he was, didn’t also have the police on the line? His girlfriend states he was scared, as do those who seek to disarm Americans. So why if he was so scared, didn’t he quit talking to his girlfriend, who could do nothing to help him, and contact the police?
In your organizations opinion, right to carry permits under a “shall issue” system simply hands them out to anyone who applies for one. I know you DO understand that in order to get a concealed carry permit in most all states, you must undergo a strict background check, and pass that before local law enforcement will issue a permit. To read your groups “op-ed” pieces, everyone out here carrying a gun is some outlaw, intent on finding an unsuspecting victim to draw down on and kill. That’s a lie and we both know it. I’ve had a concealed carry permit for 3 years now. I didn’t rely on simply the course my state requires for you to get a permit, I have taken advanced classes to make sure my skills stay sharp. Frankly, a great many folks I know with carry permits actually have more real world training than most police officers in my area. And I pray the only shots I take the rest of my life are at little pieces of paper on a shooting range.
Your group follows the usual anti-gun crowd tactic of attacking the NRA, as if they’re evil.I am a proud NRA Life Member, for one reason. If not for them, small police forces would have no advanced firearm training system. The shooting range I’m a member of donates the use of our range, and supplies firearms instructors, free of charge to smaller police forces in our area. How a organization of just over 4 million members frightens so many in this country amazes me.
Of the states that require firearms training as part of their concealed carry permit regulations, the main course taught is the NRA’s Basic Pistol Course. The NRA also has the only course to teach our children how to react if they see an unattended firearm, the “Eddie Eagle” program has saved literally millions of our younger children, simply teaching them basic rules to follow if they see an unattended firearm. To stay away from it, don’t touch it, leave the area where the gun is, and tell an adult about it.
I saw where people claim I’m naive to buy into Zimmerman’s version of events. I feel those who bought the story the media fed America are similarly naive. Especially since it’s been established that 2 media sources enhanced, or edited video and audio evidence to support their narrative put out before the tapes were released.
But one final thought. I’m sure some here have children that are Martin’s age. The story put out by his family was he left to go to the store to get snacks. Would you, if your child was unfamiliar with the area, simply sit back and not worry when that child didn’t return to where you were in a reasonable amount of time? The police were present at the scene for 4 hours, are you so tucked into your home you wouldn’t hear sirens, and go out to check out what was going on in your gated community?
I have no children under the age of 18 anymore, the youngest grandson that lives near us is 24. If he were here watching TV, and left to go to the store, and didn’t return within a reasonable time frame for him to get to the store and back, I’d be out looking for him.
Pat, the concerns of my organization regarding the extreme and anti-democratic views, statements and actions of the NRA’s leadership are chronicled at our “Meet The NRA” website:
http://www.meetthenra.org/
We think it’s a record that should send a chill down every American’s spine.
Anti Democratic? Civics 101 Sir, We live in a democraticaly elected Republic. Do you remember the Pledge of Alligence? May I ask how do you personally feel about the “rank and file” members of the NRA? Are they all over the top gun crazed fanatics? Or are they just average people who would like to see violence go down as much as anyone else?
One other thought I didn’t explore above is whether following someone can be considered a criminal act, or if asking of someone in your neighborhood (especially a gated community) what they’re doing there.
Unless laws have changed in this country, and I didn’t hear about it, ANYONE can follow ANYONE, if they’re not doing so with a criminal intent, anywhere in our great land. Asking a stranger who is in your neighborhood if you can help them, or even, what they’re doing there, is also still legal. Those actions are not crimes. People can take such actions as challenging them, and they could claim it’s disrespect, I suppose. But disrespecting a person also isn’t against the law, last I checked.
I’ve heard people defend Martin for attacking Zimmerman, claiming that since he had came after him, that turned the tables and somehow gave him the right to assault Zimmerman. Following someone isn’t a violent act. Asking someone what they’re doing in your neighborhood isn’t a violent act. It might provoke some people, but if they react in a violent manner, they turn into the aggressor instead of the victim.
Well, following can cross the line and become a crime of stalking, so your assertion is not entirely true, but I get your basic point.
But the bigger point here about following is that the “Stand Your Ground” law removes the duty to retreat from a confrontation in public if one can safely do so. No one can feasibly argue that Zimmerman could not have retreated from a confrontation with Martin that evening. The police knew that better than anyone because they were on the phone with Zimmerman when he had every opportunity to do so. But Zimmerman had no duty to walk away and was allowed by the law to engage Martin.
And that is the reason he was able to avoid arrest that night.
Stalking requires repeated occurrences so would not apply to this situation.
Zimmerman did not know he was in a violent confrontation until after Martin assaulted him and proceeded to batter him. (assuming his statements are factual) Therefore he would not have had a duty to retreat until he was under attack. At that point appears he was quickly on the ground making retreat a nonviable option. So even if Stand Your Ground was not on the books he would have been justified in use of lethal force in self defense seeing as how he would have been unable to reasonably retreat.
Zimmerman had no duty to walk away, he was the neighborhood watch, and under no obligation to follow the advice of a phone operator. He could NOT have retreated before the confrontation, because there was no threat to retreat from until Martin physically attacked him.
@Ladd Everitt
I read the Horowitz piece you linked to above. He says:
“In support of “Stand Your Ground,” Marion Hammer stated, “Through time, in this country, what I like to call bleeding heart criminal coddlers want you to give a criminal an even break, so that when you’re attacked, you’re supposed to turn around and run, rather than standing your ground and protecting yourself and your family and your property.” But others have dubbed it a “Shoot First” law.”
Horowitz is one of the “others” who dubbed it a “Shoot First” law. This is also incredibly dishonest. You can’t shoot first – first someone has to pose a reasonable threat to your life or limb. An honest phrase would be “Attempt to Murder Or Maim First, Shoot Second”. Obviously telling the truth is going to be a lot less effective than lying for the advocates of citizen disarmament, so I do understand why you have to lie (probably even to yourself) – but that doesn’t make it moral.
Actually, the law allows you to kill if you fear “great bodily harm.” You don’t even necessarily have to be physically attacked, but if you are, that could simply mean a punch, a shove, being thrown down, etc.
“Actually, the law allows you to kill if you fear “great bodily harm.” You don’t even necessarily have to be physically attacked, but if you are, that could simply mean a punch, a shove, being thrown down, etc.”
Not necessarily true. If you have a NFL line backer type getting punched by a 100 year old petite woman – no he can not shoot her. In the reverse situation then yes she could shoot him.
You have to REASONABLY believe that there is a threat of great bodily harm. No one reasonably believes that Marion Hammer for example could cause great bodily harm by punching a huge strong young man. Nor does anyone reasonably believe that she would not be facing great bodily harm if she was the victim.
Why doesn’t CSGV and the other gun banners ever discuss the legal requirements for using self defense under SYG? Why do you instead say “kill at will”?
of course it’s kill at will. not only that, this terrible law is not applied equally. for example, the woman who fired a gun into the ceiling of her home, where her ex-husband and abuser was threatening to kill her, was sentenced to 20 years in prison. she didn’t even shoot the guy. but she was not considered to be “standing her ground.”
Agreed on both points, Susan. Like M. Christmas and I have talked about in these threads, it does appear that the law should have covered her.
1) It wasn’t *her* home, it was *his*.
2) She didn’t shoot into the ceiling, she shot into the wall, and based on scene reconstruction by the police, it was determined to be a narrow miss.
3) She left the situation, fetched the gun, and returned. You may not have a duty to retreat under ‘Stand Your Ground’, but once you have, if you return and initiate force, ‘Stand Your Ground’ isn’t going to help you any more.
4) She has a history of domestic violence on *him*, and has been known to violate protective orders he has had on *her*.
Read up on the facts of the situation before you try to use it. It doesn’t support your argument in the slightest.
[For some reason, this blog will not allow me to publish this comment in the thread above…]
“A Critic,” whatever report you did read was inaccurate. George Zimmerman was arrested for felony “battery of a law enforcement officer” and “resisting an officer with violence” on July 18, 2005:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite
As to your assertion, “[Zimmerman’s] restraining order is a common tactic in divorce and other bitter break ups. It is not evidence of any wrong doing or guilt on Zimmerman’s part,” I find that comment to be incredibly misogynistic and couldn’t disagree with you more.
Regarding the Ohio case, can you provide us with some details, starting with the names of the parties involved? Thank you.
““A Critic,” whatever report you did read was inaccurate. George Zimmerman was arrested for felony “battery of a law enforcement officer” and “resisting an officer with violence” on July 18, 2005:”
The fact that someone was arrested holds no weight with anyone with a genuine regard for the rule of law. How many times was he convicted? Zero, correct?
Your source says “Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer”
Wow, he shoved someone! What a hardened criminal he must be.
“I find that comment to be incredibly misogynistic and couldn’t disagree with you more.”
See, that’s interesting. I didn’t say it was a common tactic by women. I said it was a common tactic. And it is – even the link you posted in this comment proves it:
“Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders being granted.”
See – Zimmerman got a restraining order against his ex-fiancee. Was she abusive and a threat to him? Do you judge her as being guilty based on the fact that she was placed under a restraining order? Is that one standard or a double standard you have?
As I said, and has been well documented and is readily shown to anyone who can use Google, restraining orders are a COMMON tactic in troublesome breakups and divorces.
“Regarding the Ohio case, can you provide us with some details, starting with the names of the parties involved? Thank you.”
The details are given by Mas Ayoob here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EsQeTKnD_f0&noredirect=1
Mas Ayoob is a NH policeman. He is an authority on self defense, forensics, and handgun tactics. He is an expert witness. I’m sure he’s seen far more victims of gun violence and far more photos of victims of gun violence than you have. I’m a “pro-am”, more than an amateur, less than a professional. Mas Ayoob is a genuine professional – and he fully supports Stand Your Ground laws and the carry of arms by citizens. It sure seems the more one knows about guns and self defense the more one supports citizen carry and SYG laws, and the less one knows, the less one supports them. Is it a mere coincidence that the ignorant favor prohibition and restrictions?
“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.”
In a all to common situation: Domestic violence. I wonder how many women have or will be allowed to take advantage of this “law”? A woman (or man ) certainly “…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.”
Just asking.
Long refutation…
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/bruce-w-krafft/ladd-everitt-liar-for-hire/
From my cold dead hands you fucking whore cunt! If Jimminy Cricket had rammed a dildo up your fucking ass in private, and you had suffered rectal trauma, then you sure as fuck wouldn’t be calling for an end to the private usage of dildos due to your own personal fucking rectal trauma. Neither would you be claiming rectal trauma was a pervasive problem in this country, a problem which is a result of getting a fucking dyke tool rammed up your fucking ass. So get your fucking head out of your fucking ass you fucking dildo whore.
Anyone who believes our courts would ever pass a law that legalizes murder is a moron.
SYG laws are not a license to kill or a “get out of jail free” card. These laws allow a person to use lethal force against an aggressor when it becomes clear that said aggressor is about to use or is in the process of using lethal force against a non-aggressor, whether that non-aggressor is you or another innocent bystander.
In court, you must still convince the jury that killing the aggressor was justified, you had a legitimate fear for your life or the life of another person being attacked, and that members of the jury would have taken the same actions if they had been in the shooter’s position. Criminals may have used the SYG laws as a defense, but that doesn’t mean they were used successfully. In the Zimmerman/Martin case, Zimmerman was the aggressor. Zimmerman was told not to pursue Martin as Martin was not actively engaging in any crime let alone violently attacking someone, yet Zimmerman ignored this advice and initiated the confrontation. Whether Zimmerman was attacked first or not, he was the instigator and if he and his lawyers can successfully use the SYG defense, I will be shocked and appalled, as it would undermine the true purpose of these laws and give the anti-gun/anti-rights organizations ammunition to kill our liberties and potentially get many other innocents killed as an indirect result.
Shame on each and everyone of you who has a attempted to justify a law that is so unbelievably flawed and so completely un american. Shame on you for trying to excuse the pathetic, weak minded, fear and hate driven actions of the Murderer,George Zimmerman. Shame on you for spitting in the face of humanity, community and common decency.
If I am forced to defend myself, I will. If I AM FORCED! Not compelled or driven. Not entaganized, or teased. Not inconvenienced, not disgusted. Not questioned or put down. Not if I am made to feel weak and not if I think that it will make me feel better. Not to prove or change someone or something. Not to teach a lesson, or defend my turf….and NOT TO STAND MY GROUND!!! ONLY if I am FORCED to DEFEND MY PERSON, MYSELF!!!!
The murderer, George Zimmerman is not the first man or woman so weak and so desperate to BE SOMEBODY that they will sacrifice another human life!!! and he will not be the last… but the laws are suppose to protect each and everyone of us from the weak, evil parts of being human….not to defend the weakness’. What about Treyvon’s rights?
If the Murderer, George Zimmerman is not held accountable to the laws of humanity…… we all suffer the consequences.
In addition….I know that I will get many comments regarding my “opinion” and I welcome them. The only thing that I ask is that you only respond “what you know” or “how you feel” If you were not there on the street the night that George Zimmerman took the life of Treyvon Martin (established fact) please do not tell me what happened or what was said…because you don’t know what Really happened because you were not there..none of will ever really know. My comments are my own…the ripple effect that a crime such as this one makes….that, however is for all of us to share.
that’s a pretty pathetic cop-out: to say that we can’t say anything about the crime without being there, and THAT’s proof that it was a crime committed by Zimmerman. How lame. You don’t want anyone to really comment on it so you decided to invent that convoluted logic that is MAJORLY flawed.
I should be saying: don’t comment about the crime committed by travon, because you were not there and can’t really ever know.
It was established in court that he had bruises on the back of his head, and that travon jumped out of the bushes to attack him. Who does that?! Only a f#cking coward! Zimmerman reacted in defense, and it has been proven in court with a not guilty verdict.
well said, Jen.
How did Mr. Zimmerman receive a bloodied or broken nose and had bleeding from the back of the head if he was the aggressor? Here is the interesting part…there were NO markings on Mr. Martin’s body…no bruising, no cuts…only a single gunshot wound…the would killed Mr. quickly, (obviously) meaning that he would have had to attack someone who was simply following him…Mr. Martin BEGAN the physical conflict, he had to have. There is no other way to look at this crime. While it is a tragedy, it is not difficult to see that Mr. Martin was a young man that resolved conflicts with his fists, he’d been suspended in the past from school for just such reasons. If he’d only learned to resolve conflict with words and not his fists, he’d be alive today.
You say “Why shoot someone when you can just walk away.” My first questions to you is, what if it’s not as easy as simply walking away? Second, why is it better for a law abiding citizens to give up their right to defend themselves, and enjoy freedom as an American while emboldening and empowering criminals. You say you are against gun violence, when in fact, you seem to be primarily against citizens carrying guns and shooting criminals. Using your logic, why don’t you advocate disarming police? Won’t crime just disappear if the police walked away? You May say that police are trained. To that, I say so am I; from the military and private professionals. You have said that it is impossible to disprove the claim that lawful carry reduces crime because you can’t access the personal information of licensed gun carriers. What does that have with anything? How does knowing someones name and address help? Do you honestly think that running away does anything but encourage more violent crime? Do you think, for even a moment, that making a criminals job easier will save lives in the long run? Pease enlighten me. I’m begging you to help me see the light.
Im with you on that.it seems cool until its YOUR family
Let me see if I understand SYG. Travon was scared. Travon was being stalked. We now know that Travon’s life was under threat. If Travon had a gun, he could legally shoot Zimmerman, is that it? A black male. really?
But if Travon was scared. Travon was being stalked and Travon physically attached his nemisis with his fists, then he would have been guilty of assult, not SYG. And the white stalker has a right to shoot him?
And this is not about race…get real!!!!! And I am white!
What is wrong with Florida? Do they only elect representatives with IQs of 70?
if Travon had attacked Zimmerman, of course it would not have been a case of stand your ground, because he was the one doing the attacking. People who attack others without having been physically attacked themselves, have no right to claim they are standing their ground.
If I were following someone suspicious near where I live -which is not illegal – and that person suddenly physically attached me and started slamming my head into the ground, I too wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger on that person, and it would be justified. If you are attacking me, my safety & life is more important to me than yours. Self defense is justified, attacking someone like a coward is not.
Agreed and this is why this is a case of “self defense” not syg…if anything the syg could have protected Mr. Martin if Zimmerman had indeed gotten physical with him first.
That’s some job you have Ladd. Using any tragedy to further a pinko agenda and elevate yourself. You live as a parasite on the wounds of other human beings. You are pathetic. I know you, you’re pathetic.
Teaching respect, dignity, and all other things required to live in a peaceful society, above all, should be taught to their children at home.
Apparently your son was either not taught those things that would have kept him alive by you, his parent, or I would suggest that he didn’t bother to stick what he was taught by you, away in his mind. If he had done that, he very well could be living today.
I suffer no consequence of seeing your child, dead, because it was he that made the choice as he did, to accost the victim. The victim is not your son, it was the intended person your son chose to accost. Stand your ground laws are there to protect the innocent, not the other way around, but as this now God forsaken country is going, I’m sure like all things today will go from good to bad. Plainly see that within the Bible, and the marking of the end, for sure.
absolutely right! Stand your ground laws not only kill innocent people at will it also make the murderer laugh afterwards. That is stupidity!!! May God judge them and give what they are truly deserve.
The NRA is the biggest domestic terrorist group in the United States, maybe the world. They love their guns more than people. With politicians in their pockets all we can do is brace ourselves for the next NRA sponsored slaughter.
The policies and laws created by The NRA killed the kids in Newtown and allowed the vigilante George Zimmerman to murder Trayvon Martin.
STAND YOUR GROUND is nothing more than a license to legally hunt and kill African Americans PERIOD~
http://youtu.be/OqZqGql9ml4
You are uneducated. The NRA does not create laws, congress, and only congress does.
This article is supposed to be about the Stand Your Ground law, not about the Zimmerman trial – that’s irrelevant with special circumstances that don’t apply to all Stand your ground cases, and no one has the right to claim it as the basis of the law – so I have, RIGHTLY, skipped over all parts that are related to or included any mention of the trial.
What everyone against conveniently does not mention, and what the law states is:
“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.”
So what that means is that only if I am not committing a crime, and If I am in a place where I can lawfully be, then I do not have to retreat if there is a major threat to my well-being whether that person is armed or not, and I can legally use deadly force if I need to – AND RIGHTLY SO.
What we should not do, when people those people who have made threats against our lives and physically attacked us with the intention to do great harm or kill, is to excuse them for it because they were not shown to have a weapon on them. No, those people do not have the right to inflict great physical harm to us no matter what a person says to them, and they should rightly bear the consequences – even if that includes being shot to death in self defense – under those circumstances, no one should need to run away or not defend themselves.
So what you are saying is that Treyvon had no right to hit Zimmerman since Zimmerman made no physical threat against Treyvon.
That sums it up succinctly.
“Stand Your Ground Declares Open Season on Black Males,” a must hear podcast. Does the SYG laws work against African Americans, some believe Blacks were the intended target of such laws. South Carolina’s ex- attorney general Charlie Condon declared “open season” on home invaders, after a rash of burglaries took place in his state. However, some believed the declaration gave many a “license to kill.” Learn the three Ws to always ask yourself before using deadly force, understanding SYG laws may just save your life. George Zimmerman’s defense team decided against using a SYG defense for GZ, learn why.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/centerstage/2013/07/20/stand-your-ground-declares-open-season-on-black-males
Declaring “open season” on burglars was not giving people a “license to kill.” People already had the right to use lethal force against invaders to shoot them dead, and that does not give anyone the right to choose to use lethal force in other situations. That right to use lethal force against invaders has never given the right to use lethal force in other situations. No one should ever feel sorry for a criminal or be considerate of a criminals safety over their own. If someone breaks into a person’s house, they should be shot dead, no matter what the reason is for the person breaking in. Period.
This past weekend here in Jacksonville, FL, a young white woman with a promising future was executed while working in a phone store in broad daylight by a young black thug with previous felony convictions and gun convictions. He even liked the nickname “Killer”. She did as she was ordered to by this young punk, handing over all the money in the store, upon which he paid her for her obedience with 3 bullets.
Where is the outrage for this??? Where are you now, Jesse Jackson? Where are you now, Al Sharpton????
Did SHE have a right to stand her ground? Should she have been armed- so she could defend herself? What would be happening now if SHE had shot him instead??? What say you now, all you bleeding hearts??
Mr. Cassidy, I feel terrible for the young woman, I feel it was a senseless murder, if things happened as you stated. However, I am in no ways connected with Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson. But, I am reminded of a case in Oklahoma City where a white pharmacist by the name of Jerome Ersland shot and killed one of two Black teenagers that were robbing the pharmacy where he worked. I suggest you goggle the story. He shot one of the robbers in the head and then chased the second down the street emptying his weapon. He then returned to the store, stepped over the robber he had shot, and went to retrieve a second weapon. He unfortunately returned with a new weapon and shot 5 or 6 more times into the boy’s bleeding body. That said, the first shot removed the threat, and some would have called him a hero. The other five or six shots are called overkill. So, SYG laws need to be revised to define when removing the threat turns to overkill.
No, that pharmacist should have completely eliminated the threat. The robbers deserved no sympathy and took their lives and death into their own hands when they decided to rob the store, with what you left out:GUNS. They were not unarmed and posed a lethal threat to the pharmacist. They deserve no sympathy for that. They where less than trash, and unlike the pharmacist, deserved to die.
What you don’t understand about the comment Butch Cassidy made, and I was unable to find the article related to that incident, is the point that when a crime is committed by black people against white people, where are those “anti-racism champions” to be found?! They are there when there is a violent act against someone who is black, and claim racism by people who are white, they and many black people gladly accept the support of white people and other races as seen throughout the travon martin case when a black person is involved, but when there is crime against someone who is white, with CLEAR proof and evidence that requires no trial, they are nowhere to be found. Black people accuse white people of being racist, but to me this is clear proof that, overall, black people are more racist in how they will only support black people.
I do agree with your assessment, but in the state of Florida, you must stop your attack when the threat is neutralized.
Internet radio talk show Center Stage has done it again. On Friday night, the host came to the internet airwaves to engage in a critical discussion about the controversial “Stand Your Ground” Law and
its relevance to the Trayvon Martin case and the Florida v. Zimmerman verdict with a show titled: “Stand Your Ground Laws: Self-Defense or License to Kill.” With a panel of three criminal attorneys from Florida and a sociology Professor, she was able to engage the audience in topics that ranged from reform or repeal, the application of the law, flaws in the law, the importance of jury selection, race and the law, and a deep discussion about the Zimmerman verdict. Insightful, informative, and incredible
discussion!!! If you missed it live, you have the chance to be there now.”
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/centerstage/2013/07/27/stand-your-ground-laws-self-defense-or-license-to-kill
How could Zimmerman retreat when he was being straddled and pummeled my Martin? It is not illegal to follow someone as long as no physical contact is made. Zimmerman was unable to retreat once Martin began to hit him and bash his skull against the concrete (the concrete being a deadly weapon Zimmerman reasonably felt his life was in danger). He acted in self defense. if he’d shot his victim more than once then you could say he used excessive force, but he only shot one time…enough to stop the attack on himself. Clearly Zimmerman was dealing with a younger stronger young man that had been in several physical confrontations in the past. This young man was not a saint by any means…he was indeed a young man that loved confrontation and did not rule with a level head. On the other side, we do not know for certain who began the physical part of the confrontation, so there cannot be a verdict of “guilty” because people in this country are innocent until proven so. The “stand your ground” law would have protected Martin if he’d felt that he was in imminent danger for his life, but his hot headedness got the best of him and he turned violent too soon. While this is a tragedy, I cannot help but think that Martin had a relatively dim and crime ridden future in front of him. It is too bad his parents did not teach him to keep his cool and to resolve situations differently. I feel for the parents of Treyvon and hope they can have peace.
Also, as a supplemental note, the *fists* of a reasonably fit person are weapons capable of inflicting death or grave bodily harm. The concrete sidewalk was merely a supplemental weapon which should remove all doubt from the minds of the intellectually honest.
I’ve enjoyed your coverage of the issues surrounding the “stand your ground” debates. I recently finished working on an infographic that explores the history and some amazing statistics concerning this law from a visual perspective. I thought I would share it with you in the hopes you might make some use of it. Here’s the link: http://www.topcriminaljusticedegrees.org/stand-your-ground/
Best,
Jack
I was recently involved in a vigilante shooting by a CHL carrier, he intervened in a spat between myself and my boyfriend. He had no idea what was going on, though he may have perceived I was in danger, I wasn’t, he started shooting in our direction after walking out of a bar! My boyfriend was shot in the chest, almost died, can’t work, has 75,000$ in hospital bills and no insurance, and we are both suffering from the trauma. He put us in more danger then I could have ever imagined, since now, we are both suffering and dealing with the aftermath.
Hello There. I found your weblog the usage of msn. That is a very neatly written article. I’ll make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your helpful information. Thank you for the post. I will certainly return.
Thanks for sharing such a pleasant thought, article is pleasant, thats whyy i have read it completely