Schumer calls for federal probe of 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Florida shooting

reply to post by Golf66


www.nytimes.com...

Actually it does work. Pretty well even. I dont see where you get your "Not so hot".

A case of "lets just say it is that way, nobody is gonna check anyway wether I lie or not?"

This isnt about gungrabbing. I am all for having an organised militia to fight off Tyranny/invasion. Sure would have helped the Europeans. But in times of peace keep them guns holstered and buy a decent gun cabinet before you trick out your gun.

And some training so the shooter can go for 24 hours without a twinkie would not hurt either.

Schumer is a dual-citizen Zionist piece of trash out of Hell that wants nothing but the utter destruction of the United States. I pray for a swift heart attack for this servant of Satan.

I support the stand your ground law.
They will never let a good crisis
go to waste. They need to leave the law alone.
People have every right to defend themselves.
They can take that federal probe and stick it up
there ___ ____ ___

Shouldnt the pro gun case here be that Trayvon was just armed with skittles? If he would have been packing he might be alive now and Zimmerman, who pursued him, dead. Actually other laws than stand your ground might legalise the use of deadly force in that situation. Even the people who defend stand your ground say it does not apply in Zimmermans case, although it probably does, because it does nowhere say that you cant be the pursuer.

Originally posted by Cassius666

www.nytimes.com...

Actually it does work. Pretty well even. I dont see where you get your "Not so hot".

A case of "lets just say it is that way, nobody is gonna check anyway wether I lie or not?"

This isnt about gungrabbing.

Right, your "evidence" clearly says that crime is down how did they put it...oh yea in all regions of the country. Shock - even those parts that have the dreaded lax gun law - castle/stand your ground doctrine. So this really isn't making your point that NY is some shining bastion of safety in the states because of its stricter gun laws and restrictions on the use of force in self defense.

In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States. Small towns, especially, are seeing far fewer murders: In cities with populations under 10,000, the number plunged by more than 25 percent last year.

Actually in this part it appears that population density has more to do with crime than gun laws and self defense statutes... Especially when it comes to murder.

Oh here this must be where the article talks about how great NY is...

The news was not as positive in New York City, however. After leading a long decline in crime rates, the city saw increases in all four types of violent lawbreaking — murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault — including a nearly 14 percent rise in murders. But data from the past few months suggest the city’s upward trend may have slowed or stopped.

The number of rapes in New York City jumped 24.5 percent; robberies, 5.4 percent, and aggravated assaults, 3.2 percent.

New York was the only city with more than a million people besides San Antonio with an increase in the total number of violent crimes — a 4.6 percent jump, to 48,489 — and the only one besides Philadelphia to see a rise in murders.

No that can't be right.... That says crime is going up there while in the rest of the country - the parts that both have and do not have the same strict laws on gun control and use of force restrictions. Not proving very much actually.

Ah, finally I found this irrevocable proof that I; how'd you put it..oh, that I lied...

Some experts cautioned against reading too much into the city’s numbers, noting that New York’s drop in violent crime over the last two decades has far outpaced many places, some of which are only now catching up.

Oh I see there it is in the last 20 years the crime rate in NY has been dropping. I am afraid you can make the case that this has just as much to do with the enthusiasm of the local prosecutors to enforce the law as the existence of the laws themselves.

When a place is a hub of violent crime to begin with there is really nowhere to go but up so this is - frankly, not very compelling.

Now here's an article that kind of says the opposite of what you are saying. That relaxed gun control is directly related to a drop in violent crime.

Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C.

Politicians predicted disaster. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.

Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would "go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets . . . ."

The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court's "unwise" decision that there is a right for people "to keep guns in the home."

But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Enjoy - though in reality we all know that 89% of all statistics are 99% BS. I can make any set of stats say almost anything I want it to.

Originally posted by Cassius666
This isnt about gungrabbing.

Thanks for playing the this is not gungrabbing game but I think your “evidence fails to compel me.

In closing – yeah, it’s a gungrabing game…

P.S. NY can have whatever laws its citizens want – just don’t bring them where I live. I have never been to NY and could live my whole life and never go and be just fine. Cess pool of humanity. YMMV of course.

reply to post by Golf66


No its not dumbo. You can still keep your gun, you just cant go cause a fight and then shoot somone.

Also you did not touch on the second bit how conventient that with the quote button you can pick and choose what to quote after some editing and deleting and then go on posting drunkily.

Shouldnt the pro gun case here be that Trayvon was only armed with skittles? Had he been packing who knows, he could be alive now and instead Zimmerman, the one who pursued Treyvon when he had not buisness to do so, could be the one full of holes.

By all means, if Trayvon had a gun, he might be the one invoking the Stand Your Ground law as a defense for shooting Zimmerman, who kept shadowing him even after the police told him to stop.

Considering that Zimmerman had been following Martin gratuitously and for several minutes and apparently for more than a block (I wish someone would find and post these precise details), Martin might well have become worried that Zimmerman was up to no good, and that might explain why Martin turned on Zimmerman.

The Stand Your Ground defense really doesn't work for Zimmerman as he was not standing but pursuing, nor was he on his own ground. But the mere existence of the law may have encouraged Zimmerman to be incautious and too "Dodge City", whereas the old self-defense standard of "retreat to the wall" might have avoided this tragedy.

Originally posted by Shoonra
By all means, if Trayvon had a gun, he might be the one invoking the Stand Your Ground law as a defense for shooting Zimmerman, who kept shadowing him even after the police told him to stop.

Considering that Zimmerman had been following Martin gratuitously and for several minutes and apparently for more than a block (I wish someone would find and post these precise details), Martin might well have become worried that Zimmerman was up to no good, and that might explain why Martin turned on Zimmerman.

The Stand Your Ground defense really doesn't work for Zimmerman as he was not standing but pursuing, nor was he on his own ground. But the mere existence of the law may have encouraged Zimmerman to be incautious and too "Dodge City", whereas the old self-defense standard of "retreat to the wall" might have avoided this tragedy.

Where does it say the law does not apply to Zimmermann because he was the one in pursuit? Nowhere. Isnt that one of the reasons the law is under fire?

Originally posted by Cassius666

No its not dumbo. You can still keep your gun, you just can’t go cause a fight and then shoot someone.

Also you did not touch on the second bit how convenient that with the quote button you can pick and choose what to quote after some editing and deleting and then go on posting drunkily.

Shouldn’t the pro gun case here be that Trayvon was only armed with skittles? Had he been packing who knows, he could be alive now and instead Zimmerman, the one who pursued Treyvon when he had not buisness to do so, could be the one full of holes.

Dumbo? I declare you winner at the internet’s for that one…I feel so - chided.

K, thanks...

Anyway in one of my previous posts in the thread I stated that Zimmerman was likely in the wrong because he followed the kid in the first place. I hate to do a man (or woman's) research for them but I provided links to the FL law on the justified use of force.

This states....
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So as I stated before - this law (the FL current law on justifiable force) could be interpreted in this situation to not give Zimmerman the justification to use force because his initial disregard for the advice of emergency services personnel led to the escalation of the event.

However, under paragraph (2)(b) it could be that as is alleged Zimmerman broke off pursuit and was then jumped by Martin which would allow him to claim the affirmative defense under this statute.

Neither you nor I know if that is the case - one of the two people who know for sure is dead. The evidence (physical and empirical is being collected and will be reviewed in time by those with the authority to do so. I am cool with that.

As for my original argument this case has zero to do with the stand your ground clause and everything to do with the opportunity to exploit a crisis to grab more federal control of States rights.

Again – nice try. In the case to which you refer I think we agree that Zimmerman may have acted outside the law. I trust the system will work it all out. It’s an issue for the people and the courts in FL – not NY and Schmuck Schumer.

However, you want to impose NY law on all the States – I am not a federalist. Let the people of the other States worry about their laws. You all do what works for you in NY. I could care less what happens there.

Take guns, tax people to oblivion - let people marry dogs I don't really care. Not my city, not my State. I don't want to live there....

But for god's sakethink my Missouri Senator should get on the band wagon and see why the city hasn't taken care of the pressing issue of excess salt in the soup the homeless consume.

By all means we must get on that pressing issue - lets make it national too... I can't imagine how Chuck can find the time to worry about other matters with things like that afoot in the city.

Please NY is a joke.

reply to post by Golf66


In dubio pro reo, with that in mind the law is essentially a license to kill, unless there is video and audio of the incident available and even then its up for debate.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Golf66

 

In dubio pro reo, with that in mind the law is essentially a license to kill, unless there is video and audio of the incident available and even then its up for debate.

I don't see it that way - the legislators in the State of FL don't think so. I would wager a good many of them are lawyers as well. The legislators in the State of Missouri don't think so - I know there's a crap load (way too many) lawyers in that group. That's good enough for me.

Feel free to inflict your interpretation to the people you represent in your State or city, or county wherever you can make and interpret law - we don't need it here thanks. Unless you want to run for office here in Missouri that is - say a national level office - POTUS maybe.

In that case I would not recommend a platform of stricter gun control and less rights for a person in a case of self defense. You might get mileage in NY with that stuff not here where country folk like their guns and their rights. We are fine without you or Schmuck Schumer - thanks!

It is all adding up.
With each announcement*
and people coming out
using zimmerman as the
fall out guy trying to hang him
for their own agenda!!
screw these idiots.
Here is biden coming for the guns
www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=13805088#pid13805088

Once again knuckleheads, stand your ground has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.