Skip to comments.‘Stand your ground’ laws recall the Wild West
Posted on 04/21/2012 10:44:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
That analogy to a old time western movie hardly makes sense. No, I ain’t got it.
“I recommend a rubber room some Xanax and a cup of chamomile tea for Prof. McGrath.”
“David McGrath is an emeritus professor of English at the College of DuPage” which the article fails to mention is a community college. I don’t know, maybe that’s the same as any other college.
Actually, a better case could be made that it was young Martin who misinterpreted the “stand your ground” principle in that confrontation, to his misfortune. Jurisdictions without SYG would have required him to retreat to the house where he was staying to avoid the altercation.
So-called “stand your ground” laws (laws, I like that) are a great example of how we’ve basically thrown out the Constitution and remember none of the Declaration.
My little brain is trying to think of any valid reason why a law would be necessary to codify the inherent right of self defense. As if I’m only allowed to defend myself in my house. Right...
Suddenly, the light turns on. Bing !
Oh... (duh)... if Courts don’t acknowledge Common Law, common sense, the Constitution, etc., i.e., they side with the attacker instead of the attackee... well then legislatures might see an opportunity to pass a “stand your ground” law to try to make it clear to Judges that it’s legal for citizens to defend themselves.
Even my little pea-brain can figure out the source of the problem: the Judicial system humors pathetic legal defenses based on the attacker’s attorney claiming that the victim had no right to defend themselves from their client.
I guess it’s welcome to legal “bizzarro world”. Well, until we clean out the moral deadwood in the Judicial system.
As far as a professor who reaches way outside the subject matter he teaches and pretends to be smart about it it probably is like most other colleges.
When seconds count the cops are minutes away.
Zimmerman was a fool, but the law is a good one. The left is pissed because it gives law abiding citizens the legal means to fight back. It also means that it puts citizens on a level playing ground with Urban Yoots.
If a faggy lefty wants to be culled by some urban thug, so be it. But most of the people are sick and tired of being targets and the fact we could be in more trouble defending ourselves than the thug who attacks us.
Of course, regarding this particular professor’s (???) childish lie of a column, deadly force employed in self-defense is certainly legitimate if one reasonably believes that one’s life is in danger.
Having one’s head banged on the sidewalk, IMHO, clearly fits that bill. Just to get into all the minutia (since we’re talking about a “professor’s” column), one could reasonably assume that one would soon be rendered unconscious, after which, given the maniac bashing one’s head against the sidewalk seems a rather hell-bent fellow, one could certainly reasonably assume that said fellow would continue the bashing after one lost consciousness. Ergo, it’s a most appropriate time to avail oneself of one’s weapon and finish the bugger off (IMHO), and I doubt it would take very long for the attackee to work through all these details in their mind in that situation.
“Please...comparing this with nearly 50 year old TV shows? Ones no one has seen ?”
being 75, I watched them all!!!!
“Stand your ground” laws are just plain old common sense.
“being 75, I watched them all!!!!”
I always caught Gun Smoke on Sundays! :)
To the Prof. Dumbass, Don’t give up your Day Job!
Stay out of jurisprudentia!
I understand the situation; but I don't see that it is a problem.
One incorrigible budding career criminal was permanently stopped before he could rack up a large body count.
One intended victim was able to successfully defend himself against an intended deadly attack from the above criminal.
That's just one small victory for civilization, compared to the thousands of violent crimes every year wherein the perpetrator should die, but doesn't.
‘Stand Your Ground’ and ‘Self-Defense’ are different legal entities.
Both applied in this instance, but this was classic self-defense.
Apparently you have to be a Professor not to understand the difference.
So many Black youth perps seem to be unusually adept at the methodology needed to quickly and effectively subdue an opponent. From where are they learning these tactics and skills? Are they “instinctive”? Or is there (aside from the military) some sort of underground school where offensive and lethal hand to hand combat skills are being taught to Black youth?
What is with the spate of moronic columns trying to use Hollywood fiction to set up straw men that the writer attacks with false logic and outright lies?
He might as well argue for a change in the laws of physics based on what he saw the coyote and the roadrunner do.
What an ultra-maroon.
History is nice; too damn bad most people don’t study it before writing their articles.
I’m not sure you have to be a black youth to be unusually adept at subduing an opponent. You just have to be young man in your prime, with athletic skills. Treyvon M. was about 6 foot 3 inches tall, weighted 170-180 pounds, about 20 pounds less than George Z. I would describe George M. as short man with a slender build, certainly much lighter than the mug shot photo from 5 years earlier. I have no doubt that Treyvon M. was eating his lunch, George had a broken nose, bloody head wounds from hitting the concrete walkway. During the scuffle on the ground this pistol was probably felt by Treyvon M. in George’s clothing. Once that was discovered, both were going for the pistol, George naturally felt he was in mortal danger, so he fired in self-defense. We don’t know if the pistol was out in plain view when he fired or if it was still in his jacket and fired thru the clothing. Trayvon M. could have been hit in a non-lethal area, but sadly that night this bullet or bullets? were deadly
“After several seconds of music and tension, the other man would reach for the handgun in his holster, which prompted Dillon to draw his gun faster and shoot him first”
I had trouble getting past this part. I know it might be a small and nitpickey point, but in that scene Dillon did not draw faster. He did shoot the other guy before he got shot himself, but Dillon did not shoot first. James Arness insisted that Dillon would only return fire and never shoot a man that had not shot at him first.
(The so-called stand your ground law that allowed neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman to shoot and kill Treyvon Martin in Sanford, Fla.)
What allowed Mr Zimmerman to shoot Mr Martin is a human beings right to defend their own life.
As our FOUNDERS stated, it is a right given by our Creator and one guaranteed in our Constitution.
You may not like that, but a fact is a fact...........
By wild west he obviously means Hollywood sound stages. Its Hollywood, not history. Too many people confuse them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.