Holder: REPEAL 100 y/o SYG Laws

[OriginalShroom]

Two Thumbs,

The use of racial or gender bases words meant to inflame or insult others does absolutely nothing to advance your position.

In fact, the use of those words destroy your credibility to advance any position.

 

[OriginalShroom]

This thread has so many racists in a circle jerk of stupid apologetics for a coward who followed a teenager for no reason, except the was black, and when the teenager fought back which he had every right to do, the coward crying like a friggin baby, had to shoot the child for his manhood was too weak to fight, even though he initiated the entire episode. You racist whack jobs are a sad example of how racism is now rationalized and cowards now can shoot because they are scared. What pussies America has become. But the funny thing now is every two bit criminal can claim stand your ground. Only blacks as the statistics shown are not allowed stand your ground excuses. Glad you weakling can hug your gun as without it you be the cry baby Zimmerman is.

You cowards in need of a gun better hope someone does scare you and the both of you cowards don't shoot each other. Kinda funny. Humankind goes back to the jungle cause they scared.

"According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010."

Deaths Nearly Triple Since ?Stand Your Ground? Enacted « CBS Miami

I am going to join the others in saying that you have misrepresented the truth, spun the truth, twisted the truth, and even said some things which are totally false in this post of yours that I don't think that there is a single true fact there.

 

[Contumacious]

Thats nice -- what is a black AG going to say to the NAACP? The bigger point though is -- who cares what you say about this? You have no role on the subject of shaping state law - no one is even really listening to this and if they are I can just see the rush in the legislatures of the states that have these laws to change them because Holder and Obama dont like them.

Whatever you think of them, laws like this get enacted not because people want to go out and kill people for shits and giggles but because of the recognition that the state cant and wont protect them from violent crime (any cop will admit that is not really their role, it cant be) so people want the ability to protect themselves.

And that's not it.

The law has always been that you can defend yourself.

What it hasn't been is that you can stalk and kill someone at will.

And that's what SYG is..

With all due respect it is not. Simply stated you cannot be the agressor and invoke stand your ground laws. Its just a variation of traditional self defense that does not require someone to retreat in the face of the REASONABLE fear of bodily harm from another.

Another way to look at it is that stand your ground is just a clarification that the right of self defense that exists against an agressor in your home (where there has never been a duty to retreat) applies against all aggressors.

So i knoew a lot of people want to sensationalize this to fit their narrative but they are not being honest or accurate.

Bottom line in the Zimmerman trial is that there is no way at all there wasnt reasonable doubt. No way. Sure maybe Zimmerman stalked him to kill him. Maybe the kid confornted and attacked Zimmerman. I dont know. You dont know. The proof wasnt there -- thats reasonable doubt.

And what obama and holder are doing is what i call part of their smash and gra mentality -- if the basic institutions and protections of society - like here the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt dont fit the ends you wish to acheive -- attack them even when it really is your job to defend them.

Fair enough -- thats in their self interest but its another reason this country is so divided -- which btw i think is a very v ery good thing

Zimmerman called 911 frst.

Again, this was a PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY. Per fLORIDA lAW NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE THERE. but residents and their guests. No way to know someone is a guest unless that FACT is communicated.

.

 

[The T]

And that's not it.

The law has always been that you can defend yourself.

What it hasn't been is that you can stalk and kill someone at will.

And that's what SYG is..

With all due respect it is not. Simply stated you cannot be the agressor and invoke stand your ground laws. Its just a variation of traditional self defense that does not require someone to retreat in the face of the REASONABLE fear of bodily harm from another.

Another way to look at it is that stand your ground is just a clarification that the right of self defense that exists against an agressor in your home (where there has never been a duty to retreat) applies against all aggressors.

So i knoew a lot of people want to sensationalize this to fit their narrative but they are not being honest or accurate.

Bottom line in the Zimmerman trial is that there is no way at all there wasnt reasonable doubt. No way. Sure maybe Zimmerman stalked him to kill him. Maybe the kid confornted and attacked Zimmerman. I dont know. You dont know. The proof wasnt there -- thats reasonable doubt.

And what obama and holder are doing is what i call part of their smash and gra mentality -- if the basic institutions and protections of society - like here the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt dont fit the ends you wish to acheive -- attack them even when it really is your job to defend them.

Fair enough -- thats in their self interest but its another reason this country is so divided -- which btw i think is a very v ery good thing

Zimmerman called 911 frst.

Again, this was a PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY. Per fLORIDA lAW NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE THERE. but residents and their guests. No way to know someone is a guest unless that FACT is communicated.

.

And Zimmerman didn't recognize Trayvon...and questioned his right to BE in that Gated Community...all Trayvon had to do was answer the questions instead of attacking Zimmerman...Tayvon was in the wrong...cost him his life...

 

[Contumacious]

Thats nice -- what is a black AG going to say to the NAACP? The bigger point though is -- who cares what you say about this?
.

The point is that if he brings federal criminal charges , Mr Z will have to accept a federal public "defender" who will promptly force to plead guilty.

And presto, they will get away with murder.

.

He will not be forced to accept a public defender. He can employ O'Mara if he so desires... assuming O'Mara is a member of the Federal Bar which would be a very likely circumstance.

I believe they know that Mr Z lacks the funds to hire O'Mara . Unless O'mara is willing to work pro bono for the publicity.

.

 

[Vox]

Trayvon Martin likely knew more about Stand Your Ground law than George Zimmerman. TM's parents have been going after SYG law even though it had nothing to do with TM's death. TM often wore his Cory Craig Johnson button as he did the night he was killed. Cory Craig Johnson's death is why the Martin family have such a keen interest in defeating the “Stand-Your-Ground” law. JOHNSON v. STATE No. 82-369.

Do you know WHY?

Who was a relative to whom in that story?

 

[legaleagle_45]

The point is that if he brings federal criminal charges , Mr Z will have to accept a federal public "defender" who will promptly force to plead guilty.

And presto, they will get away with murder.

.

He will not be forced to accept a public defender. He can employ O'Mara if he so desires... assuming O'Mara is a member of the Federal Bar which would be a very likely circumstance.

I believe they know that Mr Z lacks the funds to hire O'Mara . Unless O'mara is willing to work pro bono for the publicity.

.

I believe he has already indicated that to be the case.

 

[Contumacious]

Holder: Time to Question "Stand Your Ground" Laws

By Bob Adelmann

The New American

July 19, 2013

When Attorney General Eric Holder (shown) told his audience at the NAACP’s annual convention on Tuesday, “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” he was either ignorant of, or didn’t want to consider, the precedents the Supreme Court has used for nearly 100 years to defend the “stand your ground” laws to which he was referring. Twenty-five states have adopted some form of those laws, including the State of Florida. Simply stated, those laws provide that an individual may be justified in using deadly force to defend himself against an unlawful threat without an obligation to retreat first

.Back in 2000, Second Amendment scholar and Research Director of the Independence Institute David Kopel published his analysis of a dozen self-defense cases brought before the Supreme Court in the 1890s. These cases laid the legal groundwork for a decision in 1921 that “became the most important armed self-defense case in American legal history, upholding and extending the right to armed self-defense,” according to Kopel. Calling them “The Self-Defense Cases,” Kopel examined each of them in turn, including the primary case — Beard v. United States — which led inevitably and directly to the 1921 decision, Brown v. United States, that has served as the touchstone that Holder now wants to “question.”"

.

The right to stand your ground actually extends back to English common law.

The RIGHT to stand our ground is a natural right.

.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Just so you really understand WTF you are babbling about, why don't you actually read Brown v. United States and tell us exactly how this pertains to the new SYG laws, which do not take into consideration any aggressive acts prior to the actual incident in which a gun is fired or other weapon used, only the act itself. The defendant only needs to claim he or she felt threatened for their life.

FU and SYG. There is no comparison between Brown v United States and the insanity that is going on now:

BROWN v. UNITED STATES 150 U.S. 93 (14 S.Ct. 37, 37 L.Ed. 1010)

PSST, NoTeaPartyPleez... when citing Brown v United States it is kinda important to actually cite the correct Brown v. United States as there are several. The way you can tell is the part which says 150 US 93. See, that refers to Volume 150 of the US Reports at page 93. Too bad for you the SCOTUS case dealing with SYG is 256 U.S. 335 and not 150 U.S. 93, huh?

Now if you were to go to the actual Brown v. United States found in Volume 256 of the US reports at page 335 you would see the case head notes which read in part:

1. The right of a man to stand his ground and defend himself when attacked with a deadly weapon, even to the extent of taking his assailant's life, depends upon whether he reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, and not upon the detached test whether a man of reasonable prudence, so situated, might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than kill him

The entire case can be found here...

Brown v. United States - 256 U.S. 335 (1921) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Glad I could help ya out...

 

[Katzndogz]

He will not be forced to accept a public defender. He can employ O'Mara if he so desires... assuming O'Mara is a member of the Federal Bar which would be a very likely circumstance.

I believe they know that Mr Z lacks the funds to hire O'Mara . Unless O'mara is willing to work pro bono for the publicity.

.

I believe he has already indicated that to be the case.

Up until this case, Mark O'Mara was a sole practitioner practicing by his lonely self in Orlando. He wasn't known, he just happens to be brilliant. Whether or not Zimmerman had the funds to hire O'Mara in the first place it means that O'Mara is on the hook for the duration of the case because a criminal defense attorney cannot withdraw due to lack of funds without permission from the court. The publicity will no doubt do him some good and I hope it does. A case like this can absolutely suck up the resources of a sole practitioner.

There will be no federal prosecution. obama hinted at that, laying the ground work, in his pity pot speech. eric "fast n furious" holder did the same thing in his speech to repeal self defense laws. They are softening the blow for when the announcement is made.

 

[Katzndogz]

Just so you really understand WTF you are babbling about, why don't you actually read Brown v. United States and tell us exactly how this pertains to the new SYG laws, which do not take into consideration any aggressive acts prior to the actual incident in which a gun is fired or other weapon used, only the act itself. The defendant only needs to claim he or she felt threatened for their life.

FU and SYG. There is no comparison between Brown v United States and the insanity that is going on now:

BROWN v. UNITED STATES 150 U.S. 93 (14 S.Ct. 37, 37 L.Ed. 1010)

PSST, NoTeaPartyPleez... when citing Brown v United States it is kinda important to actually cite the correct Brown v. United States as there are several. The way you can tell is the part which says 150 US 93. See, that refers to Volume 150 of the US Reports at page 93. Too bad for you the SCOTUS case dealing with SYG is 256 U.S. 335 and not 150 U.S. 93, huh?

Now if you were to go to the actual Brown v. United States found in Volume 256 of the US reports at page 335 you would see the case head notes which read in part:

1. The right of a man to stand his ground and defend himself when attacked with a deadly weapon, even to the extent of taking his assailant's life, depends upon whether he reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, and not upon the detached test whether a man of reasonable prudence, so situated, might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than kill him

The entire case can be found here...

Brown v. United States - 256 U.S. 335 (1921) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Glad I could help ya out...

The historically recognized quote.


158 U. S. 550, 158 U. S. 559. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.

 

[The T]

Holder: Time to Question "Stand Your Ground" Laws

By Bob Adelmann

The New American

July 19, 2013

When Attorney General Eric Holder (shown) told his audience at the NAACP’s annual convention on Tuesday, “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” he was either ignorant of, or didn’t want to consider, the precedents the Supreme Court has used for nearly 100 years to defend the “stand your ground” laws to which he was referring. Twenty-five states have adopted some form of those laws, including the State of Florida. Simply stated, those laws provide that an individual may be justified in using deadly force to defend himself against an unlawful threat without an obligation to retreat first

.Back in 2000, Second Amendment scholar and Research Director of the Independence Institute David Kopel published his analysis of a dozen self-defense cases brought before the Supreme Court in the 1890s. These cases laid the legal groundwork for a decision in 1921 that “became the most important armed self-defense case in American legal history, upholding and extending the right to armed self-defense,” according to Kopel. Calling them “The Self-Defense Cases,” Kopel examined each of them in turn, including the primary case — Beard v. United States — which led inevitably and directly to the 1921 decision, Brown v. United States, that has served as the touchstone that Holder now wants to “question.”"

.

The right to stand your ground actually extends back to English common law.

The RIGHT to stand our ground is a natural right.

.

And codified by the Second Amendment.

 

[Publius1787]

Holder: Time to Question "Stand Your Ground" Laws

By Bob Adelmann

The New American

July 19, 2013

When Attorney General Eric Holder (shown) told his audience at the NAACP’s annual convention on Tuesday, “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” he was either ignorant of, or didn’t want to consider, the precedents the Supreme Court has used for nearly 100 years to defend the “stand your ground” laws to which he was referring. Twenty-five states have adopted some form of those laws, including the State of Florida. Simply stated, those laws provide that an individual may be justified in using deadly force to defend himself against an unlawful threat without an obligation to retreat first

.Back in 2000, Second Amendment scholar and Research Director of the Independence Institute David Kopel published his analysis of a dozen self-defense cases brought before the Supreme Court in the 1890s. These cases laid the legal groundwork for a decision in 1921 that “became the most important armed self-defense case in American legal history, upholding and extending the right to armed self-defense,” according to Kopel. Calling them “The Self-Defense Cases,” Kopel examined each of them in turn, including the primary case — Beard v. United States — which led inevitably and directly to the 1921 decision, Brown v. United States, that has served as the touchstone that Holder now wants to “question.”"

.

100 Year old? Try much older. From the "founder of modern English common law." >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/304306-john-locke-on-stand-your-ground.html
Why has it lasted for so long? Because it is proven.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The RIGHT to stand our ground is a natural right.

And codified by the Second Amendment.

We have an UNnatural president who thinks we have elected him to change the above. His successor, Hillary is poised to finish the job. We are voting for the demise of our rights.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Using race as the cause for implementing gun control is actually attempting to control those who have guns, not an attempt to curb violence. Here's how you know that's true:

Blacks kill blacks. 93% of the time. And not one protest march to shed light on 93% of the problem, because race has nothing to do with this. It's a red herring.

Don't like your rights being usurped? Stop voting for it.
Put them in the position to remove our rights, and they will remove our rights.
Vote American, not partisan.

 

[midcan5]

This thread has so many racists in a circle jerk of stupid apologetics for a coward who followed a teenager for no reason, except he was black, and then when the teenager fought back which he had every right to do, the coward crying like a friggin baby, had to shoot the child for his manhood was too weak to fight - even though he initiated the entire episode. You racist whack jobs are a sad example of how racism is now rationalized and cowards now can shoot because they are scared. What pussies America has become. But the funny thing now is every two bit criminal can claim stand your ground. Only blacks as the statistics show are not allowed stand your ground excuses. Glad you weakling can hug your gun as without it you be the cry baby Zimmerman is.

You cowards in need of a gun better hope someone does scare you and the both of you cowards don't shoot each other. Kinda funny. Humankind goes back to the jungle cause they scared.

"According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010."

Deaths Nearly Triple Since ?Stand Your Ground? Enacted « CBS Miami

gunna bold the obvious lies so you know why I negged you.

Seriously, so little truth, just agitates the hell outta me.

Listen racist asshole, the fact you somehow know the truth from a lie when you have no way in hell of knowing what happened proves you are biased asshole. Neg reps from you pussies I get all the time, the right wing cowards like yourself can only hug a gun and neg rep for that is the limit of courage. You think that means something you're so damn stupid. Add Sunshine to your list of assholes. The statistics are facts but you retards only like facts that match your empty heads.

PS I took the liberty to correct grammar and meaning in my original post.

 

[Sunshine]

He will not be forced to accept a public defender. He can employ O'Mara if he so desires... assuming O'Mara is a member of the Federal Bar which would be a very likely circumstance.

I believe they know that Mr Z lacks the funds to hire O'Mara . Unless O'mara is willing to work pro bono for the publicity.

.

I believe he has already indicated that to be the case.

[MENTION=43021]legaleagle_45[/MENTION]

So O'Mara is still representing Zimmerman? In the lawsuits as well? Most people don't know that a civil rights case pays treble damages. He would be out of his mind not to take the civil cases on contingency. And I don't think Mark O'Mara is out of his mind.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This thread has so many racists in a circle jerk of stupid apologetics for a coward who followed a teenager for no reason, except he was black, and then when the teenager fought back which he had every right to do, the coward crying like a friggin baby, had to shoot the child for his manhood was too weak to fight - even though he initiated the entire episode. You racist whack jobs are a sad example of how racism is now rationalized and cowards now can shoot because they are scared. What pussies America has become. But the funny thing now is every two bit criminal can claim stand your ground. Only blacks as the statistics show are not allowed stand your ground excuses. Glad you weakling can hug your gun as without it you be the cry baby Zimmerman is.

You cowards in need of a gun better hope someone does scare you and the both of you cowards don't shoot each other. Kinda funny. Humankind goes back to the jungle cause they scared.

"According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010."

Deaths Nearly Triple Since ?Stand Your Ground? Enacted « CBS Miami

gunna bold the obvious lies so you know why I negged you.

Seriously, so little truth, just agitates the hell outta me.

Listen racist asshole, the fact you somehow know the truth from a lie when you have no way in hell of knowing what happened proves you are biased asshole. Neg reps from you pussies I get all the time, the right wing cowards like yourself can only hug a gun and neg rep for that is the limit of courage. You think that means something you're so damn stupid. Add Sunshine to your list of assholes. The statistics are facts but you retards only like facts that match your empty heads.

PS I took the liberty to correct grammar and meaning in my original post.

uhm, you made shit up and I called you on it.

wanna cry like a baby? fine with me, just shows you know you're a lying racist and are just projecting your issues onto me.

 

[Contumacious]

Next up on Florida's docket is Michael Dunn who shot up a car of black kids at a 7-11, killing one. He claims he felt threatened, and yet not one of those kids got out of the car they were in before he shot nine times.

FU and SYG. There is no comparison between Brown v United States and the insanity that is going on now. :[/B]

Shooting of Florida teen is no Trayvon Martin case, attorney says

.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I believe they know that Mr Z lacks the funds to hire O'Mara . Unless O'mara is willing to work pro bono for the publicity.

.

I believe he has already indicated that to be the case.

So O'Mara is still representing Zimmerman? In the lawsuits as well? Most people don't know that a civil rights case pays treble damages. He would be out of his mind not to take the civil cases on contingency. And I don't think Mark O'Mara is out of his mind.

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION]

That is what he indicated with regard to the threatened civil suit.. that they were prepared to establish immunity. I would assume that he would represent him in a civil rights criminal action as well... however that possibility seems remote. IMHO Holder and the administration are using the possibility of a federal action as a means of defusing racial tensions and for political gain. In a few weeks they will announce that they tried "really hard" but there is not enough evidence to prosecute.

I think this is quite despicable and is tantamount to racial pandering.

 

[Sunshine]

I believe he has already indicated that to be the case.

So O'Mara is still representing Zimmerman? In the lawsuits as well? Most people don't know that a civil rights case pays treble damages. He would be out of his mind not to take the civil cases on contingency. And I don't think Mark O'Mara is out of his mind.

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION]

That is what he indicated with regard to the threatened civil suit.. that they were prepared to establish immunity. I would assume that he would represent him in a civil rights criminal action as well... however that possibility seems remote. IMHO Holder and the administration are using the possibility of a federal action as a means of defusing racial tensions and for political gain. In a few weeks they will announce that they tried "really hard" but there is not enough evidence to prosecute.

I think this is quite despicable and is tantamount to racial pandering.

[MENTION=43021]legaleagle_45[/MENTION]

Well, of course it is. But, hey, a guy's gotta live! I just find it very troubling that our government can set up a 'tip line' involving an individual citizen. Crime Stopper lines have been invaluable, but it this is kosher, then they can just pull a name out of the air and set up a tip line about that individual.