Fla Governor's Trayvon Commission

V guy · June 12, 2012, 15:32

Rick Scott has appointed a Commission to Review Fla's "Stand Your Ground Law."
Public hearings will be held, but they already came to their own conclusions.

The commission is recommending, no more "defense of property," justification for killing a perp; the ones mugging you and stealing your guns, car, dog, home, or cash.

Caj jacking will be specifically allowed as a minority sport.

Such idiotic changes have to pass the Legislature.

People are bad, either when they want to steal from you, or kill you; both capital offenses in the long train of history; at least until the days of FDR. It was he who started taking away our right to self defense with the first gun control laws; illegal under the commerce clause.

From sources:
In the last 7 years, 23 states have adopted “Stand Your Ground” legislation, to refute FDR and his long, long, communist heritage, across this nation.

The Florida Commission said, "it is time to reexamine a law in which he said has been used in the defense of whites, more so than blacks.
“We’re going to examine this law and others to see if there is a [racial] trend here, and if so, we’re going to have to address it.”

According to Florida stats, nearly 70 percent of those who have invoked a Stand Your Ground defense have gone free. Of those who killed a black person, 73 percent faced no punishment, compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white person. Some went free after killing unarmed people. Others shot people in the back and were not penalized, according to the report.

It has stymied prosecutors and "confused judges."
WTF??

It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon.

In a related move, Atty General Holder has charged The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate, and it has announced it will launch an inquiry into so-called “Stand Your Ground” legislation for racial bias. The laws, which gained notoriety after the shooting of Trayvon Martin, eliminated the duty to retreat from a confrontation that has existed as part of the common law for hundreds of years.

WTF??? there is NO duty to retreat, except in the minds of commies and where they changed the basic laws, like NYS.

55bird · June 12, 2012, 18:52

Don't see much really but feel good stuff to keep the liberals happy coming out of it.
Using the FBI's stats a few years ago isn't it 3-6% of the population commits half the violent crime,those being black males between 14-29 years old,something like that?Of course facts don't count anymore because they portray someone of color in a bad light.Something Mr.Holder refuses to do, no matter the crime.But then that's another matter.

V guy · June 14, 2012, 10:16

I will be very very surprised if any state's "stand your ground laws" get changed.

SCOTUS says they are legal, as the laws are not a license to kill, but removes the insane duty to retreat, and to use deadly force, in clear defense of your life, especially on your own property.

Some guy on trial in Texas right now, was so out of control, he staged a homicide on film.
He kept saying he was in fear for his life, while on the OTHER guys land, and then shot the other guy, faking fear.
Not gonna wash, I predict, and he is gonna hang.

JohnnyV1966 · June 14, 2012, 13:25

Amazing!

Sometimes things can get kind of murky with respect to criminal activity and the threat of violence.

Imagine a homeowner who shoots a burgular in his home then tells Police he shot a thief after breaking into his home in the dark of night. He omits telling the Police he was in fear and the cops arrest him and he is Persecuted by the local Prosecutor.

Given that the bedrock of Western Values, the Jewish Bible or Old Testament has been interpretated by Jewish Scholars to mean that, should someone break in under the cover of darkness their is an implied threat to the owner of being killed in their own home. Therefore the homeowner is within his rights to kill the burgular.

While most people hear are well educated when it comes to firearms and firearms law. Most would never say something like that to the cops. Why should a less informed or ignorant person be prosecuted and potentially jailed at an unjustifiable cost to the Taxpayers!!!

I say we need to ensure that otherwise good people are not ensnared by the Police-Legal-Prison industry!

No changes are needed to Floridas Law and other laws should respect the rights of otherwise legitimate citizens to defend their lives whether in total or piecemeal as property represents ones time of life!!!

JasonB · June 14, 2012, 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyV1966

Amazing!

Sometimes things can get kind of murky with respect to criminal activity and the threat of violence.

Imagine a homeowner who shoots a burgular in his home then tells Police he shot a thief after breaking into his home in the dark of night. He omits telling the Police he was in fear and the cops arrest him and he is Persecuted by the local Prosecutor.

Given that the bedrock of Western Values, the Jewish Bible or Old Testament has been interpretated by Jewish Scholars to mean that, should someone break in under the cover of darkness their is an implied threat to the owner of being killed in their own home. Therefore the homeowner is within his rights to kill the burgular.

While most people hear are well educated when it comes to firearms and firearms law. Most would never say something like that to the cops. Why should a less informed or ignorant person be prosecuted and potentially jailed at an unjustifiable cost to the Taxpayers!!!

I say we need to ensure that otherwise good people are not ensnared by the Police-Legal-Prison industry!

No changes are needed to Floridas Law and other laws should respect the rights of otherwise legitimate citizens to defend their lives whether in total or piecemeal as property represents ones time of life!!!

So Martin was in Zimmerman's home?

**Seaweed** · June 14, 2012, 18:47

Now that's a dumb question...

JasonB · June 14, 2012, 19:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaweed

Now that's a dumb question...

No it wasn't. The whole jist of this thread revolves around Martin vs. Zimmerman and then we get the home invasion scenario mentioned.

Dolvio · July 02, 2012, 23:11

I know this is a few weeks old, but I'm pretty sure in FL the "stand your ground" clause applies to anywhere you may be, not just in the home.

"The law expands a citizen's right to use deadly force anywhere that he has a right to be if he "reasonably believes" it is necessary to stop another person from killing or hurting him badly."

ronpaulFAL · July 03, 2012, 15:45

I still don't see the problem with all this stuff. Look, if you assault someone, they may have a gun, and they just might use it. Plus, you could be prosecuted. So... don't assault people.

JasonB · July 03, 2012, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dolvio

I know this is a few weeks old, but I'm pretty sure in FL the "stand your ground" clause applies to anywhere you may be, not just in the home.

"The law expands a citizen's right to use deadly force anywhere that he has a right to be if he "reasonably believes" it is necessary to stop another person from killing or hurting him badly."

So why did the poster I asked the question of allude to the home instead of anywhere else which happens to be the case with Martin/Zimmerman?

**L Haney** · July 03, 2012, 20:36

If you actually educate jury members, none of this matters.

AndyC · July 03, 2012, 21:37

"Stand your ground" doesn't apply to the Zimmerman case - it's a media-driven f*ck-up.

Gonna be funny to watch the contortions the lawyers'll use when they realize they were herded by the media like meek sheep into a corner and then go "This isn't the law we were looking for..." - the dumb-asses.

Dolvio · July 04, 2012, 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonB

So why did the poster I asked the question of allude to the home instead of anywhere else which happens to be the case with Martin/Zimmerman?

Why are you asking me?

JasonB · July 04, 2012, 06:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dolvio

Why are you asking me?

Because I asked the home versus not question originally and you seemed to be trying to clarify the FL law.

JohnnyV1966 · July 04, 2012, 13:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonB

So Martin was in Zimmerman's home?

Why so critical Jason?

I think the refusal of Authorities to adhere to time tested law within Western Culture, allowing homeowners the ability kill intruders provided a groundswell of support for contemporary "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your Ground" laws.

Not that long ago Cheif Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes espoused that "....a mans home is his Castle" . Given all the cultural rot and confusion, contemporary authorities had demonstrated in prosecuting people for doing what is otherwise ethically correct, resulted in "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your Ground" laws being enacted. Its really a shame that even one "good" citizen had to go to jail for the malfeasance of "criminal friendly" police and prosecutors who opted to trash common sense.

Clearly they are the real criminals.

JasonB · July 04, 2012, 13:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyV1966

Why so critical Jason?

I think the refusal of Authorities to adhere to time tested law within Western Culture, allowing homeowners the ability kill intruders provided a groundswell of support for contemporary "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your Ground" laws.

Not that long ago Cheif Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes espoused that "....a mans home is his Castle" . Given all the cultural rot and confusion, contemporary authorities had demonstrated in prosecuting people for doing what is otherwise ethically correct, resulted in "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your Ground" laws being enacted. Its really a shame that even one "good" citizen had to go to jail for the malfeasance of "criminal friendly" police and prosecutors who opted to trash common sense.

Clearly they are the real criminals.

If someone breaks in to someone's home and the home owner ends up killing them it is usually pretty cut and dried in most cases that the person breaking in was at fault and got what they had coming.

Initiate contact with someone out on the street and the person who initiated the contact ends up killing the other party then not so cut and dried.

JohnnyV1966 · July 06, 2012, 06:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonB

If someone breaks in to someone's home and the home owner ends up killing them it is usually pretty cut and dried in most cases that the person breaking in was at fault and got what they had coming.

Initiate contact with someone out on the street and the person who initiated the contact ends up killing the other party then not so cut and dried.

Oh I see.... I don't know exactly what you mean by "Cut and Dried" prior to "Castle Doctrine" laws. If you read my prior posts, I think I laid out a pretty good case. I think some of your personal bias shows, and clearly it depends on when and where you are from. The legal standard even when in the home, was to " in fear for ones life", possibly with a duty to retreat with no presumption of a "prima fascia" threat in the case of a home invasion in order to lawfully use deadly force. I think it's amazing that some people really like to be the knit picking fly in the ointment.

JasonB · July 07, 2012, 10:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyV1966

Oh I see.... I don't know exactly what you mean by "Cut and Dried" prior to "Castle Doctrine" laws. If you read my prior posts, I think I laid out a pretty good case. I think some of your personal bias shows, and clearly it depends on when and where you are from. The legal standard even when in the home, was to " in fear for ones life", possibly with a duty to retreat with no presumption of a "prima fascia" threat in the case of a home invasion in order to lawfully use deadly force. I think it's amazing that some people really like to be the knit picking fly in the ointment.

I never said anything about a duty to retreat at any time nor do I agree with that idiotic concept so why bring it up?

So are you saying if you start what you want to only be a fist fight with someone and they start winning you should be able to use a weapon to tilt the outcome in your favor and then claim self defense?

Personal bias in my case would be don't **** with someone else. Mind your own business and another initiates a chain of events that cause you to fear for your safety and you respond accordingly then their injuries are on them. You start it and the fearing for your life kicks in at the moment you figure out you have screwed with a better man then tough for you.

JohnnyV1966 · July 11, 2012, 07:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonB

So Martin was in Zimmerman's home?

Jason,

Your lack or reasoning speaks volumes about you. What was your point? Are you capable of reading between the lines? Why does everything need to be spelled out in great detail to make you comprehend? Just look over your posts and responses, it's not just me either. "Fly in the ointment" or "Pain in the ***." take your pick.

JasonB · July 11, 2012, 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyV1966

Jason,

Your lack or reasoning speaks volumes about you. What was your point? Are you capable of reading between the lines? Why does everything need to be spelled out in great detail to make you comprehend? Just look over your posts and responses, it's not just me either. "Fly in the ointment" or "Pain in the ***." take your pick.

I comprehended quite well and pointed out how you were trying to slant the issue by using the example of an in home burglary with the robber getting shot (the robber would by the nature of the incident been the one to kick everything off of course) to describe an incident in a semi-public place where the person initiating the incident ended up killing the other person.

ronpaulFAL · July 12, 2012, 11:13

I still have a problem with the definition of "initiating an incident." If you strike up a conversation with a guy who attacks you, did you initiate? By all accounts, Z didn't strike first. There is nothing wrong with asking a suspicious person in your area what they are doing, if you can give them directions, etc. I don't call that initiating aggression. What is initiation of aggression is assaulting someone else. Nobody has been brash enough to state that Z attacked TM, brandished his weapon or made threats of violence. If you have info I haven't seen, present it.

Let's not get sidetracked from the simple logic here, because anti-gun lawyers and others are trying to muddy up those waters on purpose. You don't attack people in a society where people are allowed to carry concealed weapons. You might get shot. Hopefully, Trayvon's rash decision will serve as an example to others who think they can assault people who question them. I'll also note that there's a difference between a couple punches and pinning someone down with a clear goal of continuing the assault until they are unconscious or dead. I don't think many CCW holders would fire on someone for punching them a couple of times and stepping back, but most probably would if the attack was heading towards serious injury or death. This is morally and legally justified.

JasonB · July 12, 2012, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronpaulFAL

I still have a problem with the definition of "initiating an incident." If you strike up a conversation with a guy who attacks you, did you initiate? By all accounts, Z didn't strike first. There is nothing wrong with asking a suspicious person in your area what they are doing, if you can give them directions, etc. I don't call that initiating aggression. What is initiation of aggression is assaulting someone else. Nobody has been brash enough to state that Z attacked TM, brandished his weapon or made threats of violence. If you have info I haven't seen, present it.

Strike up a conversation, no.

Start following someone? Perhaps. That is predatory behavior after all.

June 12, 2012, 15:32	#1
V guy Registered FALaholic #: 10282 Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: miami Posts: 8,230	Fla Governor's Trayvon Commission Rick Scott has appointed a Commission to Review Fla's "Stand Your Ground Law." Public hearings will be held, but they already came to their own conclusions. The commission is recommending, no more "defense of property," justification for killing a perp; the ones mugging you and stealing your guns, car, dog, home, or cash. Caj jacking will be specifically allowed as a minority sport. Such idiotic changes have to pass the Legislature. People are bad, either when they want to steal from you, or kill you; both capital offenses in the long train of history; at least until the days of FDR. It was he who started taking away our right to self defense with the first gun control laws; illegal under the commerce clause. From sources: In the last 7 years, 23 states have adopted “Stand Your Ground” legislation, to refute FDR and his long, long, communist heritage, across this nation. The Florida Commission said, "it is time to reexamine a law in which he said has been used in the defense of whites, more so than blacks. “We’re going to examine this law and others to see if there is a [racial] trend here, and if so, we’re going to have to address it.” According to Florida stats, nearly 70 percent of those who have invoked a Stand Your Ground defense have gone free. Of those who killed a black person, 73 percent faced no punishment, compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white person. Some went free after killing unarmed people. Others shot people in the back and were not penalized, according to the report. It has stymied prosecutors and "confused judges." WTF?? It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon. In a related move, Atty General Holder has charged The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate, and it has announced it will launch an inquiry into so-called “Stand Your Ground” legislation for racial bias. The laws, which gained notoriety after the shooting of Trayvon Martin, eliminated the duty to retreat from a confrontation that has existed as part of the common law for hundreds of years. WTF??? there is NO duty to retreat, except in the minds of commies and where they changed the basic laws, like NYS. Last edited by V guy; July 04, 2012 at 10:49.

June 12, 2012, 18:52	#2
55bird Registered FALaholic #: 799 Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Tampa,Fl,U.S.A. Posts: 1,041	Don't see much really but feel good stuff to keep the liberals happy coming out of it. Using the FBI's stats a few years ago isn't it 3-6% of the population commits half the violent crime,those being black males between 14-29 years old,something like that?Of course facts don't count anymore because they portray someone of color in a bad light.Something Mr.Holder refuses to do, no matter the crime.But then that's another matter. __________________ The very things my grade school teachers of the 1960's warned me about communism,my government is today:skull:

July 03, 2012, 20:36	#11
L Haney Seriously Ponderin' Silver Contributor FALaholic #: 20446 Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: NW Ga Posts: 8,359	If you actually educate jury members, none of this matters. __________________ “I am quite sure I do not get what is so funny about my RO style." stimpsonjcat You'd have to be there, and if you ain't it's your loss.

July 03, 2012, 21:37	#12
AndyC Porridge Wog Contributor FALaholic #: 19755 Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Euless, TX Posts: 11,061	"Stand your ground" doesn't apply to the Zimmerman case - it's a media-driven fck-up. Gonna be funny to watch the contortions the lawyers'll use when they realize they were herded by the media like meek sheep into a corner and then go "This isn't the law we were looking for..." - the dumb-asses. __________________ My Iraq Pics* Preferred Travel Agent - 72 Virgins Dating Club

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

June 14, 2012, 10:16	#3
V guy Registered FALaholic #: 10282 Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: miami Posts: 8,230	I will be very very surprised if any state's "stand your ground laws" get changed. SCOTUS says they are legal, as the laws are not a license to kill, but removes the insane duty to retreat, and to use deadly force, in clear defense of your life, especially on your own property. Some guy on trial in Texas right now, was so out of control, he staged a homicide on film. He kept saying he was in fear for his life, while on the OTHER guys land, and then shot the other guy, faking fear. Not gonna wash, I predict, and he is gonna hang.

June 14, 2012, 13:25	#4
JohnnyV1966 Registered FALaholic #: 19420 Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,499	Amazing! Sometimes things can get kind of murky with respect to criminal activity and the threat of violence. Imagine a homeowner who shoots a burgular in his home then tells Police he shot a thief after breaking into his home in the dark of night. He omits telling the Police he was in fear and the cops arrest him and he is Persecuted by the local Prosecutor. Given that the bedrock of Western Values, the Jewish Bible or Old Testament has been interpretated by Jewish Scholars to mean that, should someone break in under the cover of darkness their is an implied threat to the owner of being killed in their own home. Therefore the homeowner is within his rights to kill the burgular. While most people hear are well educated when it comes to firearms and firearms law. Most would never say something like that to the cops. Why should a less informed or ignorant person be prosecuted and potentially jailed at an unjustifiable cost to the Taxpayers!!! I say we need to ensure that otherwise good people are not ensnared by the Police-Legal-Prison industry! No changes are needed to Floridas Law and other laws should respect the rights of otherwise legitimate citizens to defend their lives whether in total or piecemeal as property represents ones time of life!!!

June 14, 2012, 18:47	#6
Seaweed Veteran Member Silver Contributor FALaholic #: 2736 Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Newport, OR Posts: 1,280	Now that's a dumb question...

July 02, 2012, 23:11	#8
Dolvio Registered FALaholic #: 32295 Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: TN Posts: 416	I know this is a few weeks old, but I'm pretty sure in FL the "stand your ground" clause applies to anywhere you may be, not just in the home. "The law expands a citizen's right to use deadly force anywhere that he has a right to be if he "reasonably believes" it is necessary to stop another person from killing or hurting him badly."

July 03, 2012, 15:45	#9
ronpaulFAL Registered FALaholic #: 65535 Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: somewhere Posts: 2,172	I still don't see the problem with all this stuff. Look, if you assault someone, they may have a gun, and they just might use it. Plus, you could be prosecuted. So... don't assault people.

July 12, 2012, 11:13	#21
ronpaulFAL Registered FALaholic #: 65535 Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: somewhere Posts: 2,172	I still have a problem with the definition of "initiating an incident." If you strike up a conversation with a guy who attacks you, did you initiate? By all accounts, Z didn't strike first. There is nothing wrong with asking a suspicious person in your area what they are doing, if you can give them directions, etc. I don't call that initiating aggression. What is initiation of aggression is assaulting someone else. Nobody has been brash enough to state that Z attacked TM, brandished his weapon or made threats of violence. If you have info I haven't seen, present it. Let's not get sidetracked from the simple logic here, because anti-gun lawyers and others are trying to muddy up those waters on purpose. You don't attack people in a society where people are allowed to carry concealed weapons. You might get shot. Hopefully, Trayvon's rash decision will serve as an example to others who think they can assault people who question them. I'll also note that there's a difference between a couple punches and pinning someone down with a clear goal of continuing the assault until they are unconscious or dead. I don't think many CCW holders would fire on someone for punching them a couple of times and stepping back, but most probably would if the attack was heading towards serious injury or death. This is morally and legally justified.