Ohio passes Stand Your Ground bill

[Ray From Cleveland]

A person has a right to protect themselves. It will be interesting though when someone like Andre Hill has a gun and uses it to protect himself and then uses this law as a defense.

What does that situation have to do with this law?

 

[pknopp]

A person has a right to protect themselves. It will be interesting though when someone like Andre Hill has a gun and uses it to protect himself and then uses this law as a defense.

What does that situation have to do with this law?

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He said he squirmed off the concrete into the grass, they were in the grass when Trayvon was murdered genius.

Witness: Back of Zimmerman's jacket was wet, had grass on it

Officer Timothy Smith said the back of George Zimmerman's jacket was wet and covered in grass, and the back of his pants were wet. The defense claims Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman during the fight.

www.wesh.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

 

[evenflow1969]

COLUMBUS, Ohio—Gov. Mike DeWine on Monday signed a controversial “stand your ground” bill that would eliminate Ohio’s “duty to retreat” before using force in self-defense. Senate Bill 175, fast-tracked through the Ohio General Assembly last month by DeWine’s fellow Republicans, will make Ohio the 36th state to no longer require people to retreat before they can justifiably hurt or kill someone in self-defense.

The governor had previously hinted that he would veto SB175, saying he first wanted lawmakers to pass his package of gun reforms that they sat on for more than a year. But in a release sent Monday afternoon, the governor stated that the measure removes an “ambiguity in Ohio’s self-defense law.”

Until now, under Ohio law, people have been justified in using deadly force in self-defense so long as they aren’t the aggressor, believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and are in their home or vehicle. The new law, which takes effect in 90 days, removes the “home or vehicle” requirement, and instead states that the defendant need only be in a place where they lawfully have the right to be.

But Democrats, along with some Senate Republicans, have sharply criticized the bill, saying (among other things) that it would result in more violence and death -- particularly against minorities.

“Only cowards would pass and sign a bill that has been proven to disproportionately harm Black people,” said House Minority Leader Emilia Sykes, an Akron Democrat, in a statement. “Only cowards would support a bill that allows people to shoot first and ask questions later. The blood of the lives lost from the signing and passage of this bill rest solely on those who supported it.”

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signs ‘stand your ground’ bill

Gov. Mike DeWine on Monday signed a controversial “stand your ground” bill that would eliminate Ohio’s “duty to retreat” before using force in self-defense.

www.cleveland.com

My state now joins the others with common sense to pass this law which empowers the victims and weakens the criminal element. This bill has been around for several years. Before it was voted on, the Trayvon Martin incident came up, and they felt it better to put it in the drawer. But it's back stronger than ever because this also disables the attacker or their family from suing the victim when deadly force is used. We have had that protection in our homes and cars since the Republicans passed the Castle Doctrine, but not it applies just about anywhere.

As expected, the Democrats are telling us of the doom and gloom that will follow, but of course, every advancement we made to empower the victim had the same claims, yet none came true.

Outside of Cleveland.com (The Cleveland Plain Dealer) it's not being reported by our local news agencies. Gee, I wonder why.

Great news for the people in Ohio.

I bet that this law may make some very, very, very bad people think twice before they harm or kill good people.

But, of course, those very, very, very bad people probably do not follow the news, so they won't know about the law until one of their buddies learns about it -- the hard way.

I doubt this law will have much bearing on the psychology of the bad people. Most of them are wicked out on drugs. Logic just doesn't sink into them. Get the drugs above all else is all their brains understand.

 

[pknopp]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

Of course you do.

Texas Man Found Not Guilty for Shooting Three Cops During NoKnock Raid

This law makes this same thing legal outside of your own home.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

Of course you do.

Texas Man Found Not Guilty for Shooting Three Cops During NoKnock Raid

This law makes this same thing legal outside of your own home.

No it does not. No law gives you the right to shoot at a police officer.

 

[pknopp]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

Of course you do.

Texas Man Found Not Guilty for Shooting Three Cops During NoKnock Raid

This law makes this same thing legal outside of your own home.

View attachment 438054

No it does not. No law gives you the right to shoot at a police officer.

This law does NOT exclude the police. Watch, there will be a case.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

Of course you do.

Texas Man Found Not Guilty for Shooting Three Cops During NoKnock Raid

This law makes this same thing legal outside of your own home.

View attachment 438054

No it does not. No law gives you the right to shoot at a police officer.

This law does NOT exclude the police. Watch, there will be a case.

Yes, it excludes police. Trust me, I'm a licensed carrier in this state. We were trained on the laws, when and where we can use firearms for self-defense, and the authority the police have over a licensed carrier. If somebody shoots a police officer, they will be arrested and face charges.

 

[pknopp]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

Of course you do.

Texas Man Found Not Guilty for Shooting Three Cops During NoKnock Raid

This law makes this same thing legal outside of your own home.

View attachment 438054

No it does not. No law gives you the right to shoot at a police officer.

This law does NOT exclude the police. Watch, there will be a case.

Yes, it excludes police. Trust me, I'm a licensed carrier in this state. We were trained on the laws, when and where we can use firearms for self-defense, and the authority the police have over a licensed carrier. If somebody shoots a police officer, they will be arrested and face charges.

I already posted an example where that did not happen. There are others.

 

[Turtlesoup]

None, because when someone black kills someone white they are arrested and headed to prison.

History tells a different story, OJ.

Was OJ arrested? A racist tried to plant evidence on OJ, that is the only reason he isn't in prison.

Thats a lie----no one planted evidence on OJ. OJ did the crime--and even the gloves were his. HIS racist PREJUDICE black jury allowed this violent criminal to get away with murdering two innocent people. His racist black inept attorney played on their racism and PREJUDICE and lack of morals and became a household name (it had nothing to do with if the gloves don't fit, you have to acquit nonsense.) I watched the trial -----and listen to the jurists comments after the trial. some of them a-holes are even admitting that they got OJ off because he was black and they did it in retaliation for a drunk black beligerent man who was being shown on the news at the time being knocked back down by cops when refusing to be arrested by cops--sorry famous case just don't remember his name right now. I watched the black male jurist give the black liberation fist pump to OJ and I watched the black jurists make up false nonsense about white jurists like the one nicknamed strawberry shortcake stepping on their toes in order to have them removed.

Stop playing the race card----------its dishonest.

 

[Rigby5]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

That is totally and completely wrong!
Police have no more immunity for any crime they commit than anyone.
Everyone is always authorized to shoot any police officer involved in a crime because they are armed while committing the crime, therefore are a deadly threat.
You can't just arrest them, so if they are committing a rape, robbery, or any crime at all, you pretty much HAVE to kill them in order to stop the crime.
And police have a long record of committing far more crimes than the average person.
They are heavily involved with drugs, prostitution, extortion, suicide, taking bribes, murder, theft, etc.
And there certainly are instances of cops being convicted of rape.

 

[Rigby5]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

Of course you do.

Texas Man Found Not Guilty for Shooting Three Cops During NoKnock Raid

This law makes this same thing legal outside of your own home.

View attachment 438054

No it does not. No law gives you the right to shoot at a police officer.

You always have a righ to stop any crime against you, and if the person is armed, as police are, then you have the right to use deadly force in order to stop the crime being committed against you.
Police are well known for not only committing crimes, but being armed during the commission of those crimes.
So obviously they can legally be shot at.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

Of course you do.

Texas Man Found Not Guilty for Shooting Three Cops During NoKnock Raid

This law makes this same thing legal outside of your own home.

View attachment 438054

No it does not. No law gives you the right to shoot at a police officer.

You always have a righ to stop any crime against you, and if the person is armed, as police are, then you have the right to use deadly force in order to stop the crime being committed against you.
Police are well known for not only committing crimes, but being armed during the commission of those crimes.
So obviously they can legally be shot at.

Great. Kill a police officer and see what happens to you.

 

[Turtlesoup]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

That is totally and completely wrong!
Police have no more immunity for any crime they commit than anyone.
Everyone is always authorized to shoot any police officer involved in a crime because they are armed while committing the crime, therefore are a deadly threat.
You can't just arrest them, so if they are committing a rape, robbery, or any crime at all, you pretty much HAVE to kill them in order to stop the crime.
And police have a long record of committing far more crimes than the average person.
They are heavily involved with drugs, prostitution, extortion, suicide, taking bribes, murder, theft, etc.
And there certainly are instances of cops being convicted of rape.

You are delusional. There are a few bad apples------never heard of instance of someone shooting a cop in self defense and you know the media loves to go after cops. Cops deal with criminals who commit far far more crime than anyone else---but yet you pretend that the average cop is the bad guy?

We need cops--without them there is a break down of law and order and the real criminals attack other people making the US look like chitholes found in africa and south america and other places.

 

[pknopp]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

That is totally and completely wrong!
Police have no more immunity for any crime they commit than anyone.
Everyone is always authorized to shoot any police officer involved in a crime because they are armed while committing the crime, therefore are a deadly threat.
You can't just arrest them, so if they are committing a rape, robbery, or any crime at all, you pretty much HAVE to kill them in order to stop the crime.
And police have a long record of committing far more crimes than the average person.
They are heavily involved with drugs, prostitution, extortion, suicide, taking bribes, murder, theft, etc.
And there certainly are instances of cops being convicted of rape.

You are delusional. There are a few bad apples------never heard of instance of someone shooting a cop in self defense and you know the media loves to go after cops. Cops deal with criminals who commit far far more crime than anyone else---but yet you pretend that the average cop is the bad guy?

We need cops--without them there is a break down of law and order and the real criminals attack other people making the US look like chitholes found in africa and south america and other places.

Texas Man Found Not Guilty for Shooting Three Cops During NoKnock Raid

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

That is totally and completely wrong!
Police have no more immunity for any crime they commit than anyone.
Everyone is always authorized to shoot any police officer involved in a crime because they are armed while committing the crime, therefore are a deadly threat.
You can't just arrest them, so if they are committing a rape, robbery, or any crime at all, you pretty much HAVE to kill them in order to stop the crime.
And police have a long record of committing far more crimes than the average person.
They are heavily involved with drugs, prostitution, extortion, suicide, taking bribes, murder, theft, etc.
And there certainly are instances of cops being convicted of rape.

Police do not have a long record of committing crimes. Where do you get your BS from? A CCW holder must always surrender to the orders of a police officer. That's our law. When you get pulled over by an officer, the first thing out of your mouth is to inform the officer that you are armed. That's our law. You must follow all instructions of a police officer to disarm you. That's our law.

 

[Rigby5]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

Of course you do.

Texas Man Found Not Guilty for Shooting Three Cops During NoKnock Raid

This law makes this same thing legal outside of your own home.

View attachment 438054

No it does not. No law gives you the right to shoot at a police officer.

This law does NOT exclude the police. Watch, there will be a case.

Police could never be excluded legally.
Police can not legally be given immunity under the law for illegal acts, especially since they are armed and supposed to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
One of the major aspects of law is blind justice, where police can not be treated any different than anyone else.
If there is a law that say group A can't do something but group B can, that is an invalid law, inherently.
The only except is when there additional restriction on juveniles.
Even laws like convicted felons not be able to vote of be armed are not really legal.
Uniformity of treatment under the law is pretty much essential to a democratic republic.
Give police any additional considerations, and you have a dictatorship.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

No he didn't that is a lie.

And you base that on what? I base it on the recording of the phone call he had with dispatch. The dispatcher asked if he was chasing Martin because you can clearly hear Zimmerman breathing heavy, the phone scraping his chin. Zimmerman responded that he was following Martin. The dispatcher told him that was unnecessary. Within seconds, the phone stopped scraping, his breathing began to slow down, he eventually returned to his normal quiet tone of voice. There was no possible way Zimmerman could have been running and continued the phone call with the police.

The dispatcher told him they didn't need him to do that and if he would have stopped following him he would have been back at his truck not going down the sidewalk.

 

[Rigby5]

If Andre Hill had a gun he would have had the right to shoot the officer.

No, you never have the right to shoot at a police officer. Never.

That is totally and completely wrong!
Police have no more immunity for any crime they commit than anyone.
Everyone is always authorized to shoot any police officer involved in a crime because they are armed while committing the crime, therefore are a deadly threat.
You can't just arrest them, so if they are committing a rape, robbery, or any crime at all, you pretty much HAVE to kill them in order to stop the crime.
And police have a long record of committing far more crimes than the average person.
They are heavily involved with drugs, prostitution, extortion, suicide, taking bribes, murder, theft, etc.
And there certainly are instances of cops being convicted of rape.

Police do not have a long record of committing crimes. Where do you get your BS from? A CCW holder must always surrender to the orders of a police officer. That's our law. When you get pulled over by an officer, the first thing out of your mouth is to inform the officer that you are armed. That's our law. You must follow all instructions of a police officer to disarm you. That's our law.

CCW has nothing to do with this.
If you see the police committing a crime, such as beating an unarmed person, you have the authority to arrest the police.
If they resist, since they are armed, you pretty much have no alternative to shooting them.

And police illegally beating someone is extremely common.
You do remember Rodney King, right?
I have seen it hundreds of times.
We all have.

If you haven't seen it yourself, then here it is.
Now you can't say you have never seen police illegal beating someone.
And no matter the reason, it is still a felony, committed while armed, so then justifies shooting the cop, if you are there.