"stand your ground" doesn't work

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by nhgunnut

The issue is how do you Judge if someone created the situation? There are NO Grounds in the United States Where Speech and Speech Alone Justifies Assault. It is insane to think that because I choose because I choose to exercise my Second Amendment Rights that I give up My First First Amendment Rights. Which seems Constructing a Law in the Manner which seem to be suggesting demands. So If I am have a discussion with someone that escalates to an argument I am 55 have had 3 heart attacks (that by the way is an accurate description) and this 35 year old says I will kill you old man and swings , did I start a fight ? Or am I justified in using deadly force?
I really wound't argue that FL couldn't use some tweaking. At the same time the idea that I give up First Amendment rights if I choose to Protect myself is just nuts.

I would say that a good test case would involve someone stalking and then accosting someone, who is apparently minding his own business while walking through a neighbourhood where he has reason to be.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I would say that a good test case would involve someone stalking and then accosting someone, who is apparently minding his own business while walking through a neighbourhood where he has reason to be.

But then he should be charged for instigation/abuse of some kind. The shooting is a separate issue IMO.

Just because he was wrong to instigate, doesn't prove that he was wrong to defend himself. If in fact he feared for his life.

Aren't judges & juries smart enough to consider each issue separately?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

But then he should be charged for instigation/abuse of some kind. The shooting is a separate issue IMO.

Just because he was wrong to instigate, doesn't prove that he was wrong to defend himself. If in fact he feared for his life.

Aren't judges & juries smart enough to consider each issue separately?

The issues aren't separate.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

But then he should be charged for instigation/abuse of some kind. The shooting is a separate issue IMO.

Right. I was just carrying a backpack full of gasoline past the bonfire.

I should just be charged with an improper container violation, not manslaughter.

JC

[ceo012384]

Originally Posted by jtemple

Shooting someone in self defense is still labeled "homicide".

I bet if you remove those cases from the results, the numbers go down.

Just about any statistical analysis I have read about is full of smoke & mirrors in an effort to push the writers' agenda. Very rarely do I see something that is truly objective and thorough.

Exactly, you can bend data to make it say anything you want it to say, certianly the data was biased by the writer based on his/her agenda.

Kind of like that famous brady campaign statistic about how guns in homes were several times more likely to be used on a family member than on a burgler... but the statistic included suicides... LOL

[Smittie61984]

I'd be more interested in seeing data on how much government has grown ever since owning a firearm became regulated by the government.

As for the affectiveness of "stand your ground". Illinois bans any form of carrying and is the only state to do so. To transport your gun it must be locked up in a gun case and not easily accessed. Chicago bans pistols all together and more people are killed in Chicago than US troops in Afganistan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1602692.html

I can already see soldiers dreading the day they are stationed in Chicago.

[RACER X]

(Mytheos Holt) Florida neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman will imminently put NBC News on notice — legally — that doctoring tapes inaccurately has consequences.

Back when the news first broke that Zimmerman shot unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, one of the main bits of evidence that anti-Zimmerman commentators used to condemn the accused was the tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call leading up to the shooting.

Usually, they would point to one line in particular: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

There’s just one problem: that line, as it was played, didn’t exist. The call had been doctored by NBC News staffers — who were subsequently fired — seemingly to make Zimmerman sound racist.

This is what was actually said:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

The edit failed to include the key question that put Zimmerman‘s mention of Martin’s race in context.

Now, the New York Post reports that Zimmerman is suing NBC for this apparent attempt to malign him using doctored tapes:

Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman is suing NBC over the network’s botched editing of his 911 tape, Page Six can exclusively reveal.

We hear Zimmerman’s attorneys are about to file a complaint against NBC and its top executives, naming news president Steve Capus and correspondent Ron Allen, who was the reporter on the scene for the broadcast on “Today” on March 27. He also remained the reporter for the story on “NBC Nightly News.”

A source tells us, “The suit will be filed imminently against NBC and its news executives. The network’s legal department has put everybody in the news department involved with this incident on notice, telling them not to comment.”

[Smittie61984]

In journalism school a required class besides "how to waste money on a useless degree" should be "if some random bloggers who are really into typewriters can notice a fake typewriter superscript in a news report, what do you think they'll do with video and audio?"

I assume these journalists are at least educated with a 4 year degree. Even at your dumbest community colleges you have to have some brain power to make it through. I understand editing out useless details but they had to of known that a major story like this is going to have people fine combing over everything. Fuck, what school did those people go to to be so fucking stupid? Top 20 or bottom 20?

[RACER X]

oops wrong thread, lol

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by RACER X

(Mytheos Holt) Florida neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman will imminently put NBC News on notice — legally — that doctoring tapes inaccurately has consequences.

Back when the news first broke that Zimmerman shot unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, one of the main bits of evidence that anti-Zimmerman commentators used to condemn the accused was the tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call leading up to the shooting.

Usually, they would point to one line in particular: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

There’s just one problem: that line, as it was played, didn’t exist. The call had been doctored by NBC News staffers — who were subsequently fired — seemingly to make Zimmerman sound racist.

This is what was actually said:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

The edit failed to include the key question that put Zimmerman‘s mention of Martin’s race in context.

Now, the New York Post reports that Zimmerman is suing NBC for this apparent attempt to malign him using doctored tapes:

Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman is suing NBC over the network’s botched editing of his 911 tape, Page Six can exclusively reveal.

We hear Zimmerman’s attorneys are about to file a complaint against NBC and its top executives, naming news president Steve Capus and correspondent Ron Allen, who was the reporter on the scene for the broadcast on “Today” on March 27. He also remained the reporter for the story on “NBC Nightly News.”

A source tells us, “The suit will be filed imminently against NBC and its news executives. The network’s legal department has put everybody in the news department involved with this incident on notice, telling them not to comment.”