They are not going to let go

[dan_bgblue]

Holder wants national review of stand-your-ground laws (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/16/holder-wades-deeper-into-zimmerman-battle-calls-for-review-stand-your-ground/)

[CitizenBBN]

If anyone thought this battle was over when the assault weapons ban didn't pass the Senate, they were dreaming.

"But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely," Holder said. "By allowing -- and perhaps encouraging -- violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety."

First, Zimmerman claims he DID retreat. "Stand your ground" wasn't even an issue in this case beyond simplistic media understanding.

Beyond that, why is it a racial issue? It's not, it's a "gun issue" for them, and they are so anti-gun they are blind with it. Anything to keep people from being able to defend themselves...

[jazyd]

So lets just tell criminals they have nothing to worry about and open season. Holder is so easy to read, he is pathetic and possibly the worst AG ever and for sure in my lifetime. IMO he is a racist, doesn't really care about the law, it is all about his wants and opinions. I will be so thankful when this administration is tossed out on their ass

I cannot ever remember an entire administration with such a disregard of our laws, our constitution, states rights, our citizens, business, our allies, the economy, and world affairs. It is a total disgrace to our country and the people

[suncat05]

And why the f#%k should it be a damn requirement that if I am or feel threatened that "I" should be the one that is forced to retreat? What kind of bassakwards train of thought is that?
I swear to God people, we need to seriously start thinning the herd out here, and I know exactly where to start.

Come break into my house and let's see how that works out for you. Or confront me somewhere out in public to see if I will retreat. Either way, you're not going to like what happens to you.

[CitizenBBN]

And why the f#%k should it be a damn requirement that if I am or feel threatened that "I" should be the one that is forced to retreat? What kind of bassakwards train of thought is that?
I swear to God people, we need to seriously start thinning the herd out here, and I know exactly where to start.


This. That's the problem, and the reason for the laws. Why is it the obligation of the innocent law abiding person who did nothing wrong to run away from the criminal?

What was happening was they'd break into your home, you had an obligation to retreat so you have to run to your bedroom, they take your TV and get away. That's Holder's and the NAACP's view of how things should work, and the only reason I can figure they think it's a racial issue is they figure it's a black guy stealing a white guy's TV, and how racist can you get to hold that view?

So the laws have changed to express the view of most Americans that the innocent person has no obligation to run away and give the criminal the ground. What Holder wants is a "criminal first" America where avoiding any physical harm to anyone is the most important thing. What is the most important thing to most Americans is ending crime. Despite being in charge of that for the nation he seems to not care about actual crime at all.

[Doc]

The next issue will be whether Zimmerman violated Martins civil rights. Here our gov't is way off based and falls into the political witch hunt category. I will say that if that happens, its not something that our president will support. Some won't believe that but I'm sure that to be the case. Any continued attempts to take this to a civil liberties violation is 100% DOJ and not directed by the White House.

[Doc]

I'm not getting the Stand your Ground in this either. Its was "self defense" defense. Much like the white racist killing a black kid, the narrative does not fit the facts.

[CitizenBBN]

That's why I know this "stand your ground" thing isn't about race or the outrage of this trial -- there was no "stand your ground" used. Beyond the fact that Zimmerman claimed he was retreating before the fight started (and with no evidence to the contrary a conviction would be difficult), Florida's SYG statute is a defense for pulling the trigger, and at the time the trigger was pulled Zimmerman had someone sitting on his chest and had no option to retreat. Even in a state with a retreat policy he could have easily been found not guilty and it ruled self defense.

SYG doesn't cover Zimmerman following Martin or any of the parts that are really in dispute. Unless by "retreat" Holder means you have an obligation to not even verbally question someone you think is possibly engaging in criminal activity.

thats the thinking that got those laws removed and SYG put in place in the first place. One too many prosecutors charging one too many battered women and one too many innocent home owners with murder.

[Doc]

IMO the attack on SYG isn't so much an attack on SYG as it is gun ownership. This is a simple case of never letting a crisis go to waste. The administration has an agenda and its one that wants to severely limit gun access. While SYG isn't necessarily about gun ownership it is about guns and anything that can be used to present guns ownership in a bad light isn't going to be passed on. Most people in this country are not informed enough to differentiate which is what the administration banks on.

[CitizenBBN]

IMO the attack on SYG isn't so much an attack on SYG as it is gun ownership. This is a simple case of never letting a crisis go to waste. The administration has an agenda and its one that wants to severely limit gun access. While SYG isn't necessarily about gun ownership it is about guns and anything that can be used to present guns ownership in a bad light isn't going to be passed on. Most people in this country are not informed enough to differentiate which is what the administration banks on.

Absolutely this is what it's about. If you are going to be charged with murder if you use your carry gun, that sure goes a long way to eliminating carry guns. By putting carry at a legal disadvantage it effectively limits gun use and thus ownership. the vast majority of growth we saw in gun ownership the last 6-8 months has been people deciding to conceal carry a firearm. They know it, and this is about trying to stop the ranks of gun owners from expanding like they have been since Obama's 2nd term started.

This is all part of the broader anti-gun movement. They didn't give up when the Senate failed to pass background checks. As long as Obama is in office this will be an all out multi-front war in every state house and federal agency. This is just one more front in the broad battle over guns. I have to follow it pretty closely now, and at both the federal and state levels we're seeing historic levels of conflict on this issue.

Bloomberg is personally financing campaigns against at least 3 key US Senators, playing for the long term to get the votes for the anti-gun legislation, and that can't possibly happen for more than another year and a half. They're playing for the long term now, the time between the 2014 off election and the end of Obama's 2nd term.

[CitizenBBN]

Nice numbers on the Florida Stand Your Ground defense and how there IS a racial bias, that FAVORS black defendants

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/

From context I think "victim" in the last statement means the person shot.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good pandering Mr. Holder.

[Darrell KSR]

First, Zimmerman claims he DID retreat. "Stand your ground" wasn't even an issue in this case beyond simplistic media understanding.

I barely followed the case, but I didn't think Stand your ground was an issue at all. Go figure that they would use it as a rallying cry nonetheless.

[CitizenBBN]

I barely followed the case, but I didn't think Stand your ground was an issue at all. Go figure that they would use it as a rallying cry nonetheless.

Wasn't mentioned by the defense and wasn't any part of the legal basis of their defense. It only would have applied if Zimmerman had shot Martin while Martin was approaching him. Once he was tackled on the ground there was no retreat or stand your ground issue at all. It got passing mention in the jury instructions apparently, instructions that were dozens of pages long, and that was b/c it's part of the overall self defense statute that had to be covered.

That's OK. In Chicago in response to gun violence they banned more guns that have never actually been used in any of the 1,000s of shootings they have every year. It's a whole party of irrelevant policy action. :)

[kritikalcat]

As CBBN said, the defense didn't raise Stand Your Ground as issue, but it was part of the jury instructions. Also, two other relevant aspects of the FL stand your ground statute. 1. Zimmerman had a right to a Stand Your Ground hearing which he waived. 2. The statute has an immunity from civil liability provision which he can invoke as a defense against any civil lawsuit brought (in state court only I assume) by Martin's family/estate.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/19/obama-addresses-trayvon-martin-case-in-briefing-room/

[CitizenBBN]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/19/obama-addresses-trayvon-martin-case-in-briefing-room/

"If we're sending a message as a society ... that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?" Obama said.

In short: Yes.

Why? B/c it's working in this country damned sight better than the method you support Mr. President, which we see on display in Chicago, a city where innocent people are gunned down EVERY SINGLE DAY because they cannot be armed to defend themselves and are forced to capitulate (retreat) to criminals in their own homes. How's your "peace and security" plan working out there?

Yes I want that message, that when you go to threaten someone or take a swing at them or beat them up b/c you didn't like what they said, think that they may be armed and will have a legal right to shoot you if you start swinging. That's exactly the message I want.

Obama and his ilk want the innocent law abiding person who is BEING threatened to retreat. "Stand your ground" is all about the criminal who is doing the threatening having the obligation to retreat. Or else.

One gives the presumption of law to the aggressor, who may be charged with a crime later but which assures him it's very unlikely any physical harm will come to him if he pursues his course of aggression. The other gives presumption of law to the person being attacked, putting the risk of harm back on the person who is going to cause the violence in the first place.

So do we encourage aggression by telling the aggressor that we've legally done what we can to guarantee the victim won't hurt him, or do we discourage aggression by telling the aggressor that if attacks someone he may not live to tell about it?

So yes Mr. president that is EXACTLY the message I want being sent in this country. We are an armed citizenry that can defend itself so it is time to stop this assault on our liberties, our lives and our property or we will take the necessary steps ourselves to stop it.

In those states where that message is being sent crime is falling like a rock, and as those message expand crime recedes. In places where your method of "peace" is in effect people live in constant fear for their lives and property and liberties. one is a message of self reliance and individualism. One is a message of government dependence as we wait for your magnanimous protection. One works. One doesn't.

[blueboss]

"If we're sending a message as a society ... that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?" Obama said.

In short: Yes.

Why? B/c it's working in this country damned sight better than the method you support Mr. President, which we see on display in Chicago, a city where innocent people are gunned down EVERY SINGLE DAY because they cannot be armed to defend themselves and are forced to capitulate (retreat) to criminals in their own homes. How's your "peace and security" plan working out there?

Yes I want that message, that when you go to threaten someone or take a swing at them or beat them up b/c you didn't like what they said, think that they may be armed and will have a legal right to shoot you if you start swinging. That's exactly the message I want.

Obama and his ilk want the innocent law abiding person who is BEING threatened to retreat. "Stand your ground" is all about the criminal who is doing the threatening having the obligation to retreat. Or else.

One gives the presumption of law to the aggressor, who may be charged with a crime later but which assures him it's very unlikely any physical harm will come to him if he pursues his course of aggression. The other gives presumption of law to the person being attacked, putting the risk of harm back on the person who is going to cause the violence in the first place.

So do we encourage aggression by telling the aggressor that we've legally done what we can to guarantee the victim won't hurt him, or do we discourage aggression by telling the aggressor that if attacks someone he may not live to tell about it?

So yes Mr. president that is EXACTLY the message I want being sent in this country. We are an armed citizenry that can defend itself so it is time to stop this assault on our liberties, our lives and our property or we will take the necessary steps ourselves to stop it.

In those states where that message is being sent crime is falling like a rock, and as those message expand crime recedes. In places where your method of "peace" is in effect people live in constant fear for their lives and property and liberties. one is a message of self reliance and individualism. One is a message of government dependence as we wait for your magnanimous protection. One works. One doesn't.

:rockon: That's a keeper right there.

[KeithKSR]

I'm not getting the Stand your Ground in this either. Its was "self defense" defense. Much like the white racist killing a black kid, the narrative does not fit the facts.

It is the media and agenda politicians who are driving the narratives that do not fit facts.

Based on the evidence presented one could conclude that Martin was the racist in the incident. A black 17 year old calling Zimmerman a cracker is equivalent to a white guy calling Martin the N word. The "civil rights activists" make Zimmerman out to be a racists, even though those same activists are some of the most blatant racists that you will find.

In that same way stand your ground is turned into an issue that did not come into play during the trial, or judge's instructions.

[TNCat]

So lets just tell criminals they have nothing to worry about and open season. Holder is so easy to read, he is pathetic and possibly the worst AG ever and for sure in my lifetime. IMO he is a racist, doesn't really care about the law, it is all about his wants and opinions. I will be so thankful when this administration is tossed out on their ass

I cannot ever remember an entire administration with such a disregard of our laws, our constitution, states rights, our citizens, business, our allies, the economy, and world affairs. It is a total disgrace to our country and the people

As the father of a bi-racial child, I could not agree with you any more. I am white, but I'm keenly aware of racial issues. This administration (Holder included), has set back race relations for years. You can't right the wrongs of the past by disregarding the law. I thought it was a great day in our history where we overcame the issues of the past and elected a black president who insisted that we needed to move beyond color. Unfortunately, I was not aware of what a racist Obama really is. He can talk all he wants to about racial profiling, but he, along with the African-American leadership, are too quick to protest and too slow to deal with the underlying issues in the African-American community. I'm sorry if I offend any black folks on the board, but it is time that we all work together to solve issues in the inter-city and in rural America. In both cases, we truly need to put race aside and help people find ways to accept personal responsibility for their own well being and to stop the victim mentality. Whe need to give people opportunity, not handouts (except that we need to help care for those that truly can not care for themselves.)

I'm an advocate of helping all folks find a way to educate themselves. I was fortunate to receive Pell grants which helped me get a college education. That was a really good investment as I have been fortunate to have paid back that investment many fold in the taxes that I have paid. It is not just college. We need to foster a culture of self reliance.

[jazyd]

Doc, I know you are not a gun person so thanks for writing the truth which I always appreciate from you


QUOTE=Doc;98519]IMO the attack on SYG isn't so much an attack on SYG as it is gun ownership. This is a simple case of never letting a crisis go to waste. The administration has an agenda and its one that wants to severely limit gun access. While SYG isn't necessarily about gun ownership it is about guns and anything that can be used to present guns ownership in a bad light isn't going to be passed on. Most people in this country are not informed enough to differentiate which is what the administration banks on.[/QUOTE]