Serious Defect In Stand Your Ground Laws

SERIOUS DEFECT IN STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS!
In my youth I was what they call a nerd today. But, I was a tough nerd with an
overwhelming hatred of the stupid cigarette smoking low life thugs I had to walk
past every morning going to high school. In my freshman and sophomore years
I averaged two fights a month with these thugs, but I never got in trouble because
I was smart enough to get them to hit me first. You see I had quite a mouth on me. I
could have provoked the Pope to violence. I wanted them to hit me first so I
could beat the chitt out of them without getting into trouble. My point is the way
the Stand Your Ground Laws are written I could follow and stalk anyone I want and
provoke them into accosting me first then blow them away and get away with it.
Do you see the potential problem with these laws the way they are written today.

 

You sound like a grade-a lib in the making, I'm sure Madcow and the likes would be proud.
Now as far as your simplistic reasoning, I guess if you could provoke someone into breaking your nose and slamming your head into the sidewalk then sure you could legally kill them. The real question is why you would want to do such a thing.

 

Dumbest thread premise of the day.

 

I'm not surprised a bully and a thug grew up to be a liberal.

My son in high school told me all the nastiest kids in school are Obama supporters.

 

It is a piece of crap law, drafted by two facist billionaires and enacted by their bribed meat puppets. Like everything that comes out of ALEC, it should be repealed and the people who accept the bribes to enact it around the country should be tried for corruption.

If you kill somebody, you need to give an accounting for it. The wrong wingers seem to think that is unfair to ask of the little punk in Florida. Too bad. A kid who had committed no crime until Z got in his face is dead. Spare me the sob story.

It is unconstitutional to deny the survivors the right to sue if it turns out that the killer in any way caused the confrontation. It is not conducive to public safety to allow self-important turds to roust people for no good reason and kill them and just say "(*)(*)(*)(*) happens" and walk away from it.

 

Your 100% on the mark and it's beyond a normal person's comprehension to believe anything else PERIOD!!!!!!

 

If someone assaults you to the point that you fear for your life or fear severe bodily harm, you are perfectly right - morally and legally - to kill that person.

Whether or not you insulted that person at first is largely irrelevant to the situation.

Now, if you THREATENED him first, that's an entirely different discussion.


As for your anecdote... unless you went to school 30 years ago, in Texas - or in Zambia - I don't believe you.

I was suspended several times in school for defending myself against aggression and violence when I had done NOTHING to provoke it and only reacted with enough force to protect myself from injury.

Didn't matter. "Zero Tolerance" policies in schools apparently mean that if you get assaulted, you also get punished just as much as your assailant.

 

So why is everybody sobbing about the little owies that Z got from a kid who thought he was a boy bumper?

 

California freshman in 1966 and believe me every word is true and believe it or not it was worse than I related.

 

Perhaps. But I think the issue here is that the stand your ground law in Fla. goes well beyond the common law principles of self-defence and reasonable force.

 

I agree and the point of my post is, if your a person so inclined you could manipulate this law to murder people.

 

How does it do that? It's pretty standard.

 

You must be a racist because blacks make use of the SYG defense much more than any other group.

 

It violates the right of a victim's to sue for wrongful death if it was all just a mistake.

There is no evidence that Martin acted like a burglar, other than between fat boy's ears. There is evidence that Z was acting like a boy bumper, thus presenting an identifiable threat to Martin's life.

Turns out that Martin was going about his legitimate business until Z started chasing him. He doesn't get to just say "(*)(*)(*)(*) happens" and walk away under any rational system of laws.

 

Irrelevant. If this touches on racism at all, maybe the racists in the legislature and the Koch roaches are hoping that the bangers will just kill each other off and the state will not have to spend money prosecuting them.

 

It sounds like a good reason to be polite to provocative people and ignore them.

 

Yes, I agree that portion is unconstitutional and have stated so several times. But my question was to diuretic who cited other reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

Ouch...

 

Only dumb people are polite to boy bumpers.

 

So what is a boy bumper?

 

It is bad law plain and simple.

Any act on the part of the killer, as long as it is not specifically illegal, is protected and the killer need only "feel" endangered in order to justify killing.

So, theoretically, a person could walk into a collection of "conservative" worshipers of the Church of TrayvonDeservedIt and announce their support of gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, a Palestinian homeland, raising taxes, or any number of subjects, pull their semi-automatic from their belt with its 30 round magazine, announce their fear of being attacked for their legally held political views and begin firing.

Under the law, there's be no choice but to set them free.

 

A person has to be in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death.

Just hope if it happens to you you get 6 white suburban women on your jury and decedent is black.

 

But the law does not set out what is "reasonable."

If the standard were applied to the police it would be found unconstitutional.

That's why it's bad law.

 

Some of you people are aware you can't go start a fight then shoot the person? You have to prove you couldn't run away, call the cops, get help, ect. You can't just get in someone's face, then whip out your gun, shoot him in the face and claim your life was in danger. It's not that easy.

 

That is left up to the jury, as is guilty or not guilty.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes you can start a fight and shoot someone but the hurdle for self defense is higher,