heckofajobbrownie Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Mayor Michael Bloomberg is leading an effort to repeal the Stand Your Ground gun laws. WASHINGTON — New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched a national campaign against gun laws that he said "justify civilian gun play." The campaign aims to repeal or reform the laws that eliminated a person's duty to retreat when threatened with serious bodily harm or death. These laws have passed in 25 states. Bloomberg said these laws undermined integrity of the justice system, threaten public safety and make it more difficult to prosecute shooters. The grassroots campaign will contact state legislators who have passed what he terms "shoot first" laws, produce education material for the public and create model legislation. ...Should we do away with those laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medicineman Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Bloomberg is a jack ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 So, if you have a ccw, and you and your wife and friends are catfishing at night.... and some psycho comes at you with a machete, you have a duty to retreat? Basing an entire idealogy over one incident seems asinine. One on one self defense - that is a troubled area to prove in court sometimes, sure. If Martin had shot at Zimmerman while he was just walking down the street, and hit him in the shoulder, and Zimmerman shot and killed him... that would be a different deal. But unarmed? Even if Martin had attacked him as alleged, I would think pepper spray would be justifiable in a huge way, and would still protect him without lethal force. I love the Castle laws - you home is invaded, you shoot. That's how police and game wardens do it. But draw a knife or a gun, and the gunfight ensues. Trouble is, the "stand your ground" laws are there for a reason. Like, so you can't be serial killed by a jack the ripper or some couple of hoods, because you are defenseless. But, oth, provoking an awareness of yourself, then using lethal force against someone unarmed...... The facts will come out in the Zimmerman-Martin case. Let's say some police person shoots an unarmed guy on the street. Would Bloopberg want all police officers to be unarmed from then on? I support the "stand your ground" laws. They have to be written properly. And someone who shoots and relies on the law to protect them -- may have to live with the consquences of using very poor judgement, with no common sense. IOW's, that law doesn't mean that you can spill a beer on some big guy's girl in a bar, and then shoot him when he comes after you. Which, can be an example similar to Zimmerman getting out of his truck, and following some guy. The truth is, it's a lack of training of those housewatch volunteers I think. Trouble is, all Martin had to do was to keep walking and he was fine. He could have argued with Zimmerman and called him mean names. And he would have been fine. The intent of the law is to give citizens protection from deadly force unarmed, I think. we'll see how the trial goes. But it seems to me, that both Zimmerman and Martin were looking for trouble in all the right places. Like I said, "stand your ground" still means to me, that Martin would never have known I was following him, and I would never have left my vehicle. And, even if attacked through no fault of my own, by some hood with no weapon, I'd be using pepper spray to stop him in his tracks. But bad incident or not - it doesn't negate the intent of the law, nor does it negate the reasons for having the law. Bloomberg is scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 So, if you have a ccw, and you and your wife and friends are catfishing at night.... and some psycho comes at you with a machete, you have a duty to retreat? If he just jumps out and starts running for you, then you should be able to shoot him. It is pretty obvious he means you harm and turning around and running won't really save you because he is chasing after you. If he runs at you with a machete, trips and breaks his ankle so he is immobile, even if he is still shouting that he is going to kill you he physically can't. Deciding to kill him then would be uncalled for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 I'm okay with castle laws. It seems like Zimmerman wasn't defending his home, though. He went out and chased this dude, then killed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 its better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. but zimmerman will be a political sacrificial lamb and be made a poster child for anti gun groups. so why do we let all the little ole women and sissy men create new laws because they are weak and scared. you're a moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 "So, if you have a ccw, and you and your wife and friends are catfishing at night.... and some psycho comes at you with a machete, you have a duty to retreat?" Well for starters don't go noodling at camp crystal lake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 I guess it depends on the full meaning of stand your ground. If repealing that law takes away your right to defend yourelf... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 I expected you to know more about this than Cal. Of course, you've always had a right to self-defense. The idea that you could no longer shoot a guy coming at you with a machete.... Come on, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 At what point does one have to ask if all the Republicans on this board (minus one) are simply too fucking stupid to debate with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 At what point does one have to ask if all the Republicans on this board (minus one) are simply too fucking stupid to debate with? OBAMAO! FASCISM! RACE WAR! *insert conservative blog as source* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 HOLDER! BLACK PANTHERS! TRAYVON'S A THUG! OBAMA'S STUPID! SHARPTON! JESSE JACKSON! STOP SAYING WE HAVE AN UNHEALTHY FIXATION ON BLACK PEOPLE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Anyone who knows what Stand Your Ground laws say and what they changed from the way the laws were written for decades before that want to chime in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 "So, if you have a ccw, and you and your wife and friends are catfishing at night.... and some psycho comes at you with a machete, you have a duty to retreat?" Well for starters don't go noodling at camp crystal lake. That was funnier than ya'll acted like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 I expected you to know more about this than Cal. Of course, you've always had a right to self-defense. The idea that you could no longer shoot a guy coming at you with a machete.... Come on, man. Actually since I have not read or studied the law I don't know exactly what it entails. If it allows me to shoot a guy chasing me with a machete I'm good with it counsellor. I do wonder what it has to do with this case. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Just about everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Just about everything. So you believe Martin attacked him? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 The only problem with they FL's stand your ground law as written, the burden of proving that the person that killed another person acted in self-defense is on the Police/prosecutors and not on the killer. In the case with Zimmerman he initiated the conflict, he went after Travon, and in all honesty according to FL's law Travon was within his legal right to shot Zimmerman and claim self defense. Most states will look at the situtation, drop the very obvious ones from going to trial(ie guy broke into my house with a gun) and the rest would be taken in front of 12 people to decide if the person acted in self defence or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 So you believe Martin attacked him? WSS I have no idea. That's what he has to prove, and if he was it should be fairly easy to do so. But that is what he's going to claim, and his defense will rest entirely that he was within his rights under Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Without knowing what the prosecution knows, it suggests they have evidence that he wasn't attacked the way he claimed. Regardless, without that law, it'd be much harder for him to claim that, legally, he was allowed to shoot Trayvon dead. The legal standard would be different. Hence, should these laws exist? You already have a right to self-defense. You already have a right to protect your home. Do you need a right to "stand your ground" and kill someone as long as you can claim you felt you were in danger of great bodily harm or death? Is that too easy to do, especially when the other person is dead? Does it encourage vigilantism? These are some of the questions. Or you can moan about the Panthers or Sharpton, as you're all wont to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 I'm sure the South will rush to support Bloomberg initiative, LMAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Then I don't see how it really differs from the self defense theory in the first place. does it seem logical to you that he would engaged in a fight with the kid? Doesn't it seem more likely that he would brandish the weapon he was carrying? Unless, of course, he'd planned the whole time to murder martin. In that case he could start a fight pull the gun kill the kid and claim self defense. Would you advance the idea that it was premeditated to that extent if you were the prosecution? That seems to me to be a stretch. If that were the prosecution theory they'd have gone for murder 1. What's your take? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Then I don't see how it really differs from the self defense theory in the first place. does it seem logical to you that he would engaged in a fight with the kid? Doesn't it seem more likely that he would brandish the weapon he was carrying? Unless, of course, he'd planned the whole time to murder martin. In that case he could start a fight pull the gun kill the kid and claim self defense. Would you advance the idea that it was premeditated to that extent if you were the prosecution? That seems to me to be a stretch. If that were the prosecution theory they'd have gone for murder 1. What's your take? WSS If you can't tell the difference, then read some more about it. Because there are differences. If there weren't differences, the NRA wouldn't have pushed to change the law. As for the rest, yes, it seems logical that he could have started the fight with the kid as well. You can imagine a scenario where a guy who knows he has the backing of a gun grabs a kid he thinks is a thief. It's also possible that he did just brandish the gun and that caused the struggle. It's also possible that he picked a fight because he wanted to shoot someone, and needed cause. That's what the trial is for. If he can't produce any serious injuries to back up his tale of being attacked and fearing for his life, then he's probably in trouble. Under the Florida law he's probably going to walk if he does produce evidence of some sort of substantial injury because then a stand your ground law will probably cover him. Read the affidavit. It tells you what the prosecution is going to claim. They're going to try and prove malice, not premeditation, which is why it's murder 2 and not murder 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 If you can't tell the difference, then read some more about it. Because there are differences. If there weren't differences, the NRA wouldn't have pushed to change the law. I thought you knew. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 I thought you knew. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law WSS I do know. I mentioned the difference earlier. I'd rather not spending my time typing out everything for you when you can read it on your own. Not that knowing what we're talking about is a pre-requisite to you offering an opinion on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 I do know. I mentioned the difference earlier. I'd rather not spending my time typing out everything for you when you can read it on your own. Then cut and paste. Just skimmed this entire thread. You typed a great deal. By the way I will know if you go back and edit 1 of your posts. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Huh? Steve, I'm not going to be your personal Google machine. It should take you 10 seconds or less to find this stuff. You don't need me to find it for you. You're a big boy. Of course, your search for evidence has led you to post white power videos, so maybe you need more help than I think you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 I have no idea. That's what he has to prove, and if he was it should be fairly easy to do so. But that is what he's going to claim, and his defense will rest entirely that he was within his rights under Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Without knowing what the prosecution knows, it suggests they have evidence that he wasn't attacked the way he claimed. Regardless, without that law, it'd be much harder for him to claim that, legally, he was allowed to shoot Trayvon dead. The legal standard would be different. Hence, should these laws exist? You already have a right to self-defense. You already have a right to protect your home. Do you need a right to "stand your ground" and kill someone as long as you can claim you felt you were in danger of great bodily harm or death? Is that too easy to do, especially when the other person is dead? Does it encourage vigilantism? These are some of the questions. Or you can moan about the Panthers or Sharpton, as you're all wont to do. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove shit. The state has to prove Zimmerman wrong. That's the way the law works here in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Zimmerman doesn't have to prove shit. The state has to prove Zimmerman wrong. That's the way the law works here in the USA. I'm glad you're not his attorney because yes, he's going to have to produce physical evidence that he was attacked. Otherwise known as "proving." If he doesn't have any marks of a confrontation on him, then he's going to have a much harder time making the case that he feared his life was in danger, or that he feared great bodily harm. And that's what he's got to show in order to be covered under the Stand Your Ground law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Huh? Steve, I'm not going to be your personal Google machine. It should take you 10 seconds or less to find this stuff. You don't need me to find it for you. You're a big boy. Of course, your search for evidence has led you to post white power videos, so maybe you need more help than I think you do. Nope you are not my research assistant. But you said you explain the differences before, and I don't think you did. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and we'll say that you were just confused You said it was too much work to type it again so I offered you to just go back and cut and paste. I don't think you know the difference any more than i do and that you were caught in an empty boast. Furthermore when one does search for black on white crime and fbi or department of justice you get many hits. As far as I could tell they are all reprints or paraphrases. So here's what I think. You know those statistics are accurate but want to pretend otherwise with some misdirection about white supremacy. You also brag that you have the sites that show all those statistics and I'm just giving you the opportunity to post the link. you either don't have it or you're refusing to post it because it proves my point. You saw fit to post on what you consider hate crimes. So link me up with the entire site and prove me wrong. The reason you don't is pretty transparent. I'm sure it's 1 of your precious propaganda techniques. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.