Posted on 10/18/2014 12:22:35 PM PDT by Q-ManRN
The fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford ignited a nationwide debate on gun rights, profiling and Florida's controversial self-defense laws.
That debate continues today, when a panel of experts convenes in Orlando to discuss the "stand your ground" law as part of an investigation the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights launched after the teen's death became a cause célèbre.
Florida was the first state to adopt "stand your ground," and the killing of Trayvon shone a harsh light on it.
Though Zimmerman's lawyers disputed that the controversial law played a role in his acquittal at trial last year, the case renewed debate about the application of self-defense laws, in Florida and elsewhere.
The commission's stated goal is to assess "whether there is possible racial bias in the assertion, investigation and/or enforcement of justifiable homicide laws in states with Stand Your Ground provisions."
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
George Zimmerman's lawyers as well as numerous legal commentators have pointed out that Stand Your Ground law was not used in the legal defense of Zimmerman. His defense lawyers used a classic self-defense argument that Zimmerman was simply defending himself from grave bodily harm or deadly injury; thus, Stand Your Ground laws were not a part of his legal defense & had nothing to do with his acquittal. Zimmerman's defense team simply corrected the politically-motivated talk about Stand Your Ground laws after Zimmerman was acquitted.
Nevertheless, liberals go right on talking about Stand Your Ground laws as if they allowed George Zimmerman to murder Trayvon Martin for racial reasons. The fact that Stand Your Ground laws were not used in the legal defense's strategy in the George Zimmerman case makes no difference at all.
Trayvon Martin ping
Just one more piece of evidence that leftists are not compatible with American culture or freedom. They will take any well-publicized event and use a few scraps of related information to make up far-fetched arguments to explain why Americans’ human rights, including but not limited to the right to defend oneself, should be given up.
Leftists are oppressors of the worst kind.
“Panel of experts”. Uh-huh. I’d bet they’re at the top of their fields in subversion of established law, racial shakedowns, grievance mongering, blaming whitey and inducing liberal white guilt, etc.
Another straw man set up and knocked down by liberals.
Zimmerman never claimed the Stand Your Ground law as his defense.
Yeah, but the “expert panel” KNOWS it was implied. Someone get the manure trucks ready cause they’re gonna have some heavy haulin’ to do.
Liberals lie. Repeatedly, continuously, and continually. Every day, in every way, liberals lie over and over.
It’s what they do. It’s why the live. It’s what they live for.
It is an incredibly Orwellian thing to observe.
Can we please see the text of the law that would prohibit defending yourself when somebody is on top of you, beating your head against the sidewalk?
Zimmerman used the “Lay” Your Ground defense.
It's not a matter of not being used, as if it was some optional election. Florida law does not impose a duty to retreat. There's no special invocation to waive that duty, it just doesn't exist. It didn't apply to Zimmerman's case because retreat wasn't a factual issue in his case.
Well, “leftists” are LIEberals, and LIEberals LIE!
So what would you expect?
Again, there is no "claiming" SYG.
This is also not true. SYG is the norm in the US, and has a long history. California has the strongest SYG provisions and has had them for about a century.
New rules:
If the agressor is white you are permitted to protect yourselves at all costs whether it appears if your life is in danger or not.
If the aggressor is black and you are white you ate not permitted to rotect yourself, your possessions, or your famil. In fact you are to take the beating and surrender to the aggressor anything he wants of yours.
If the defender is black or any other minority type he is allowed to stand his ground. If he defeats the aggressor he is allowed to $steal his $hit but has to surrender half of it to the state. Same difference if the aggressor is the victor...
New rules:
If the agressor is white you are permitted to protect yourselves at all costs whether it appears if your life is in danger or not.
If the aggressor is black and you are white you aee not permitted to protect yourself, your possessions, or your familyl. In fact you are to take the beating and surrender to the aggressor anything he wants of yours.
If the defender is black or any other minority type he is allowed to stand his ground. If he defeats the aggressor he is allowed to $steal his $hit but has to surrender half of it to the state. Same difference if the aggressor is the victor...
This Federal panel should carefully place it where the sun “don’t” shine.
I doubt if any state or city had a written "duty to retreat" law. Leftist judges and prosecutors just pretended it was "settled law", and there were no grounds to appeal. It was a handy way to send innocent people to jail for daring to defend someone's life. Or another hammer to use in "negotiating" a plea bargain.
When states were forced to rewrite a lot of gun control laws because the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment meant what it said, legislators tried to close off the "duty to retreat", which was "unwritten law" with an explicit "stand your ground" statute, so that "duty to retreat" didn't sneak back in.
Personally, I'd like to see them write a model "duty to retreat" law that had to be voted on, and NOT something handed down like oral tradition. And nullify any "castle doctrine", replacing both with federal level (for consistency) minimal rules of engagement. They should make it simple enough, and sweeping enough, to engrave it on every new firearm. It would be a federal felony to shoot AT anyone without first reading this to would-be attacker in a clear and distinct voice in both English and Mexican.
The commission’s stated goal is to assess whether black racists can murder white people, especially old, defenseless veterans and women.
What the federal fascists need to asses is whether they want to swing from lampposts or tree branches.
They have been after SYG since Zimmerman, if not before. It is their wet dream. Their game is to get it nullified, then the liberal judges in other states can cite that action as "precedence" and undo any similar law there.
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.