BoatBanter.com - The utter stupidity of the stand your ground law

On 6/3/2012 9:34 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 6/3/12 8:53 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:22:12 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:16:00 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/2/2012 1:09 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 6/2/12 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 10:06:32 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:25:15 -0400, wrote:

In ,

says...

In ,
says...

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:21:17 -0400,
wrote:

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

The law is not stupid. The absolute lack of common sense in
America
is. So is the fact that the richest Americans have, since
Eisenhower,
gradually bought more and more of the government until today,
they own
it.

A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

The police are not available to protect you. They are
available to
document the crimes you have committed or that have been
committed
against you.

Yeah, the stand your ground law lets you kill innocent children,
that's
great huh?

No, the stand your ground law is being mis-applied in this case.
Zimmerman drew the line in the sand to stand his ground, but
when HE
crossed that line, that action made that law inapplicable.

Apparently, Florida is common sense challenged.

Well true, but I said nothing about Zimmerman.

Then, if you aren't referring to Zimmerman, you are totally wrong.
Then your statement, "Yeah, the stand your ground law lets you kill
innocent children, that's great huh?" is totally false.

If Zimmerman walks, it'll be totally true.

Guess you are the only one left who hasn't figured out this isn't your
meal ticket, virtually all of Zimmermans story has been backed up
by the
evidence AND witness initial testimony... Why do you think the rest of
the race baiters in Congress and the Media have left poor Treyvon
Martin
behind? Come on harry, try to keep up...

Zimmerman opened the door for this confrontation. He rightfully
deserves a hefty portion of the criminal responsibility. Not all,
certainly, but a hefty portion as determined by the courts.

The homeowner who hears a commotion outside and who then goes outside
and finds someone trying to kill a person. The someone doing the killing
turns on the homeowner and lunges at him with a bloody knife and the
homeowner kills the guy with his gun. Did the homeowner initiate the
confrontation and should the homeowner be bear responsibility for a
hefty portion of the criminal responsibility of killing the killer?

Apples and Oranges. Now, you are talking (1) castle doctrine and (2) a
felonious act being committed.

The problem with the FL law is that the judgment of good shooting or
not is made solely by a judge, a single man. That decision should be
made by 12.

Tell that to the guy in Philly.

He probably already knows that. The Castle Doctrine Act there requires
the "good shooting" decision to be made by the DA.

There is no single law in the United States that covers the so-called
"Castle Doctrine." Instead, we have the usual state-by-state patchwork
of laws pertaining to that and to what you can do if you are a victim of
a home invader.

Castle Doctrine laws, however, typically aren't like Florida's idiotic
"stand your ground" law. Under Castle Doctrine, you typically have to be
inside your "castle" (house) and warding off someone who broke or forced
their way in.

Walking down the street of your subdivision, challenging a kid you don't
like, chasing after him, getting into a fight and then shooting him is
likely to get you convicted of a serious felony in Maryland.

Mister writer guy, you made a couple of mistakes. Make it Challenging a
young man you don't recognize. How about monitoring his movements
because you are suspicious of him. It appears from all accounts that
Treevon was the fighter and Zimmerman was defending himself against the
attacker, Treevon. Zimmerman will likely walk.