Posted on 04/30/2012 2:42:00 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/AP) —Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law should undergo major changes but not be repealed, according to an independent task force created in the wake of the Travyon Martin shooting.
State Sen. Chris Smith, who organized a panel of legal experts to look at the state’s “stand your ground” law, delivered recommendations to Gov. Rick Scott and legislative leaders on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at miami.cbslocal.com ...
In other words, better a hundred crackers be killed by black perps, than a single black perp be killed by a cracker.
Stand Your Ground doesn’t even apply to this case, yet this horse$hit continues on, and on, and on.......
I wonder if good ol’ Mr. Smith would consider a change in the law if the race of the Martin-Zimmerman was reversed?
Of course not!!!! Chris Smith would be on tv night and day praising what a fine law that was.
You kind of had to read this carefully - this is just a dim Florida senator convening his own panel of “experts” - not the Guv’s panel:
“Smith released the list a day before a separate panel put together by the governor is scheduled to hold its first meeting.”
Any proposals for real change should go to the Guv’s panel.
I’m going to suggest that the law be amended to require the state to pay for the self-defense defendant’s legal costs and fees if the charges are dismissed or he/she found not guilty on self defense grounds AND the state must expunge the arrest records.
The basis for this provision is that the law already provides for IMMUNITY from prosecution in valid cases of self defense.
The law also provides for recovery of costs and fees in a civil damages suit if self defense is established - the state, given its resources should have to do the same.
Perhaps of interest - the original SYG bill included the cost/fees provision against the state but got edited out somewhere along the line before passage.
Where as here, the state proceeds to prosecute they should shoulder the defendant’s costs if its found to be a valid case of self defense. IMHO. ;-)
Why don’t you try making major changes to the behavior and morality of your people, Mr. Smith, because therein lies the root of the problem.
They want you to be unable to defend yourself from the criminal element and as evidenced the lynch Zimmerman crowd, so do a lot of members of this forum.
It does not bother them a bit that Zimmerman was pinned to the ground. What bothers them is that law abiding citizens were able to defend their lives from the criminal element.
Affirmative ACtion self defense... here we go.
Is that a black beanie w/ sideflaps he’s wearing, or is that his (shaved) hairline? I’ll bet he plucks his eyebrows, too. LOL.
Geez - everybody carries in FLA! We’re old - this is Gods waiting-room.
Never pick a fight with an old guy - he’s too old to fight, so he’ll just shoot ya .................................................... FRegards
Yeh, the first ConCon was to only “update” the AoC, too!
But it ended up a secret Concon w/built-in openings for modification (lately called “flaws”)
leading to our present “situation”!
See, for instance William Buppert’s piece on The God That Failed...
Semper Watching!
You have the answer.
“an independent task force created in the wake of the Travyon Martin shooting”
Why order a task force in light of the Martin shooting when we don’t even know what happened? What can that case teach us about Stand Your Ground if Stand Your Ground didn’t apply? If Zimmerman somehow lured Martin into attacking him because of his depraved mind, then it’s 2nd degree murder and Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply. If Martin instigated violence against Zimmerman and Zimmerman only fired after he was pinned and had no escape, then Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply.
ALL his recomendations are EXACTLY why we need stand your ground in the first place.
He is exhibit A in all that is wrong with the democrat party.
This report should be circular filed and anyone who signs onto it should be primaried.
this is about the CIVIL TRIAL lawyers getting back into the act.
Stand your ground includes civil immunity.
A not guilty verdict AND/or a ruling by the judge that stand your ground applies means there can be no civil jury trial jackpot as a matter of law.
even if the instigator, you do not lose your right to self defense when a person is bashing your skull against the edge of a concrete sidewalk.
Also keep in mind the parents and the mob want an oj style civil trial however, stand your ground provides imunity.
(btw the police admission that they have no witnesses and no way to know what happened pretty much leaves it in the self protection list. iow no jackpot civil suit.)
I still like the lady in the fl legislature who sent a sack of manure. (that is poop for those in rio linda) to the nursing home business lobbyist who was a jerk on a particular matter.
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/050401/met_6085758.html
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2001-05-03/news/0105030312_1_lobbyist-chase-tallahassee
Please note it was a Republican that sent the gift...
Gov Scott has appointed his own panel.
Ill stand my ground Law or no law
Grandstanding Democratic hack who put together a group of Democrat lawyers to attack the right of self defense. "Independent" my a$$
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.