Why are all these Blacks..(Stevie Wonder), (Attny general Holder) and so many others coming out against the Stand your ground law?
Seems to me the average law abiding citizen is not going to attack or threaten anyone, ever.....The persons that WOULD attack others are the criminal type and would be therefore be protected somewhat by the elimination of Stand your ground.
So, why do black leaders want to help protect the criminal class?
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
I have no idea and need an explanation:
Why are all these Blacks..(Stevie Wonder), (Attny general Holder) and so many others coming out against the Stand your ground law?
Seems to me the average law abiding citizen is not going to attack or threaten anyone, ever.....The persons that WOULD attack others are the criminal type and would be therefore be protected somewhat by the elimination of Stand your ground.
So, why do black leaders want to help protect the criminal class?
B/c, according to this case, anyone who racial profiles (any race) and kills another individual without a witness is free to do so. Funny you put Stevie W...without seeing he probably wouldn't kill someone b/c he thought they could be a criminal. Either way, courts have spoken and Zimmy is free.
0
B/c, according to this case, anyone who racial profiles (any race) and kills another individual without a witness is free to do so. Funny you put Stevie W...without seeing he probably wouldn't kill someone b/c he thought they could be a criminal. Either way, courts have spoken and Zimmy is free.
What nonsense! Let me translate: Holder wants relief from the pressure to prosecute Zimmerman, so he’s shifting to a topic that has nothing to do with Zimmerman but that low-information people think has to do with Zimmerman. (Zimmerman was pinned down before he decided his life was on the line, and he had no route of escape.)
And, yes, I know Holder is also talking about investigating the Zimmerman matter. But “investigating” is code. As we saw with Benghazi, it means: We’re hoping that if enough time passes, you’ll forget about it.
This is all so thoroughly lame. But at the same time: It’s a very powerful person speaking dishonestly and threateningly about the exercise of power. What a disgusting combination.
0
Law Professor Ann Althouse:
What nonsense! Let me translate: Holder wants relief from the pressure to prosecute Zimmerman, so he’s shifting to a topic that has nothing to do with Zimmerman but that low-information people think has to do with Zimmerman. (Zimmerman was pinned down before he decided his life was on the line, and he had no route of escape.)
And, yes, I know Holder is also talking about investigating the Zimmerman matter. But “investigating” is code. As we saw with Benghazi, it means: We’re hoping that if enough time passes, you’ll forget about it.
This is all so thoroughly lame. But at the same time: It’s a very powerful person speaking dishonestly and threateningly about the exercise of power. What a disgusting combination.
From all accounts, he wasn't standing his ground, he followed a suspicious character called the non emergency dispatch and was TOLD "DO NOT APPROACH." The one standing his ground ended up getting shot, while the one who antagonized, didn't listen to authority figures and SHOT the other is free to go. I'm not saying Zimmerman should have gotten murder but if he had not acted in several specific MOMENTS of choice, this would have never happened. He sure as heck is guilty of something.... I have a feeling the Civil lawsuit that will surely be brought on will have a different outcome them the criminal case.
0
From all accounts, he wasn't standing his ground, he followed a suspicious character called the non emergency dispatch and was TOLD "DO NOT APPROACH." The one standing his ground ended up getting shot, while the one who antagonized, didn't listen to authority figures and SHOT the other is free to go. I'm not saying Zimmerman should have gotten murder but if he had not acted in several specific MOMENTS of choice, this would have never happened. He sure as heck is guilty of something.... I have a feeling the Civil lawsuit that will surely be brought on will have a different outcome them the criminal case.
From all accounts, he wasn't standing his ground, he followed a suspicious character called the non emergency dispatch and was TOLD "DO NOT APPROACH." The one standing his ground ended up getting shot, while the one who antagonized, didn't listen to authority figures and SHOT the other is free to go. I'm not saying Zimmerman should have gotten murder but if he had not acted in several specific MOMENTS of choice, this would have never happened. He sure as heck is guilty of something.... I have a feeling
the Civil lawsuit that will surely be brought on will have a different outcome than the criminal case.
Just like the Goldman's Civil Lawsuit against O.J.Simpson, they will never see a dime of that money.
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
0
Quote Originally Posted by SheetsMcgee:
From all accounts, he wasn't standing his ground, he followed a suspicious character called the non emergency dispatch and was TOLD "DO NOT APPROACH." The one standing his ground ended up getting shot, while the one who antagonized, didn't listen to authority figures and SHOT the other is free to go. I'm not saying Zimmerman should have gotten murder but if he had not acted in several specific MOMENTS of choice, this would have never happened. He sure as heck is guilty of something.... I have a feeling
the Civil lawsuit that will surely be brought on will have a different outcome than the criminal case.
Just like the Goldman's Civil Lawsuit against O.J.Simpson, they will never see a dime of that money.
I don't know, definitely two sides and it's hard to ignore either side. If my life is threatened. I most certainly would like to be able to defend myself, but in a world or more irresponsible people than responsible. It would bother me greatly, knowing that on any given day, I'm surrounded by citizens that are carrying guns. At least when criminals are carrying guns and if they commit a crime, it should pretty much be an open and shut case as to who is in the wrong. Now with being allowed to carry concealed weapons, now I not only do I have to deal with you killing my loved one, now I have to hope that I can prove that it was justified for me to get justice.if you have a gun on your own property, that's different. But already we have cases of kids being gunned down, Zim and this other clown shooting folks over loud music and claiming stand your ground.I guarantee if Zim wasn't allowed to carry a gun, Travon would not be dead today, because Zims actions would have been totally different. He would have just called 911 and waited for the police like every other citizen has to do. If this clown at the gas station isn't allowed to be carrying a gun in public, then the kid isn't killed. The guy gets in his truck and drives off angry. We're entering a touching area, where citizens are required to use their judgement on when they can shoot to kill. The Police can't seem to have enough judgement, last thing I wanna do is deal with societies judgement.
0
I don't know, definitely two sides and it's hard to ignore either side. If my life is threatened. I most certainly would like to be able to defend myself, but in a world or more irresponsible people than responsible. It would bother me greatly, knowing that on any given day, I'm surrounded by citizens that are carrying guns. At least when criminals are carrying guns and if they commit a crime, it should pretty much be an open and shut case as to who is in the wrong. Now with being allowed to carry concealed weapons, now I not only do I have to deal with you killing my loved one, now I have to hope that I can prove that it was justified for me to get justice.if you have a gun on your own property, that's different. But already we have cases of kids being gunned down, Zim and this other clown shooting folks over loud music and claiming stand your ground.I guarantee if Zim wasn't allowed to carry a gun, Travon would not be dead today, because Zims actions would have been totally different. He would have just called 911 and waited for the police like every other citizen has to do. If this clown at the gas station isn't allowed to be carrying a gun in public, then the kid isn't killed. The guy gets in his truck and drives off angry. We're entering a touching area, where citizens are required to use their judgement on when they can shoot to kill. The Police can't seem to have enough judgement, last thing I wanna do is deal with societies judgement.
If this clown at the gas station isn't allowed to be carrying a gun in public, then the kid isn't killed.
___________________
And perhaps if Martin had handled the confrontation differently he isn't killed either. You can't talk about this like you know what happened....no one knows. I assume everyone I come in contact with has a gun. I don't talk back....I don't taunt. I will happily say, "you're right" and walk away with my tail between my legs.
It's the society we live in and I'd much rather it be that way than only having the bad people with guns.
0
If this clown at the gas station isn't allowed to be carrying a gun in public, then the kid isn't killed.
___________________
And perhaps if Martin had handled the confrontation differently he isn't killed either. You can't talk about this like you know what happened....no one knows. I assume everyone I come in contact with has a gun. I don't talk back....I don't taunt. I will happily say, "you're right" and walk away with my tail between my legs.
It's the society we live in and I'd much rather it be that way than only having the bad people with guns.
If this clown at the gas station isn't allowed to be carrying a gun in public, then the kid isn't killed.
___________________
And perhaps if Martin had handled the confrontation differently he isn't killed either. You can't talk about this like you know what happened....no one knows. I assume everyone I come in contact with has a gun. I don't talk back....I don't taunt. I will happily say, "you're right" and walk away with my tail between my legs.
It's the society we live in and I'd much rather it be that way than only having the bad people with guns.
I'm not saying I know what happened at the gas station, and I am very much like yourself, I assume everyone is armed, if I'm on the freeway and get cut off, I say nothing, and just thankful I didn't get hit, because the last thing I wanna do is come across that person who is ready to open fire. I'm 42 years old and have never had a situation where me holding a gun would have benefited myself, but I have been in plenty of situations that when I was younger and more irresponsible, no telling what might have happened had I owned a gun.But shyt happens in life, 911, Boston bombings, etc. Some things are just unavoidable. My point is, do you realize how many dead people we would have if every fist fight in america, as long as you own a gun, you're entitled to shot and kill the other person, cause at any point in a fight when you're losing you can become fearful of your life. And yes I most certainly agree that had Travon not acted like a punk, he would still be alive. But there's plenty of punks in the world, and I have yet to get to the point that they all should be killed. But do you really believe Zims head was bashed 25 times against the cement? Weather you wanna believe it or not, it's not out of the relm of possibility that Zim pushed or put his hands on Trayvon first, not saying he hit Trayvon, but having a gun and dealing with a young punk can make you feel mighty brave and do things that you normally wouldn't do. Yeah we have a system, but just because you have a trial and a verdict, doesn't always mean we know 100 percent of what happened. We just know enough to form an opinion. Only one person knows exactly what happened, and it's pretty sad that you have people in the community that couldn't even tell you who Zim was, and yet he's allowed to patrol the premises and carrying a gun.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
If this clown at the gas station isn't allowed to be carrying a gun in public, then the kid isn't killed.
___________________
And perhaps if Martin had handled the confrontation differently he isn't killed either. You can't talk about this like you know what happened....no one knows. I assume everyone I come in contact with has a gun. I don't talk back....I don't taunt. I will happily say, "you're right" and walk away with my tail between my legs.
It's the society we live in and I'd much rather it be that way than only having the bad people with guns.
I'm not saying I know what happened at the gas station, and I am very much like yourself, I assume everyone is armed, if I'm on the freeway and get cut off, I say nothing, and just thankful I didn't get hit, because the last thing I wanna do is come across that person who is ready to open fire. I'm 42 years old and have never had a situation where me holding a gun would have benefited myself, but I have been in plenty of situations that when I was younger and more irresponsible, no telling what might have happened had I owned a gun.But shyt happens in life, 911, Boston bombings, etc. Some things are just unavoidable. My point is, do you realize how many dead people we would have if every fist fight in america, as long as you own a gun, you're entitled to shot and kill the other person, cause at any point in a fight when you're losing you can become fearful of your life. And yes I most certainly agree that had Travon not acted like a punk, he would still be alive. But there's plenty of punks in the world, and I have yet to get to the point that they all should be killed. But do you really believe Zims head was bashed 25 times against the cement? Weather you wanna believe it or not, it's not out of the relm of possibility that Zim pushed or put his hands on Trayvon first, not saying he hit Trayvon, but having a gun and dealing with a young punk can make you feel mighty brave and do things that you normally wouldn't do. Yeah we have a system, but just because you have a trial and a verdict, doesn't always mean we know 100 percent of what happened. We just know enough to form an opinion. Only one person knows exactly what happened, and it's pretty sad that you have people in the community that couldn't even tell you who Zim was, and yet he's allowed to patrol the premises and carrying a gun.
SYG has nothing to do with gun regulation, sale, or conceal carry permits.
FL has the most CCW permits in the country.
So are you saying, that you can SYG and shoot and kill someone without even having a permit to carry a weapon and still be in the right? I'm asking, because I have no idea about the gun laws, my arguements and points come merely from my opinions and what I believe is common sense.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
SYG has nothing to do with gun regulation, sale, or conceal carry permits.
FL has the most CCW permits in the country.
So are you saying, that you can SYG and shoot and kill someone without even having a permit to carry a weapon and still be in the right? I'm asking, because I have no idea about the gun laws, my arguements and points come merely from my opinions and what I believe is common sense.
And i'm not here to fight with anyone, I'm merely here to discuss, and I always keep an open mind and think outside the box and not afraid to change my mind about my opinions or views. Just like with the case, I didn't always agree that Zim had a case for self defense, but after hearing the details and using my head. I have no doubt he acted in self defense. So I agree with the verdict, but I don't think the guy is completely innocent. They way he conducts himself with the people that live in the community is gonna be completely different than how he's gonna come across to in his mind, some young punk that he feels is up to no good and feels always gets away. And I they say the jury came down to 10 people, 6 jurors and 4 reserves and not one of them was black, that I have an issue with, and has nothing to do with wanting a black person on trial that is gonna be sympathetic, has everything to do with perception. Just like if you had a Japanesse on trial against an Hispanic, I would totally disagree with a jury of 5 hispanics and one black. Just my opinion.
0
And i'm not here to fight with anyone, I'm merely here to discuss, and I always keep an open mind and think outside the box and not afraid to change my mind about my opinions or views. Just like with the case, I didn't always agree that Zim had a case for self defense, but after hearing the details and using my head. I have no doubt he acted in self defense. So I agree with the verdict, but I don't think the guy is completely innocent. They way he conducts himself with the people that live in the community is gonna be completely different than how he's gonna come across to in his mind, some young punk that he feels is up to no good and feels always gets away. And I they say the jury came down to 10 people, 6 jurors and 4 reserves and not one of them was black, that I have an issue with, and has nothing to do with wanting a black person on trial that is gonna be sympathetic, has everything to do with perception. Just like if you had a Japanesse on trial against an Hispanic, I would totally disagree with a jury of 5 hispanics and one black. Just my opinion.
What blacks either don't know or are too ignorant to accept is the fact that they benefit from the Florida stand your ground laws more than anyone. Despite making up such a small number of the population, they make up 1/3 of the stand your ground cases.
0
What blacks either don't know or are too ignorant to accept is the fact that they benefit from the Florida stand your ground laws more than anyone. Despite making up such a small number of the population, they make up 1/3 of the stand your ground cases.
and guns are overrated anyways. I mean yeah they can help you definitely for an intruder at home or if you're gonna get jumped or mugged, but if you're robbed at gunpoint on the streets or in you're your car and have a gun. What is Mr. bad behind with a guns options? Lets A. reach for his gun which would be stupid as hell, this ain't a movie and you're not Steven Seagal. B. After they take what they want, then what? You gonna pull out your gun as they leave and prepare yourself for a shootout? Once again, dumb as hell or just shoot him in the back as he's leaving. Nothing wrong with that, except for possibly losing your freedom, because you're on your way to court. As you take one of those options, your life is forever changed, meanwhile the person without a gun calls the police and lives to see another day. And even if the robber kills the person without the gun. 99 percent he was killing the person with the gun. he has his gun drawn and is gonna kill you, at what point is your gun gonna protect you. Don't get me wrong, yes there are some cases where a gun can save someone's life, but it doesn't outweigh all the chaos with citizens running around with guns.
0
and guns are overrated anyways. I mean yeah they can help you definitely for an intruder at home or if you're gonna get jumped or mugged, but if you're robbed at gunpoint on the streets or in you're your car and have a gun. What is Mr. bad behind with a guns options? Lets A. reach for his gun which would be stupid as hell, this ain't a movie and you're not Steven Seagal. B. After they take what they want, then what? You gonna pull out your gun as they leave and prepare yourself for a shootout? Once again, dumb as hell or just shoot him in the back as he's leaving. Nothing wrong with that, except for possibly losing your freedom, because you're on your way to court. As you take one of those options, your life is forever changed, meanwhile the person without a gun calls the police and lives to see another day. And even if the robber kills the person without the gun. 99 percent he was killing the person with the gun. he has his gun drawn and is gonna kill you, at what point is your gun gonna protect you. Don't get me wrong, yes there are some cases where a gun can save someone's life, but it doesn't outweigh all the chaos with citizens running around with guns.
So are you saying, that you can SYG and shoot and kill someone without even having a permit to carry a weapon and still be in the right? I'm asking, because I have no idea about the gun laws, my arguements and points come merely from my opinions and what I believe is common sense.
Well, if you don't have a concealed carry permit, the only place you would be able to invoke a SYG defense (theoretically) is on your property or if you were say in the parking lot of a gun store or gun range. You can not legally transport a firearm unless you have a CCW permit.
But the basic answer to your question is yes, one doesn't really have to do with the other. In FL if someone came on your property, since the Castle Doctrine applies, you can shoot them dead as the law presumes if someone breaks into your home at 3:00 that the trespasser intends to do you harm. So yes, you can shoot them without a carry permit or without invoking SYG.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TyDarius:
So are you saying, that you can SYG and shoot and kill someone without even having a permit to carry a weapon and still be in the right? I'm asking, because I have no idea about the gun laws, my arguements and points come merely from my opinions and what I believe is common sense.
Well, if you don't have a concealed carry permit, the only place you would be able to invoke a SYG defense (theoretically) is on your property or if you were say in the parking lot of a gun store or gun range. You can not legally transport a firearm unless you have a CCW permit.
But the basic answer to your question is yes, one doesn't really have to do with the other. In FL if someone came on your property, since the Castle Doctrine applies, you can shoot them dead as the law presumes if someone breaks into your home at 3:00 that the trespasser intends to do you harm. So yes, you can shoot them without a carry permit or without invoking SYG.
What blacks either don't know or are too ignorant to accept is the fact that they benefit from the Florida stand your ground laws more than anyone. Despite making up such a small number of the population, they make up 1/3 of the stand your ground cases.
No I don't know that, nor do I care, because my point is no one that isn't in law enforcement needs to be carrying a gun in public regardless of the race. But since you have all the stats, give me some meaningful stats, Just like HR and and Avg doesn't tell everything, that stat doesn't tell everything. From your statistics how many of those cases that involve blacks are from blacks shooting someone white? My guess is those high numbers drop significantly. It is a proven fact that blacks get stiffer sentences than whites for the same exact crimes.
0
Quote Originally Posted by crod1980:
What blacks either don't know or are too ignorant to accept is the fact that they benefit from the Florida stand your ground laws more than anyone. Despite making up such a small number of the population, they make up 1/3 of the stand your ground cases.
No I don't know that, nor do I care, because my point is no one that isn't in law enforcement needs to be carrying a gun in public regardless of the race. But since you have all the stats, give me some meaningful stats, Just like HR and and Avg doesn't tell everything, that stat doesn't tell everything. From your statistics how many of those cases that involve blacks are from blacks shooting someone white? My guess is those high numbers drop significantly. It is a proven fact that blacks get stiffer sentences than whites for the same exact crimes.
To clarify, if you do not have a valid concealed carry permit you can only transport an unloaded and "securely encased" weapon to a gun range, gun store, fishing, camping, hunting, going to a gun show or antique club, etc.
So if you were on your way to one of those and someone attempted to car jack you, even without a firearm, you would be justified in shooting them under traditional self defense, though a SYG claim may also be invoked.
0
To clarify, if you do not have a valid concealed carry permit you can only transport an unloaded and "securely encased" weapon to a gun range, gun store, fishing, camping, hunting, going to a gun show or antique club, etc.
So if you were on your way to one of those and someone attempted to car jack you, even without a firearm, you would be justified in shooting them under traditional self defense, though a SYG claim may also be invoked.
Well, if you don't have a concealed carry permit, the only place you would be able to invoke a SYG defense (theoretically) is on your property or if you were say in the parking lot of a gun store or gun range. You can not legally transport a firearm unless you have a CCW permit.
But the basic answer to your question is yes, one doesn't really have to do with the other. In FL if someone came on your property, since the Castle Doctrine applies, you can shoot them dead as the law presumes if someone breaks into your home at 3:00 that the trespasser intends to do you harm. So yes, you can shoot them without a carry permit or without invoking SYG.
Knowledge is power and we never stop learning, so thank you. Just curious, what happens if an intruder breaks in and steals a pair of shoes and runs off, can you shoot him as he's in your driveway trying to get away? Just curious. I'm most certain in Cali, you can't, but have heard in Texas, they don't play you can shoot at anytime, is that true? I bought a gun back in 94, actually in Florida while I was playing in the minor leagues, still have it til this day, but don't use it, nor have any intentions on using it, therefore I don't have much knowledge about guns laws. My only knowledge is that I know I never wanna be shot, lol
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Well, if you don't have a concealed carry permit, the only place you would be able to invoke a SYG defense (theoretically) is on your property or if you were say in the parking lot of a gun store or gun range. You can not legally transport a firearm unless you have a CCW permit.
But the basic answer to your question is yes, one doesn't really have to do with the other. In FL if someone came on your property, since the Castle Doctrine applies, you can shoot them dead as the law presumes if someone breaks into your home at 3:00 that the trespasser intends to do you harm. So yes, you can shoot them without a carry permit or without invoking SYG.
Knowledge is power and we never stop learning, so thank you. Just curious, what happens if an intruder breaks in and steals a pair of shoes and runs off, can you shoot him as he's in your driveway trying to get away? Just curious. I'm most certain in Cali, you can't, but have heard in Texas, they don't play you can shoot at anytime, is that true? I bought a gun back in 94, actually in Florida while I was playing in the minor leagues, still have it til this day, but don't use it, nor have any intentions on using it, therefore I don't have much knowledge about guns laws. My only knowledge is that I know I never wanna be shot, lol
To clarify, if you do not have a valid concealed carry permit you can only transport an unloaded and "securely encased" weapon to a gun range, gun store, fishing, camping, hunting, going to a gun show or antique club, etc.
So if you were on your way to one of those and someone attempted to car jack you, even without a firearm, you would be justified in shooting them under traditional self defense, though a SYG claim may also be invoked.
Then why does the gun have to be unloaded for transport if you're allowed to use it? When you say unloaded? Why do the bullets have to be?
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
To clarify, if you do not have a valid concealed carry permit you can only transport an unloaded and "securely encased" weapon to a gun range, gun store, fishing, camping, hunting, going to a gun show or antique club, etc.
So if you were on your way to one of those and someone attempted to car jack you, even without a firearm, you would be justified in shooting them under traditional self defense, though a SYG claim may also be invoked.
Then why does the gun have to be unloaded for transport if you're allowed to use it? When you say unloaded? Why do the bullets have to be?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
