One thing we can all agree on; Stand Your Ground is a horrible law

Stand Your Ground was instituted as a response to the assinine rulings that held people responsible for protecting themselves in the face of criminal attacks. Prior to Stand Your Ground, people were told they had to somehow run away from criminals or they risked being prosecuted. If a criminal invaded your home and you confronted that criminal rather than running away, you ran the risk of prosecution. Stand Your Ground says, you no longer have to act the part of a coward and can protect what is yours, including your life.

I have a carry permit and there are times when I am armed. I hope I never have to fire my pistol because of fear for my life but I appreciate the fact that I can do so if it is required. I will not attack you, but if you attack me you risk being shot and injured or killed.

 

Such as does not equal only. I suggest you learn what words mean. Such much for liberals being educated!

 

Your post is not only dumb, it is dishonest. Zimmerman did not chase down Martin and, no, when he was lying on his back being pummeled by Martin he did not have the ability to retreat.

 

Something similar happened recently. A group of black men in a passing car shot an unarmed, white jogger for no reason. Of course, they didn't claim self defense. They just sped away after the killing.

Stand Your Ground does not give people free rein to just go around killing people. What it does is give people the right to defend themselves.

 

What sounds profoundly dumb is that you actually completely buy that Zimmerman "chased Trayvon down". Any nincompoop should be able to figure out that such a thing was impossible.

Martin and Zimmerman ended up face to face because of one person: Martin.

 

No, we cannot agree that "Stand Your Ground" is a horrible law. It is only horrible from the point of view of the thug.

"Stand your ground" is excellent law.

 

Best post in the thread.

 

No, we can't all agree on that.

 

We have stood our ground in Texas from the first Indian attacks until this very day and we will not stop because a thug like Trayvon got himself killed in Florida.

 

Some liberals would prefer the populace not be able to defend itself...wanting a police state and everything. Victims are very easy to control you see. Of course, these particular Liberals are the ones who think they'll be above the police. But once they're part of the sheep, things don't look too good. Then they'll regret their actions and beliefs, but by then it'll be too late.

 

If they had stand your ground at Virginia Tech a few years back, less people would have been killed.

 

So, with your thinking, as long as a minor, or a group of minors is unarmed (by unarmed you must mean with a gun) they can beat the crap out of someone (that someone can be a old lady or and old man) and not have to fear being shot by the intended victim as they try to defend themselves? Is that what you're advocating?

 

I wholly support SYG....as I support almost all efforts that endeavor to lessen preemptive government regulatory meddling in the human condition.

Additionally, I find it ironic that the same folks who support repealing SYG laws...thusly, supporting more preemptive government intervention...

also scream bloody murder over the prospect of government intervening in a mother's "right" to violate the natural rights of her unborn child.

Such duplicity in thought runs rampant and unabated on the left side of the aisle, and is why I find leftists so absurdly myopic and disingenuous.

 

So given a choice between the criminal and the innocent being killed, you choose the latter?

 

That would be true if there was any evidence it was occurring but, no, after 5 or 6 years we have no real evidence this is happening. What has occurred is a growing number of victims surviving and a growing number of perps gaining weight through the consumption of lead.

Put another way, we KNOW the effect of these laws and the actual positives outweigh the potential problems.

 

I have a rifle on order and plan to get a shotgun when/if the rifle ever arrives.

 

Any supposed innocent people being supposedly killed by SYG, is heavily outweighed by the sheer untold number of crimes avoided. How many people have survived an attack knowing they can defend themselves? How many aren't even reported? How many people have randomly killed someone then used SYG as a defense and have walked? Lucky if you can count them on 1 hand or if it has ever really happened.

 

Stand your ground has nothing to do with "concealed carry."

All SYG does is eliminate any responsibility on the part of a person making the claim to act responsibly and reasonably.

The law fails due to its vaguery. If you were to take the same law and make SYG a crime rather than a defense it would be found unconstitutional because a reasonable man could not determine from the law what is or is not a criminal act.

 

Because sometimes, as in the Martin case, the guy you shot is not a criminal. Maybe he was tring to tell you you dropped your wallet, maybe he was asking directions, or maybe, just maybe, he was some kid on his way home from the 7-11.

You are claiming that, because you have a gun, you also have the absolute right of judge, jury, and executioner because you "feel" threatened.

 

Or maybe he was bashing your head into concrete......

.......you of course woudnt have pulled a gun......and would have let Trayvon finish the job.
.
.
.

 

With all respect to your opinion , the 'Stand Alone' Law is fair and protects ALL citizens by allowing them to legally defend themselves.

 

A well-armed society is a very polite society........need I say more?