St. Louis couple defends their house from protestors, with guns. Do you support "stand your ground laws"?

Do you support "stand your ground laws"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 91.5%
  • No

    Votes: 5 8.5%

  • Total voters
    59

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,002
Reaction score
1,290
Points
255
the BLACK prosecutor is a black RACIST --big time
..she's thinking about prosecuting the whites who did nothing wrong and not the BLACKS who went on private property/etc
...she also refuses to prosecute a lot of the cases the cops bring in
SHE needs to resign and/or be hung for fking up the US

..she is more proof blacks hate whites/cops/America
I find it hard to believe they hate America Alf as much as you do.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
81,586
Reaction score
19,145
Points
2,180
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
You're free to show us all where any of those protesters were anything other than peacefully walking through the neighborhood.

The broken down gate off its hinges is the first clue, you dumb ass.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
81,586
Reaction score
19,145
Points
2,180
I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."
The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

The goal isn't to go to trial but to make the next people who are facing the mob have to hesitate before they use a gun to save themselves........even if it didn't go to trial, the cost for hiring a lawyer will be huge.......and if this asshole, george soros, AG wants, she can drag the case out and cost them a fortune......

The goal is intimidation against good people who own guns.... make normal gun owners afraid of the legal consequences of using a gun, make it massively expensive for the actual legal use of a gun, and you reduce the number of people who want to even try to use a gun in the first place...

Remember, the democrats don't care about people who are raped, robbed or murdered by criminals...since those committing the rape, robbery and murder were likely released from prison by democrat party judges and prosecutors over and over again....the goal is to take guns away from normal people....
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
81,586
Reaction score
19,145
Points
2,180
I'm unsure how to answer because I wonder how the stand-your-ground law would deal with the situation if in response to the homeowners pointing their guns at the trespassers, some of them would have pulled their own guns and killed one or both homeowners?

Until evidence is produced to show otherwise, the basis of my opinion are the photos and videos of the situation. From what I see the trespassers are the ones being physically threatened. I would have been totally on Fred and Ethel Rambo's side if they came out and stood holding their weapons at their side pointed towards the ground acting like responsible gun owners.

They didn't fire their weapons....they were responsible. There side is the only side in this attack.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
81,586
Reaction score
19,145
Points
2,180
It would probably deal with it like this:
I had read that and to seem pertinent the trespassers would have had to make a threatening move towards the Rambo's home. At least that how I would interpret the law.

What I question is, if the stand-your-ground law could have been used by the trespassers themselves under an assumption there was evidence the trespasser who fired the shot and his group initially made no physical threats to the property owners nor their home? How does the law decide who should feel threatened? I wonder if it would have come down to, in this case, weighing a broken gate and trespassing versus having a gun pointed and/or waved at you?

There would be no claim by the mob.....they broke into the community and were breaking the law at the time......
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
81,586
Reaction score
19,145
Points
2,180
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?
1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link
3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

Stand Your Ground wasn't a factor in that case. Martin was the attacker in any case.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
81,586
Reaction score
19,145
Points
2,180
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?
1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link
3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.

Wrong....Martin committed the crime of physical assault against Zimmerman. Martin lost Zimmerman in the complex and Zimmerman was going back to his car to meet the police when Martin attacked him.....he wasn't an innocent bystander....

And Zimmerman committed no crime, and had every right to follow Martin.......

Martin did not "Stand His Ground," he was the violent attacker............did you watch the case......?
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
81,586
Reaction score
19,145
Points
2,180
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?
1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link
3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.
1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the fucking race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.
What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours
1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.
The stolen merchandise is completely irrelevant to the shooting incident. When Zimmerman stalked Martin he had committed no crime. He had no stolen property on him. He was just walking to someone's house where he was a guest.

And Zimmerman never identified himself and neighborhood watch or not he had no authority to do anything. And he disobeyed the cop who told him not to get out of his car and chase Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigated the entire circumstance.

And you assume I live in a city?

Wrong again Bubba.
I grew up on the shitty side of a city but now I live on 12 acres of beautiful farmland surrounded on 3 sides by state conservation land so I have a couple hundred acres of land right in my back yard.

Run along with your assumptions now Bubba.

Wow.... you didn't actually follow the case...

No, no cop told Martin anything...the 911 operator informed Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow the guy.....the 911 operator couldn't "order" Zimmerman to do anything.

Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost Martin inside the complex and that he was going back to meet the cops at his car......as he was going back to his car, Martin circled around and attacked him.

Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman.

There was no stolen anything involved in the encounter......Martin was living with his father because his mother couldn't control him, and his locker in school had stolen items and a screw driver, implying he had broken into lockers at the school...one of the reasons the mother sent him to live with his father.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
81,586
Reaction score
19,145
Points
2,180
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?
1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link
3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.
You don't really know much about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case...do you? First of all, Zimmerman didn't "stalk" anyone! He's on the phone with the Police reporting to them about a stranger he doesn't know walking around in the gated community where he was part of the neighborhood watch. As he's talking to the Police, Trayvon does a circle around the SUV that Zimmerman is sitting in. When the Police ask Zimmerman what direction Martin has gone in Zimmerman took that as a request to get out of his vehicle to try and spot Martin. He's still on the phone while this is happening. Zimmerman can't find Martin though because Trayvon is all the way over where his dad's girlfriend's condo is...hundreds of yards away! We know this because Martin was having a conversation with his friend and she says that he told her he was at the condo! By this time Zimmerman has been told by the Police dispatcher not to try and follow the suspicious person but instead to meet the Police back by the front gate...instructions that he follows! As Zimmerman is walking back to his SUV he's attacked by Martin...who has left the condo he was staying at and walked all the way back to find Zimmerman! THE ONLY WAY THAT MARTIN AND ZIMMERMAN HAVE AN ALTERCATION THAT NIGHT IS IF TRAYVON MARTIN GOES BACK TO INITIATE IT!

Get your facts straight!

There is an allegation that the girl who testified as Martin's "friend," wasn't actually the girl on the phone with Martin, but a friend of that girl. The actual person on the phone with Martin allegedly didn't want to testify, so the prosecutors substituted the other girl to give the testimony.....
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
65,431
Reaction score
9,168
Points
2,030
I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."
The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

The goal isn't to go to trial but to make the next people who are facing the mob have to hesitate before they use a gun to save themselves........even if it didn't go to trial, the cost for hiring a lawyer will be huge.......and if this asshole, george soros, AG wants, she can drag the case out and cost them a fortune......

The goal is intimidation against good people who own guns.... make normal gun owners afraid of the legal consequences of using a gun, make it massively expensive for the actual legal use of a gun, and you reduce the number of people who want to even try to use a gun in the first place. They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that are not representative of their neighborhood, a..

Remember, the democrats don't care about people who are raped, robbed or murdered by criminals...since those committing the rape, robbery and murder were likely released from prison by democrat party judges and prosecutors over and over again....the goal is to take guns away from normal people....
You do know that dozen's of Biff and Muffy's neighbors signed a letter to them condemning their behavior, don't you? They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that weren't representative of their neighborhood and that is not behavior they would expect fron their neighbors
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
81,586
Reaction score
19,145
Points
2,180
I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."
The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

The goal isn't to go to trial but to make the next people who are facing the mob have to hesitate before they use a gun to save themselves........even if it didn't go to trial, the cost for hiring a lawyer will be huge.......and if this asshole, george soros, AG wants, she can drag the case out and cost them a fortune......

The goal is intimidation against good people who own guns.... make normal gun owners afraid of the legal consequences of using a gun, make it massively expensive for the actual legal use of a gun, and you reduce the number of people who want to even try to use a gun in the first place. They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that are not representative of their neighborhood, a..

Remember, the democrats don't care about people who are raped, robbed or murdered by criminals...since those committing the rape, robbery and murder were likely released from prison by democrat party judges and prosecutors over and over again....the goal is to take guns away from normal people....
You do know that dozen's of Biff and Muffy's neighbors signed a letter to them condemning their behavior, don't you? They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that weren't representative of their neighborhood and that is not behavior they would expect fron their neighbors

They saved their neighbors you moron..........and the ungrateful F***s did that? Next time if I were them I would say, get off my property, but feel free to burn, loot and kill the other asshats in this community....
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
65,431
Reaction score
9,168
Points
2,030
I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."
The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

The goal isn't to go to trial but to make the next people who are facing the mob have to hesitate before they use a gun to save themselves........even if it didn't go to trial, the cost for hiring a lawyer will be huge.......and if this asshole, george soros, AG wants, she can drag the case out and cost them a fortune......

The goal is intimidation against good people who own guns.... make normal gun owners afraid of the legal consequences of using a gun, make it massively expensive for the actual legal use of a gun, and you reduce the number of people who want to even try to use a gun in the first place. They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that are not representative of their neighborhood, a..

Remember, the democrats don't care about people who are raped, robbed or murdered by criminals...since those committing the rape, robbery and murder were likely released from prison by democrat party judges and prosecutors over and over again....the goal is to take guns away from normal people....
You do know that dozen's of Biff and Muffy's neighbors signed a letter to them condemning their behavior, don't you? They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that weren't representative of their neighborhood and that is not behavior they would expect fron their neighbors

They saved their neighbors you moron..........and the ungrateful F***s did that? Next time if I were them I would say, get off my property, but feel free to burn, loot and kill the other asshats in this community....
Nobody was on their property dumb ass.
 

The Breeze

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
1,460
Reaction score
359
Points
160
I feel so sorry for that couple.

They were terrified when they saw those protesters on their private road.

I have just read that the district attorney (or whatever title it is in St. Louis) is thinking of charging the couple with a criminal offense.

I hear that violent crime in certain parts of that city is out of sight. But the district attorney has time to charge a couple who were simply defending their home.

Of course, if they are brought to trial, they will be found guilty and thrown into jail. Many of the potential jurors in St. Louis are supporters of that "movement" (the three initials of which I refuse to say/write).

These are truly terrible times in our country. The good are considered bad, and the bad are considered "victims."
The point of this thread is to show that you do have the right to defend your life and property, especially in "stand your ground" states. If the St. Louis AG charges the couple with a "crime" the state or other courts would not let it go to trial. I'd even hope that the AG would be arrested for abuse of power.

The goal isn't to go to trial but to make the next people who are facing the mob have to hesitate before they use a gun to save themselves........even if it didn't go to trial, the cost for hiring a lawyer will be huge.......and if this asshole, george soros, AG wants, she can drag the case out and cost them a fortune......

The goal is intimidation against good people who own guns.... make normal gun owners afraid of the legal consequences of using a gun, make it massively expensive for the actual legal use of a gun, and you reduce the number of people who want to even try to use a gun in the first place. They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that are not representative of their neighborhood, a..

Remember, the democrats don't care about people who are raped, robbed or murdered by criminals...since those committing the rape, robbery and murder were likely released from prison by democrat party judges and prosecutors over and over again....the goal is to take guns away from normal people....
You do know that dozen's of Biff and Muffy's neighbors signed a letter to them condemning their behavior, don't you? They made it clear that gun nut stunts like that weren't representative of their neighborhood and that is not behavior they would expect fron their neighbors

They saved their neighbors you moron..........and the ungrateful F***s did that? Next time if I were them I would say, get off my property, but feel free to burn, loot and kill the other asshats in this community....
Nobody was on their property dumb ass.

And why do you think that is sparky? Could it be that the homeowners were armed?
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,921
Reaction score
1,567
Points
195
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?
1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link
3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

Stand Your Ground wasn't a factor in that case. Martin was the attacker in any case.
MArtin was standing his ground. If he was old enough to have a Carry permit he could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense via SYG.

Zimmerman was the aggressor

If a person was following you in a car for blocks then got out to chase you would you think your safety was in jeopardy?

I sure as hell would.

Zimmerman ignored a lawful order by the police

You can't instigate a situation then claim self defense.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,921
Reaction score
1,567
Points
195
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?
1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link
3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.
1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the fucking race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.
What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours
1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.
The stolen merchandise is completely irrelevant to the shooting incident. When Zimmerman stalked Martin he had committed no crime. He had no stolen property on him. He was just walking to someone's house where he was a guest.

And Zimmerman never identified himself and neighborhood watch or not he had no authority to do anything. And he disobeyed the cop who told him not to get out of his car and chase Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigated the entire circumstance.

And you assume I live in a city?

Wrong again Bubba.
I grew up on the shitty side of a city but now I live on 12 acres of beautiful farmland surrounded on 3 sides by state conservation land so I have a couple hundred acres of land right in my back yard.

Run along with your assumptions now Bubba.

Wow.... you didn't actually follow the case...

No, no cop told Martin anything...the 911 operator informed Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow the guy.....the 911 operator couldn't "order" Zimmerman to do anything.

Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost Martin inside the complex and that he was going back to meet the cops at his car......as he was going back to his car, Martin circled around and attacked him.

Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman.

There was no stolen anything involved in the encounter......Martin was living with his father because his mother couldn't control him, and his locker in school had stolen items and a screw driver, implying he had broken into lockers at the school...one of the reasons the mother sent him to live with his father.
What was inhis locker is 100% irrelevant to the situation Zimmerman instigated.
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,464
Reaction score
5,897
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?
1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link
3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.
1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the fucking race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.
What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours
1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.
The stolen merchandise is completely irrelevant to the shooting incident. When Zimmerman stalked Martin he had committed no crime. He had no stolen property on him. He was just walking to someone's house where he was a guest.

And Zimmerman never identified himself and neighborhood watch or not he had no authority to do anything. And he disobeyed the cop who told him not to get out of his car and chase Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigated the entire circumstance.

And you assume I live in a city?

Wrong again Bubba.
I grew up on the shitty side of a city but now I live on 12 acres of beautiful farmland surrounded on 3 sides by state conservation land so I have a couple hundred acres of land right in my back yard.

Run along with your assumptions now Bubba.

Wow.... you didn't actually follow the case...

No, no cop told Martin anything...the 911 operator informed Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow the guy.....the 911 operator couldn't "order" Zimmerman to do anything.

Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost Martin inside the complex and that he was going back to meet the cops at his car......as he was going back to his car, Martin circled around and attacked him.

Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman.

There was no stolen anything involved in the encounter......Martin was living with his father because his mother couldn't control him, and his locker in school had stolen items and a screw driver, implying he had broken into lockers at the school...one of the reasons the mother sent him to live with his father.
What was in his locker is 100% irrelevant to the situation Zimmerman instigated.
1. The loot in his locker was what he stole from Zimmerman's neighbors, very relevant
2. That the neighborhood burglaries stopped when Treyvon died proves he was the burglar
3. Treyvon didn't like the little fat dude stopping his criminal enterprise and that's why he attacked him.
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
1,953
Reaction score
1,887
Points
1,903
Location
Sunny Florida
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?
1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link
3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?

Stand Your Ground wasn't a factor in that case. Martin was the attacker in any case.
MArtin was standing his ground. If he was old enough to have a Carry permit he could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense via SYG.

Zimmerman was the aggressor

If a person was following you in a car for blocks then got out to chase you would you think your safety was in jeopardy?

I sure as hell would.

Zimmerman ignored a lawful order by the police

You can't instigate a situation then claim self defense.
Oh, bullshit! Martin circled Zimmerman as he was sitting in his SUV talking to the Police on the phone! He's not feeling "in jeopardy"...Martin is trying to intimidate!

You keep claiming that Zimmerman ignored a "lawful order" by the Police which is more fiction on your part! George Zimmerman did EXACTLY what he thought the Police were telling him to do! He only gets out of his SUV to try and locate Martin when the Police dispatcher asks him if he can see what direction Martin went! When the dispatcher realizes that he's attempting to follow Martin she tells him not to do so but to return and meet the Police at the front gate of the complex and Zimmerman begins walking back to do so. He's totally lost Martin at that point because Martin went to the right when he goes around the corner out of sight from Zimmerman and George thinks he's gone straight towards the back gate of the complex! At that moment the two men are hundreds of yards apart and Martin is talking to his friend on the phone telling her that he is outside of his Dad's girlfriend's condo! If he goes into the condo then there is no altercation! The ONLY way one can take place is if Martin goes all the way back to intersect Zimmerman as he's walking back to his SUV! Martin is the one who instigated the situation at that point...not Zimmerman!
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
1,953
Reaction score
1,887
Points
1,903
Location
Sunny Florida
Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308

Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.

Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
That's a tough question for me.

I do not think it applies to this situation as no one was shot.

But IMO if anyone fires in self defense then that person must prove not only that he thought his safety was in danger but also why.

And the bias in the SYG laws that assume the person with the gun was not the aggressor is a tough hill to climb.

Let's say some guy was tailing you in a car for blocks, then got out of that car and started chasing you.

Let's also say that you are unarmed. Does the fact that a strange person was following you, stalking even rise to the SYG standards of feeling threatened?

If you are unarmed and you attack the person who has been stalking you because you perceived that as a threat to your safety, do you have the right to attack first even if you are unarmed? Should the primary aggressor ( the stalker) who shot the unarmed person who was standing his ground be the presumed victim?
1. Its an easy question, "self-defense" is legal
2. Read the Laws on "stand your ground" and the "castle doctrine" again, here is a link
3. If you "perceive" a threat on your property you can kill it. Your lawyer will prove what needs proving.
4. The laws are not "biased" except in some democrat areas, living in democrat area is your stupid fault.
5. If the stalker is chasing you, you have the right to defend yourself. Read the first sentence of the above link again.
6. If the stalker shoots the unarmed victim who was "standing his ground" trying to defend himself from an armed attacker, that's called murder. I'm sure that videos will be found documenting the aggressive murder. A better question is, why was the victim unarmed? Obviously a fatal error in judgment.
I know the SD laws. I have a CCW permit so I did my due diligence

So then in line with your reasoning here, Trayvon Martin had the right to attack George Zimmerman after all Zimmerman was stalking him and I think any reasonable person would think a stalker presented a threat to his safety..

So how come the SYG law wasn't applied to Martin instead of Zimmerman even though Zimmerman was the person stalking him?

And whether or not the victim in unarmed is irrelevant. Maybe he was too young to get a carry permit should that matter?
1. Trayvon was the burglar that Zimmerman was trying to protect the neighborhood from. They found loot and tools in his HS locker.
2. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not stalking Trayvon "obsessively" and repeatedly with a personal issue per the definition of "stalker". Whose neighborhood was it? Who lived there? Whose "castle" was it? Are neighbor hood watch volunteers all "stalkers"? Trayvon attacked Zimmernam who defended himself. Why did Trayvon attack Zimmerman? It was not self-defense, nor defending his castle, nor was he standing his ground.
3. You can't define a neighborhood watch volunteer as a "stalker". They are by definition defending their neighborhood.
4. The SYG law doesn't apply to frustrated burglars. It applies to defenders of castles.
5. The Law is the Law. I have a carry permit. Felons can't get them, kids can't get them, etc. Trayvon was the criminal attacker, Zimmerman the law abiding defender.
Martin did not steal anything. He had no stolen property on his person.

He just committed the "crime" of being Black.

And Zimmerman followed Martin for blocks then got out of his car and stared chasing him AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE POLICE saying "These assholes always get away with it"

Well Martin was not "getting away" with anything since he was legally walking down the street to his father's fiancee's house where he was a guest.

And it is my opinion that Martin had every right to fear for his safety because some strange guy was following him in his car for blocks and then got out of his car and started chasing him.

If you were walking on the street and some guy was tailing you in his car then got out and ran after you would you feel threatened?

I would.

Martin was too young to get a carry permit or buy a gun since he was only 17. And the only way he could stand his ground was to physically attack the strange guy who was stalking him. And FYI stalking does not need to be obsessive. It is a verb.

So in this case it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor and Martin was standing his ground but because he wasn't armed you people think Zimmerman was the victim when he instigated the entire thing by IGNORING A LAWFUL ORDER FROM THE POLICE.
1. LIAR. Trayvon had stolen loot in his HS locker. He was the burglar. Funny hos the burgl;aries stopped after he died?? WTF?? How did that happen?
2. Play the fucking race card when you criminals get caught. AHs need to stay in your slums.
What was in his locker is irrelevant. He was not committing any crimes the night Zimmerman disobeyed a police order are chased him. He was simply walking to the home of his father's fiancee.

And FYI I'm not a criminal, never have been.

And I'll bet my net worth is higher than yours
1. The stolen loot is "relevant", proper search warrant or not.
2. The crime he committed was to attack a neighborhood watchman.
3. Not calling you a criminal, just pissed about the riots and high city crime rates.
4. Your net worth could be higher, but I'm very happy with my life not near cities.
The stolen merchandise is completely irrelevant to the shooting incident. When Zimmerman stalked Martin he had committed no crime. He had no stolen property on him. He was just walking to someone's house where he was a guest.

And Zimmerman never identified himself and neighborhood watch or not he had no authority to do anything. And he disobeyed the cop who told him not to get out of his car and chase Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor and instigated the entire circumstance.

And you assume I live in a city?

Wrong again Bubba.
I grew up on the shitty side of a city but now I live on 12 acres of beautiful farmland surrounded on 3 sides by state conservation land so I have a couple hundred acres of land right in my back yard.

Run along with your assumptions now Bubba.

Wow.... you didn't actually follow the case...

No, no cop told Martin anything...the 911 operator informed Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow the guy.....the 911 operator couldn't "order" Zimmerman to do anything.

Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost Martin inside the complex and that he was going back to meet the cops at his car......as he was going back to his car, Martin circled around and attacked him.

Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman.

There was no stolen anything involved in the encounter......Martin was living with his father because his mother couldn't control him, and his locker in school had stolen items and a screw driver, implying he had broken into lockers at the school...one of the reasons the mother sent him to live with his father.
What was inhis locker is 100% irrelevant to the situation Zimmerman instigated.
The fact that Trayvon Martin had a history of breaking into people's homes and stealing things...which was part of the reason he had been suspended from his High School obviously makes George Zimmerman's suspicions of him more credible. Martin wasn't an "innocent" no matter how the Main Stream Media and his family tried to portray him!
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
5,771
Points
290
The trouble is, how you react to mobs, can blow up in your face, depending upon which state you are in. In the stand-your-ground law states, a mere threatening presence on your lawn is grounds to use lethal force. In states without that law, you have to wait until they bust through the door and enter in a threatening manner. Although, an exception can be made in instances where an arsonist is outside, trying to burn down your home. In Minnesota, a relative of mine heard a noise in the middle of the night, coming from downstairs, he grabbed his gun and saw two dark figures moving around and fired. He served eight years for killing two teenagers that while they had broken into his home, were not threatening him and were unarmed. The jury's decision sucked. But, that's the retarded leftist state of Minnesota for you.
I left Minneapolis in 1981 and never regretted it. Democrats have turned a once great American city into a third world shithole. The sad thing is they don't learn.
and they keep voting them back into office.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top