Odumbo co-sponsored Stand your ground- was for it before he was against it

[LadyGunSlinger]

Then-Sen. Obama co-sponsored 'stand your ground' law in 2004 in Illinois - Washington Times

Typical lying hack librul..

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

You have to just sit and shake your head..Is there anything that leftists won't lie about, distort, use for power?

 

[G.T.]

Let's ask a Lawyer if you have your facts accurate, about that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nd-your-ground-law-in-2004-a.html#post7578192

Don't be afraid to admit that you jumped to conclusions, people do it all of the time in partisan world.

 

[G.T.]

For anyone who hates following links, Liability - who has no vested interest in defending the President, is quoted here:

When he was an Senator, Obama co-sponsored "Stand your Ground" legislation.

"Obama co-sponsored bill strengthening Illinois stand-your-ground law in 2004"

Please fuck off and die, an not necessarily in that order

Read more: Blog: Obama co-sponsored bill strengthening Illinois stand-your-ground law in 2004
Follow us: [MENTION=20123]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Full Text of SB2386
Introduced Engrossed Enrolled
Senate Amendment 001 Senate Amendment 002
Public Act
Printer-Friendly Version PDF Bill Status




SB2386 Enrolled LRB093 20660 RLC 46519 b

1 AN ACT concerning criminal law.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by changing
5 Sections 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 as follows:

6 (720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
7 Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
8 (a) A person is justified in the use of force against
9 another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that
10 such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against
11 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is
12 justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to
13 cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes
14 that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great
15 bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a
16 forcible felony.
17 (b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force
18 justified under this Section give rise to any claim or
19 liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within
20 the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this
21 Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such
22 a person, against the person or estate of the person using such
23 justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or
24 wanton misconduct.
25 (Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

26 (720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2)
27 Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
28 (a) A person is justified in the use of force against
29 another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that
30 such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's
31 unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is




SB2386 Enrolled - 2 - LRB093 20660 RLC 46519 b

1 justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to
2 cause death or great bodily harm only if:
3 (1) (a) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,
4 riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes
5 that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or
6 offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the
7 dwelling, or
8 (2) (b) He reasonably believes that such force is
9 necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the
10 dwelling.
11 (b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force
12 justified under this Section give rise to any claim or
13 liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within
14 the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this
15 Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such
16 a person, against the person or estate of the person using such
17 justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or
18 wanton misconduct.
19 (Source: Laws 1967, p. 696.)

20 (720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)
21 Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.
22 (a) A person is justified in the use of force against
23 another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that
24 such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's
25 trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with
26 either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal
27 property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of
28 another who is a member of his immediate family or household or
29 of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.
30 However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended
31 or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he
32 reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the
33 commission of a forcible felony.
34 (b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force
35 justified under this Section give rise to any claim or




SB2386 Enrolled - 3 - LRB093 20660 RLC 46519 b

1 liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within
2 the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this
3 Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such
4 a person, against the person or estate of the person using such
5 justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or
6 wanton misconduct.
7 (Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

8 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
9 becoming law.

I see no reference to "stand your ground" in that bill.

"Stand your ground" is actually NOT the same thing as a "self defense" law or "justificiation."

A PART of SOME States' laws limit when you may use "justification." For example, in NY, before you can legally use deadly physical force to defend against an attack that includes a risk to your own life, you have a "duty to retreat" (except from your own home) IF (but only if) you can do so in complete safety. By contrast, the "stand your ground" law of Florida imposes NO duty to retreat. <-- instead, you have a legislated right to stand your ground.

The Illinois bill (co-sponsored by Obama) is silent on that topic all together.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Let's ask a Lawyer if you have your facts accurate, about that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nd-your-ground-law-in-2004-a.html#post7578192

Don't be afraid to admit that you jumped to conclusions, people do it all of the time in partisan world.

It's not my facts.. but the Washington Times.. LOL

As to your link, it doesn't work.. Nice try in defending Obama..

NEXT.

 

[G.T.]

Let's ask a Lawyer if you have your facts accurate, about that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nd-your-ground-law-in-2004-a.html#post7578192

Don't be afraid to admit that you jumped to conclusions, people do it all of the time in partisan world.

It's not my facts.. but the Washington Times.. LOL

As to your link, it doesn't work.. Nice try in defending Obama..

NEXT.

I defend the truth, Obama has nothing to do with it.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Let's ask a Lawyer if you have your facts accurate, about that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...nd-your-ground-law-in-2004-a.html#post7578192

Don't be afraid to admit that you jumped to conclusions, people do it all of the time in partisan world.

It's not my facts.. but the Washington Times.. LOL

As to your link, it doesn't work.. Nice try in defending Obama..

NEXT.

I defend the truth, Obama has nothing to do with it.

I don't see anything that shows The Times is lying.. Because you said so?

 

[NightFox]

Odumbo co-sponsored Stand your ground- was for it before he was against it

Apparently he wasn't all that committed to standing his ground.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

odumbo co-sponsored stand your ground- was for it before he was against it

apparently he wasn't all that committed to standing his ground.

lol! ;-)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe he's learned from his mistake.

The NRA went from supporting background checks to opposing them. Which 'flip flop' was worse?

 

[G.T.]

You don't see anything that shows that the Times is lying?

Then, apparently you're not really interested in the truth but to bash blindly without confirming your source is accurate.

Try looking at the Law in reference, itself.

Then, study what stand your ground means.

After that, and if you comprehended all you've read, you'll see that the comparison is inaccurate and the Times printed hyperbole. It happens, all reporters do it.

 

[G.T.]

To put it in laymen's terms:

This is a bill regarding self defense.

Stand your ground is a bill regarding the legalities of retreating, or not, and whether or not you have a duty to retreat.