As usual, 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'...
RKBA and Florida-lists double ping!
Posted on 11/08/2013 10:27:19 AM PST by Old Sarge
A committee of Florida lawmakers rejected a proposal to repeal the ''Stand Your Ground'' self-defense law Thursday, following an hours-long hearing.
The Florida House of Representatives Criminal Justice Subcommittee held a five-hour hearing starting at 3 p.m. to vote on a bill repealing the law granting individuals to use deadly force when they believe their life is in jeopardy.
"Today, our state is a safer place and has the lowest crime rate in 42 years," Rep. Marti Coley, a Marianna Republican, said, according to the Tampa Bay Times. "Florida's 'stand your ground' law is solid. It's good and should not be changed."
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Alan Williams (D-Tallahassee), would have specifically repealed the statute allowing individuals the right to “stand their ground” and use deadly force against another instead of retreating under fear of death or great bodily harm.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.nbcnews.com ...
And THIS got added to law: The panel approved the expansion of the ''stand your ground'' immunity to people who fire a warning shot.
Unintended consequences...
Ping to Stand Your Ground being upheld and expanded in FL.
So that would have made Marissa Alexander immune, right?
What the Trayvonites don’t understand, because it probably can’t pass through their thick skulls, is that the Stand Your Ground law is the ONLY REASON that George Zimmerman was ever put on trial in the first place.
What? What do you mean by that? How could a law that offers immunity have caused a man to be arrested and go on trial?
Easy - because of the protections offered in the Stand Your Ground law, the Sanford police were very, very careful with their investigation of George Zimmerman and that shooting incident. They made public the fact that they were reluctant to charge Zimmerman due to the Stand Your Ground law, yet they continued to investigate, and, most importantly, they interviewed Zimmerman on multiple occasions and allowed him to do a full video walkthrough for them. Zimmerman, for his part, felt confident that they just wanted cooperation from him because, well, they hadn’t arrested him yet, so he continued to talk to them.
Now, had the Stand Your Ground law not existed, would the Sanford Police Department’s response have been different? It may well have. What would have happened had they immediately arrested George Zimmerman as the Martin and Fulton families have argued should have happened?
George Zimmerman would have shut his mouth. The only statement the police would have gotten from him would have been his very first words when officers arrived on the scene: “I screamed for help, but nobody came.” “I shot him in self-defense.” etc..
Remember that the BULK of the case against Zimmerman as presented by the prosecution was that he was a liar, because of minor inconsistencies between his various statements, inconsistencies both from one statement to another and between his statements and real life. Without those statements, which I argue were made ONLY as a result of the police department’s hesitance to arrest due to SYG, they would have never had those inconsistencies, and Zimmerman would have had a MUCH easier time at trial.
As usual, 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'...
RKBA and Florida-lists double ping!
Stuff that up your butt, sabrina!
Stand your ground and Self Defense are 'heat of the moment' defenses. Once that moments gone, those defenses won't work unless another 'heat of the moment' situation comes up such as he followed her. But in this case, another 'heat of the moment' situation was created, but this time by her leaving, getting a gun, and coming back. It' commendable that she chose to fire a warning shot instead of shooting him and the 20 year sentence is a bit harsh, but according to what I've read, she pretty well much created the situation from the start (by showing up when she shouldn't have - knowing he'll be there), and finished (by leaving and coming back armed and discharging a firearm).
I know the vote was 11-2, but how did it shake down by party?
It pays to drop a one-size-fits-all Thank You to the Committee for their actions. There might be some that voted for repeal, but I can’t find any info. Here’s the list, as per an NRA-ILA alert:
matt.gaetz@myfloridahouse.gov,
ray.pilon@myfloridahouse.gov,
irving.slosberg@myfloridahouse.gov,
Randolph.Bracy@myfloridahouse.gov,
Mike.Clelland@myfloridahouse.gov,
Dane.Eagle@myfloridahouse.gov,
james.grant@myfloridahouse.gov,
gayle.harrell@myfloridahouse.gov,
Dave.Hood@myfloridahouse.gov,
Travis.Hutson@myfloridahouse.gov,
Dave.Kerner@myfloridahouse.gov,
Kionne.McGhee@myfloridahouse.gov,
charles.vanzant@myfloridahouse.gov
Done
“And THIS got added to law: The panel approved the expansion of the ‘’stand your ground’’ immunity to people who fire a warning shot.
Unintended consequences...”
You’re right. Giving latitude to the law is one thing, but to extend it to immunity for all warning shots is dangerous.
Leni
““And THIS got added to law: The panel approved the expansion of the ‘’stand your ground’’ immunity to people who fire a warning shot.
Unintended consequences...”
You’re right. Giving latitude to the law is one thing, but to extend it to immunity for all warning shots is dangerous.”
Wrong!
The criminal, not the victim, is the proximate cause of any shooting injuries/deaths. Accordingly, should a warning shot injure or kill someone, the attacker who caused the shooting must be charged with the crime and sued for damages - not the victim attacked by the criminal.
That expansion of the Stand Your Ground Law is both reasoned and prudent.
Thanks. It is bread cast upon the waters.
Strike two from that list of committee members above.
This latest from the NRA-Ila:
Voting in Favor of the Bill to Repeal Stand Your Ground
Randolph.Bracy@myfloridahouse.gov,
Kionne.McGhee@myfloridahouse.gov,
There’s a full report of the meeting here:
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20131108/POLITICSPOLICY/311080027?source=nletter-top5&gcheck=1
““And THIS got added to law: The panel approved the expansion of the ‘’stand your ground’’ immunity to people who fire a warning shot.
Unintended consequences...”
You’re right. Giving latitude to the law is one thing, but to extend it to immunity for all warning shots is dangerous.”
Wrong!
The criminal, not the victim, is the proximate cause of any shooting injuries/deaths. Accordingly, should a warning shot injure or kill someone, the attacker who caused the shooting must be charged with the crime and sued for damages - not the victim attacked by the criminal.
That expansion of the Stand Your Ground Law is both reasoned and prudent.
``````````````````````
I live in Florida. From your handle I assume you do too. I believe the law should allow for circumstances when firing a warning shot, but to automatically grant immunity for all warning shots is too broad. Personally I don’t see the need for a warning shot generally. If I pull a gun I feel the need to stop a target, not scare it. I think circumstances should be considered in each instance of a warning shot fired instead of making them automatically criminal or applying an automatic waiver.
This also opens the door to another headache for righteous self defense. I can hear the liberals now “You could have fired a warning shot - You didn’t have to shoot him - Why didn’t you fire a warning shot?”
This provision will come into use soon I’m sure, so we’ll see how it shakes out in reality.
I am all too glad to see it: many times a warning shot will deter an otherwise fatal situation. Even in Iraq, the ROE was a verbal warning, then a warning shot, then empty the mag.
It will very soon come to America, where shots will be fired - in many places, it’s already here. We require legal weapons against criminals, as well as superior firepower.
I am all too glad to see it: many times a warning shot will deter an otherwise fatal situation. Even in Iraq, the ROE was a verbal warning, then a warning shot, then empty the mag.
It will very soon come to America, where shots will be fired - in many places, it’s already here. We require legal weapons against criminals, as well as superior firepower.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I see your point and you may be right. It may be a good thing. We’ll see. I’m in Fl, and I think warning shots should not be automatically criminal, but to grant automatic immunity in every case seems too broad. I won’t pull a gun unless I feel the absolute need to shoot, and see no reason for a warning shot in most cases. I’ve not been at war, so your experience with a live shooter or having to draw on a human is much greater than mine, (I’ve had to draw 3 times at this house to protect myself - never had to fire), but if the sight of the gun didn’t stop the perp (as it has those three times) and I did have to fire it would be because the threat is imminent. In that case a warning shot just says “Please go away - I’m afraid to actually shoot you.” To me that’s a problem. It may embolden the criminal, give them time to draw a weapon, or time to close the distance. That said, I’m sure there are scenarios where warning shots would be the preferred method of showing force, which is why I think they should be legal, just not automatically immune form scrutiny. That said, hopefully I’m reading the provision too strictly and misunderstand. Maybe the intent of the added passage to the law is simply allow latitude in each shooting. If that’s the case then I’m all for it. We’ll just have to see how it shakes out in reality.
VERY cogent response.
As a fellow Floridian, I agree with you about watching how this new explained right and rule shakes out.
Sometimes, all that’s needed is the warning shot, and we mustn’t let that be criminalized. This clarification of the SYG law is necessary and proper.
Thank you very much. Looks like we agree. I’m glad. Also glad you’re in Florida!
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.
