[REMOVE ADS]




Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295

    Exclamation Here's another "Stand Your Ground" case:

    We all know about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case in Florida by now, right? Well, many states also have similar "stand your ground" laws, including my state, Arizona. Here is another case that's just now getting national attention. The story is in USA Today and other news now, but here is the link in azfamily.com. http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/S...154812445.html

    In this case, a Black man shot a Mexican man at a Taco Bell. The shooter walked because of the stand your ground law. So, from the facts given in the article, was this a justifiable shoot? If the shooter had been a police officer, would you have judged this as a justifiable shoot? What's the difference? Discuss.

    Oh, BTW, notice that all of the states that have these laws are republican-controlled states.
    Last edited by soulster; 06-02-2012 at 12:11 AM. Reason: fixed thread title

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,618
    Rep Power
    642
    I understand the NRA has our government in its talons and pushes agendas such as this. I don't understand how something can be so subjectively worded that if someone feels threatened, then they have the right to use deadly force. How can you prove that they didn't feel threatened? It puts an incredible burden on the prosecution to show that the defendant was not reasonably afraid for his/her life when the trigger was pulled. In the case that you allude to, it may be trouble for the "victim" from the standpoint that he admitted that he wasn't fearful for his life, just of being hurt.

    Too many shades of gray in this issue. I'm amazed at how often people are convicted on circumstantial evidence, only to be exonerated many years later, and a law has been created that throws hard evidence out. We are indeed witnessing the Fall of the American Empire.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    15,830
    Rep Power
    326
    The problem that I have with this shooting is the same problem that I have with the Trayvon Martin shooting & it underscores a fundamental weakness with this seemingly misapplied law.

    In both cases the shooter was in a vehicle, in both cases the victim was unarmed. I thought that one of the fundamental laws was a matter of force appropriate to the threat posed.

    Now let's say that the victim actually had a weapon such as a pipe. If the shooter was that afraid of this person, he also had a weapon other than a gun, namely roughly 2 tons of steel which certainly trumped the pipe or bat that he believed the victim to have been holding.

    My question is had he NOT had a gun & was worried about his pregnant girlfriend, would he have gotten out of his car to confront the guy, or taking his girlfriend & their unborn fetus into consideration, would he simply have driven away, perhaps tp find a law enforcement agent?

    This situation spells out once again why this law is a stupid law, which can be easily misapplied & lead to different circumstances if it didn't exist.

    Had this law not been in effect, then an unarmed teenager named Trayvon Martin would not have been murdered solely on the basis of thoughts that existed in Zimmerman's mind. And had he not been able to fire that gun while protected by a law which makes the shooter the sole arbiter of impending doom, he might've simply sat his dumb ass in his car, thereby preventing the circumstances as they played out.

    Similarly, had this gentleman who was INSIDE of his car simply decided to drive off instead of shooting, a life wouldn't have been lost due to what sounds like nothing more than road rage & a temper gone out of control. As noted, they found no bat, no pipe...NOTHING which should've caused this victim to have been shot. Again, what would he have done had this law not been in existence & what would've been the responsible action to take had he not had a gun to fall back on?

    This is what happens when you allow untrained people who can let their emotions get the best of them & the ability to shoot under what can be best described as specious conditions. Seriously, skittles & ice tea & now an invisible pipe, with not a mark on the car that would indicate any impending doom or immediate threat?

    This is a law which deserves a speedy rewrite because it leaves too much to the imagination of folks who see threats where none truly exist. What this law really is is nothing less than a license to kill & to kill legally under the guise of self-defense.

    Sorry but just as with Zimmerman, if you're sitting in your car & can remove yourself from harms way, it's pretty damn hard to say that you're standing your ground. That is unless you're trying to prove how manly you are by staying & shooting an unarmed person, rather than simply removing your girlfriend, your unborn child, as well as yourself from what you allegedly believe to be a dangerous situation.

    Sorry, but it don't matter if you're black or white. In this situation as described, this guy's as wrong as 2 left shoes & should pay for making a decision that seems to be nothing less than a gross over-reaction.

    But I'm sure that the NRA has no problem with it, that is until this law finds more people who look like them ending up on the wrong side of the barrel.

    In which case it will be called an ''epidemic''.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    The people who write, legislate, pass, and sign these laws don't think it through. To them, it's all about political posturing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,618
    Rep Power
    642
    Every law is subject to unintended consequences. Unfortunately, these laws are written so that Joe Citizen can become his inner badass if he wants to. I believe they specifically rule out any responsibility to retreat or to de-escalate the situation. In other words, "you don't have to take that crap from that guy. So shoot him." I thought that self-defense conveyed the idea that you defend yourself when there are no options left. I guess it doesn't.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    43,221
    Rep Power
    600
    I am starting to believe that this "Stand your ground" law, that some people think it is a license to kill.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,618
    Rep Power
    642
    That's how it's being interpreted because it's too broadly written. I'm convinced that the singular purpose of it is to have everyone armed for fear that the next guy already is. Of course, step two of the drama will result in folks by-passing the arguments and getting right to the gun fights because they have to be reasonably afraid that the people they're beefing with have guns just like they do. So, instead of screaming "why the hell did you cut me off?", you can shoot under the pretense that the poor driving etiquette was an aggressive act and you were afraid you were to be shot if you didn't shoot first.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    43,221
    Rep Power
    600
    I understand you Jerry. Did you know that there is a new law in Ohio which permits people to carry guns into bars? How insane is that? Guns and alcohol in the same place? Only in America........certainly not in Canada!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,618
    Rep Power
    642
    I know. I live in Columbus! LOL. The bar owners and police pleaded with lawmakers not to pass that bill, but they did it anyway. Now, whenever a bar owner places a "no guns allowed" sign on his door, the gun nuts use social media to boycott the bar.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    43,221
    Rep Power
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    I know. I live in Columbus! LOL. The bar owners and police pleaded with lawmakers not to pass that bill, but they did it anyway. Now, whenever a bar owner places a "no guns allowed" sign on his door, the gun nuts use social media to boycott the bar.
    Oh my bad! I didn't know. My mother lives in Toledo and when told me about this crazy new law over there. What was their rationale for wanting such a law? To turn Ohio into the OK Corral?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,618
    Rep Power
    642
    The Republicans took the state house and they're ramrodding as many "conservative" agenda items through as they possibly can. It's like they've been waiting for years and finally get a chance to do things the way they want to. I'm sure the NRA is behind the gun business. As I said, the cops made sure to go on record against it. They're now trying to pass anti-abortion laws that they know will be struck down by the Supreme Court and also pushing through fracking legislation to pay back favors to their friends in the energy industry. They had the same legislation passed that Wisconsin is upset about [[eliminating collective bargaining rights for public employees), but the voters rejected it last November. They are out of their minds in Ohio. The Democrats may as well not show up for session because it's too divided and they can't get a word in edgewise.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    43,221
    Rep Power
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    The Republicans took the state house and they're ramrodding as many "conservative" agenda items through as they possibly can. It's like they've been waiting for years and finally get a chance to do things the way they want to. I'm sure the NRA is behind the gun business. As I said, the cops made sure to go on record against it. They're now trying to pass anti-abortion laws that they know will be struck down by the Supreme Court and also pushing through fracking legislation to pay back favors to their friends in the energy industry. They had the same legislation passed that Wisconsin is upset about [[eliminating collective bargaining rights for public employees), but the voters rejected it last November. They are out of their minds in Ohio. The Democrats may as well not show up for session because it's too divided and they can't get a word in edgewise.
    They should recall that Govenor over there.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    That's how it's being interpreted because it's too broadly written. I'm convinced that the singular purpose of it is to have everyone armed for fear that the next guy already is. Of course, step two of the drama will result in folks by-passing the arguments and getting right to the gun fights because they have to be reasonably afraid that the people they're beefing with have guns just like they do. So, instead of screaming "why the hell did you cut me off?", you can shoot under the pretense that the poor driving etiquette was an aggressive act and you were afraid you were to be shot if you didn't shoot first.
    Well, the NRA advocates, and even helps write these bills. They are a bunch of paranoids who run scared of the government taking their guns, namely "liberals". They are wrong, of course, but you will never convince them otherwise. I've talked with a LOT of these gun nuts, and they give me the creeps.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,618
    Rep Power
    642
    I asked one why he thought the president wanted to take away everybody's guns when he hasn't brought forth any gun control legislation in nearly four years. He said that President Obama took surplus government ammunition off of the market and that raised the price of ammo due to supply decreasing below rising demand. When I asked why our overspent government should be spending more money to buy extra ammunition, only to sell it at a discount, he didn't offer a response. So, the government shouldn't be subsidizing the poor but it should be subsidizing gun advocates. Incredible.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    I asked one why he thought the president wanted to take away everybody's guns when he hasn't brought forth any gun control legislation in nearly four years. He said that President Obama took surplus government ammunition off of the market and that raised the price of ammo due to supply decreasing below rising demand. When I asked why our overspent government should be spending more money to buy extra ammunition, only to sell it at a discount, he didn't offer a response. So, the government shouldn't be subsidizing the poor but it should be subsidizing gun advocates. Incredible.
    That's the thing: they believe these incredible lies. Obama, or his administration, did no such thing! The government has no control over the price of amno. It's market-controlled. If anyone increased prices, it was the manufactures and the retailers. That goes to how paranoid these people are.

    Now, the Pentagon does have a long-standing ban of selling government surplus items to law-enforcement that they are looking to tighten because of recent violations.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,618
    Rep Power
    642
    These guys listen to Faux News, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck for all of their information. The truth has no standing because they're told what they want to hear.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

[REMOVE ADS]

Ralph Terrana
MODERATOR

Welcome to Soulful Detroit! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
Soulful Detroit is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to Soulful Detroit. [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.