In article , dump-on-
says...

On 6/3/12 8:24 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 02/06/2012 9:42 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 6/2/12 11:33 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 6/2/2012 10:48 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 6/2/2012 9:25 AM, iBoaterer 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?

Keeps harry feelin' secure...

Harry's in Maryland.....

harry has stated several times here he would shoot anybody who came
through his door... and suggests he wouldn't go to prison for it
although based on this group postings alone, any judge would probably
concur he has been "planning" to shoot someone for a long time...


No, **** for brains, I've stated I will shoot any home invader. We have
lots of people coming through the door, all invited. But if you tried
that - to get inside the house, you would not be an "invitee," and would
be considered a home invader. Hey, I know language skills are not your
forte. Perhaps someone in your family has the ability to explain simple,
declarative sentences to you.

Face it harry, you are a hypocrite.

Harry's problem is that his definition of home invader is different from
the legal definition of home invader.




There is no "the legal definition" of home invader, Mr. Uneducated.

Really, fool?

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/home-invasion/

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.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:46:19 -0400, wrote:

Bottom line for anybody with an IQ over about 3, if you are pursuing
somebody, you are not STANDING your ground, you are COVERING ground.
See the difference?

===

At least in Florida, not sure about other places, you are allowed to
use deadly force to prevent the commission of a violent felony, even
if requires pursuit. That is not "stand your ground" law however.

On 6/3/12 10:00 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:46:19 -0400, wrote:

Bottom line for anybody with an IQ over about 3, if you are pursuing
somebody, you are not STANDING your ground, you are COVERING ground.
See the difference?

===

At least in Florida, not sure about other places, you are allowed to
use deadly force to prevent the commission of a violent felony, even
if requires pursuit. That is not "stand your ground" law however.



In Florida, a violent felony means minding your own business while
walking to the house where your dad is staying, armed with a soft drink
and a bag of candy. In those circumstances, a self-appointed vigilante
can confront you, get into a fight and then shoot you.

Viva la Florida.

On 6/3/2012 10:00 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 08:46:19 -0400, wrote:

Bottom line for anybody with an IQ over about 3, if you are pursuing
somebody, you are not STANDING your ground, you are COVERING ground.
See the difference?

===

At least in Florida, not sure about other places, you are allowed to
use deadly force to prevent the commission of a violent felony, even
if requires pursuit. That is not "stand your ground" law however.


Still apples and oranges. Although Zimmerman followed Martin till the
cops told him to stop. All the evidence so far leads to the conclusion
Martin initiated the contact, and started the fight.. So all this other
**** doesn't matter, at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman was
"standing his ground"... Period...

On 6/3/2012 8:24 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 02/06/2012 9:42 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 6/2/12 11:33 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 6/2/2012 10:48 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 6/2/2012 9:25 AM, iBoaterer 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?

Keeps harry feelin' secure...

Harry's in Maryland.....

harry has stated several times here he would shoot anybody who came
through his door... and suggests he wouldn't go to prison for it
although based on this group postings alone, any judge would probably
concur he has been "planning" to shoot someone for a long time...


No, **** for brains, I've stated I will shoot any home invader. We have
lots of people coming through the door, all invited. But if you tried
that - to get inside the house, you would not be an "invitee," and would
be considered a home invader. Hey, I know language skills are not your
forte. Perhaps someone in your family has the ability to explain simple,
declarative sentences to you.

Face it harry, you are a hypocrite.

Harry's problem is that his definition of home invader is different from
the legal definition of home invader.



All of harrys definitions are based on convenience and self indulgence......

On 6/3/2012 9:10 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 6/3/2012 8:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:


Your slow-witted right-wing buddy JustHate has implied any number of
times that he'd try to *push* his way in here. That is home invasion. If
he tried that, he'd be leaving on a gurney or in a body bag, and I'd
probably get an award for improving the gene pool.

Doubt it. Show us one instance where you imagined he made that
implication. You got some crazy ideas floating around in that swelled
head of yours.

That is absolutly nuts.. I AM sending this one off to his local cops,
it's obvious he is setting up to shoot me. Glad I know this so if I ever
run into him I know to shoot first since he is trying to kill me anyway...

On 6/3/12 10:20 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 6/3/2012 9:10 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 6/3/2012 8:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:


Your slow-witted right-wing buddy JustHate has implied any number of
times that he'd try to *push* his way in here. That is home invasion. If
he tried that, he'd be leaving on a gurney or in a body bag, and I'd
probably get an award for improving the gene pool.

Doubt it. Show us one instance where you imagined he made that
implication. You got some crazy ideas floating around in that swelled
head of yours.

That is absolutly nuts.. I AM sending this one off to his local cops,
it's obvious he is setting up to shoot me. Glad I know this so if I ever
run into him I know to shoot first since he is trying to kill me anyway...


You're going to tell the police that *if* you home invade or push your
way in here, your violence will be met appropriately? That should make
them giggle.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:22:12 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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


I said nothing about the castle doctrine. I was addressing the issue of
Zimmerman exiting his vehicle with a person walking out of his house
after hearing a commotion.

You are the one who put the castle doctrine into plan in this scenario.

I was talking about the hefty portion of the criminal responsibility.


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.

The judge found him guilty, not a jury.

In article m,
says...

On 6/3/2012 8:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:


Your slow-witted right-wing buddy JustHate has implied any number of
times that he'd try to *push* his way in here. That is home invasion. If
he tried that, he'd be leaving on a gurney or in a body bag, and I'd
probably get an award for improving the gene pool.

Doubt it. Show us one instance where you imagined he made that
implication. You got some crazy ideas floating around in that swelled
head of yours.

Harry has an itchy trigger finger. I wouldn't be surprised if he walks
around the house with a hog leg strapped to his side.