Then Senator Obama Voted to Strengthen Illinois Stand Your Ground Law 2004

In 2004, Senator Obama not only voted for a bill to expand Illinois Stand Your Ground law .. he CO-SPONSORED IT. Considering Obama's record of voting 'present' ... the fact that he not only voted for something but co-sponsored it is pretty big.

National Review - Obama Voted to Strengthen Illinois Stand Your Ground Law 2004

But the Illinois Review says Obama didn’t seem to have any of those concerns when in 2004 he co-sponsored S.B. 2386, which broadened the state’s Stand Your Ground law “by shielding the person who was attacked from being sued in civil court by perpetrators or their estates when a ’stand your ground’ defense is used in protecting his or her person, dwelling or other property.”

S.B. 2386 passed the Illinois state senate by a 56–0 vote on March 25, 2004. It sailed through the state house with only two “nay” votes. Both chambers were controlled by Democrats.

Stand Your Ground laws weren’t always much of a partisan issue. Florida’s law passed in 2005 after being approved unanimously in the state senate and on a 94–20 vote in the state house.

Why did he want it expanded you may ask? We could get a clue from what happens in Florida now. Stand Your Ground benefits the black population at a disproportionate level. If it's that way in Florida, then it most likely is that way in Chicago which has a much higher crime rate.

Daily Caller

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

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.

So why did Obama .. just 9 years ago ... co-sponsor a bill to expand Stand Your Ground .. but now he is so against it? Getting in line with the race baiters perhaps? Maybe. At any rate .. not too long ago he felt strong enough in favor of Stand Your Ground to sponsor a bill expanding it.

Does Illinois Have a Stand Your Ground Law?

Yes. Article 7 of the Illinois Criminal Code includes a law that is similar to Florida. It’s a “self-defense” that can defeat both criminal and civil liability.

The three main parts of the Illinois law apply to the use of force: “in defense of person,” “in defense of dwelling,” and “in defense of other property.”

The “force” the law refers to is force applied to other people, and comes in 2 different levels: regular or deadly.

Liberal sites are claiming that Obama didn't vote for 'Stand Your Ground' ... because it wasn't a law by that exact name. But the fact is .. Obama co-sponsored and voted for what Stand Your Ground is. No amount of far left wing squirming can change the truth of that.

You have to admit all the animosity geared toward SYG laws is only the government, and the police are suppose to come save you.

Your not suppose to have guns, your not suppose to protect yourself so then why are people still dying in this country?

Basically they want a disarmed populace easier to control, and manipulate them.

Obama has endless hypocrisy with regards to this issue, from his kill lists, his droning of other people, to his gun running to south of the border, to his arming terrorist, and despot alike in the ME.

I don't get why guns are bad in our hands, how someone protecting themselves from other people in this country can be so massively spun like it is.

It is simply astounding how the left in one breathe will say government can't be trusted then turn around and cry ' please save us from all the baddies'.

That is one quite hypocrtical lot.

Whats new here?

Create the problem, than bitch about it, sounds like typical Politician BS.

More proof that all career politicians should be thrown out of office or worse.

Reply to post by benrl

Elections should be like witch trials. We'll bind the candidates arms and legs then toss into the sea. If they sink they win the election. If they float they lose and are punished by burning at the stake.

A few of those elections and the problem should go away.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by benrl

 

Elections should be like witch trials. We'll bind the candidates arms and legs then toss into the sea. If they sink they win the election. If they float they lose and are punished by burning at the stake.

A few of those elections and the problem should go away.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Well, that could work,

Term limits and lobbying reform could work too, just sayin.

Reply to post by benrl

Awww thats no fun.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by FlyersFan


When Big-O came out unannounced and made his latest comments on SYG,

nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com...

it seemed so scattered I almost agree with those who claim he was pushed to say "something" and it came out half-hearted. He knew what his history on this issue was.

www.theblaze.com...

Sure we can argue SYG differs from castle laws in some respects but it so what? That misses the point. The President's supporters want him to enthusiastically support something he does not believe in evident by his actions.

Yeah, that's life as a politician but I am tired of the Pro-O crowd just assuming he naturally can be their knight in shining armor for every ridiculous cause. What if he ain't? I am not fan of the man (nor his recent predecessors) but come on folks. Stop looking to dude as the second coming.

reply to post by FlyersFan

In 2004, Senator Obama not only voted for a bill to expand Illinois Stand Your Ground law .. he CO-SPONSORED IT. Considering Obama's record of voting 'present' ... the fact that he not only voted for something but co-sponsored it is pretty big.

No he didn't.

The Illinois bill modified the 'your home is your castle' law that says you are allowed to defend your home, property, and person "in your home". It is pretty safe to say that ALL states have similar laws, and have had for a very long time; in Arizona, an acquaintance of mine successfully claimed self-defense when he killed a would be rapist attacking his wife, almost 50 years ago. The original Illinois bill was from 1961 and it would have replaced something older than that.

The Florida 'stand your ground' bill is designed to allow you to take the law into your own hands ANYWHERE and they are 'proud' to claim their bill as the first in the nation.

Why then have so many got it so wrong for so long if the Illinois law is the same as Florida's if it has been around since at least 1961? Why was the Zimmerman case the first challenge anywhere? There must have been countless opportunities for murderers to claim it as a defense; isn't Chicago one of the murder capitals of the U.S.?

The Florida law is a abomination in a civilized society and needs to be got rid of before people start getting shot over parking lot fender benders.

reply to post by rnaa


Isn't Obama just stood up there for comic relief anymore - to distract from what's really going on in the country, and the world?

We have no economic policy, we have no foreign policy, All the US has now is distraction - and the looting of the american people.

The Obama administration makes things up as it goes along - no employee mandate for obamacare (but they're going to take tax refund money from people without insurance?)

What policy in Syria? in Egypt? When obama and mccain are both wanting to pour billions to "whoever?" in Syria - one really has to wonder.

Trayvon and Zimmerman - black and hispanic - illegal amnesty and tax money for mexicans? Amnesty for mexicans that join the military to be killed in the middle east?

Things are so out of control - it's not funny anymore.

reply to post by rnaa


In Illinois, the law does not include a duty to retreat, which courts have interpreted as a right to expansive self-defense.
The IL. law. can be read here.
www.ilga.gov...
Here are states that have S Y G laws:
Alabama,Arizona,Florida,Georgia,Indiana,Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma,Pennsylvania,Tennessee,Texas,Utah.
And a link so you can click on each state and educate yourself about the law of each state.
criminal.findlaw.com...

I haven't read much about us Americans shooting each other at a finder bender, but yes we do have Road Rage.
But, I did notice you are listed as being either from Australia or living there.
No-matter, don't expect us to follow like sheep and cower under our covers hoping the Police arrive in time to save us or our families.
For all you people out there that really believe gun laws keep you safe!

reply to post by guohua

I haven't read much about us Americans shooting each other at a finder bender, but yes we do have Road Rage.

Not yet anyway. Somebody being threatened in a road rage incident is going to shoot someone and use this SYG law as a defense.

You always have a right to self-defense, but that is not a license to kill.

But, I did notice you are listed as being either from Australia or living there.

And the fact that I live in Australia is relevant, because?

Does my profile also tell you where I was born and what my citizenship status is? Did my original post give you any clues at all? Does the ability to think stop at the U.S. border?

reply to post by rnaa

Does the ability to think stop at the U.S. border?

No, it's not. Our laws our our laws and we're not about to be disarmed to make another country feel better about us or themselves.
If you're so Touchy about the: Location: Australia,,,,,,,
But this thread is not about You or the poor disarmed citizens of Australia, it's about the S Y G law and how each and every state should have the exact same law or a form of that law for it's citizens to to protect themselves, family and property from anyone, no-matter their skin color.

Here's a sad story, just maybe if the state of Connecticut.

Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and her daughters, 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela, were killed during a July 23, 2007, home invasion carried out by Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky.

abcnews.go.com...

reply to post by FlyersFan

As Slate's Dave Weigel pointed out the morning of July 22, that claim should have triggered "alarm bells" for more credible journalists, because "Florida was pretty famously the first state to pass a 'stand your ground' law, a year after this Illinois bill."

Reviewing the text of the bill Obama supported, Weigel found that it was actually a tweak to self-defense laws that only apply when a person is defending their property, a far narrower provision that wouldn't have applied in the Zimmerman case. The entire basis of the Illinois Review story -- that Obama had hypocritically criticized Stand Your Ground laws after previously supporting one -- was false.

Unfortunately, the "alarm bells" didn't ring for the conservative media.

mediamatters.org...

You are falsely equating the CASTLE DOCTERINE with STAND YOUR GROUND.

[Obama] backed a tweak to the "castle doctrine," which reads like this:

A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with her real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.



"Stand your ground" takes the concept of the castle doctrine and turns it into a traveling force field of sorts. Here's Florida's language:


A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

LINK

Before you start with the typical nonsense...The above is the actual language of the law Obama tweaked in 2004 and the stand your ground law in Florida.

The difference is one is limited to defending your property...the other involves a bubble of space wherever you go.

thats the facts.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Liberal sites are claiming that Obama didn't vote for 'Stand Your Ground' ... because it wasn't a law by that exact name. But the fact is .. Obama co-sponsored and voted for what Stand Your Ground is. No amount of far left wing squirming can change the truth of that.

S&F
Good to see you FlyersFan. I haven't spent too much time on ATS lately. I guess I've gotten so discouraged by what is happening in the country, I feel that not many seem to care. Anyway, I saw this news item on Drudge, and chuckled a little. (What else can you do, when no one really gives a hoot). Anyway, this fraud of a POTUS is a complete moron; like Pelosi, he doesn't even know what he is for, or against. I guess he had to pass it before he found out what was in it. I'm not quite sure if the MSM controls what he does, or visa versa. The point is that they are both marching to the same drum, and that drum is drowning out the sounds of freedom. The worst crime of the Obama administration, other than the destruction of the Constitution, of course) is the fact that they have set race relations back 50 years. They have apparently calculated that race division gets them more votes than cooperation between races, so I guess unless something drastically changes, we're in for race riots, violence, and eventually, rebellion by the "silent majority".

reply to post by guohua

If you're so Touchy about the: Location: Australia,,,,,,,

I'm not touchy at all. The fact is that I am a natural born citizen of the USA who happens to be living in Australia at the moment. You are the one that made it an issue. How would you react if I made an issue of your handle, assumed it was your name and questioned your 'authority' to discuss the topic?

I have experience with self defense laws in the USA, as I said in my first post, a good friend was forced to defend himself and his wife with deadly force. The self defense law in Arizona worked just fine 40 years ago before the SYG.

SYG is not adding anything at all to your safety above 'traditional' self-defense laws. It is giving a license to murder to borderline psycopaths who can claim that they felt threatened for any reason what-so-ever - and that is absolutely making you less safe than ever before.

But this thread is not about You or the poor disarmed citizens of Australia,

The citizens of Australia are neither poor nor disarmed.

reply to post by rnaa

How would you react if I made an issue of your handle, assumed it was your name and questioned your 'authority' to discuss the topic?

This has nothing to do with the thread.
I did not make an issue about your Handle or assume it was your name. Where did you get that from:

But, I did notice you are listed as being either from Australia or living there.

You do seem to be

If you're so Touchy about the: Location: Australia,,,,,,,

Maybe you shouldn't be so,,, All About Yourself and gun laws you don't agree with, you can't change them.
But you can continue to live in States that regulate your right to protect yourself, that should make you feel safe and not worry to much about getting shot at your next fender - bender.
You could stay in Australia.
If you wish to trust your life and your families life to the Police arriving in time, that's your choice to make.
If you fear law abiding citizens with guns and you believe that because the Law Abiding Citizen has a gun they will become, how did you but it? Oh Yes,,,

It is giving a license to murder to borderline psycopaths who can claim that they felt threatened for any reason what-so-ever - and that is absolutely making you less safe than ever before.

reply to post by Indigo5

The difference is one is limited to defending your property...the other involves a bubble of space wherever you go.

yeah kinda only that bubble of space is generally called a PERSON.

Castle doctrine protects property and persons on specific property whereas SYG permits defending your person, while engaged in lawful activity in zones not otherwise designated as gun-free.

so, what's with your opinion that a person only needs to protect themselves at home ?

does violent crime visit 'home' frequently ? or random people doing normal deeds ?

Originally posted by Honor93

Castle doctrine protects property and persons on specific property whereas SYG permits defending your person, while engaged in lawful activity in zones not otherwise designated as gun-free.

Guns are a seperate issue in the law that Obama signed. It spoke to lethal force...whatever the weapon.

And in the difference is between PRIVATE property and public. The difference between defending yourself during a home invasion, or car jacking...vs. pursuing someone in public with your "bubble" defense strategy or "self-defense" following you.

Honestly, if you are unaware of the "Castle Docterine" and the difference between "Stand Your Ground"...then I don't have the time to educate. Maybe research on your own? Otherwise your inquiry appears more troll than sincere...aka...Night is day, please prove otherwise.

Originally posted by guohua

If you fear law abiding citizens with guns and you believe that because the Law Abiding Citizen has a gun they will become, how did you but it? Oh Yes,,,

Just had to comment...The vast majority of gun-control advocates in the states do not fear "Law Abiding Citizens" with guns, they fear the lax regulation that permits folks unqualified...or apt to break the law...to obtain guns. Zimmerman applied to become a police officer in Virginia and was rejected, but alas, he was still able to purchase a gun, play cop, pursue an unamrmed, innocent boy and gun him down without consequences.

Everyone is law-abiding until they aren't. With that reality it would be good to have some discretion as to whom we allow to "play cop" with real world lethal consequences.

reply to post by Indigo5

actually, they aren't.
lethal force is still lethal force regardless how it's applied.

in a gun-free zone, many forms of lethal force can still be administered. however, the Castle doctrine certainly includes the use of guns as an accepted lethal force.

private property and public ???
are you serious ?

which part of the castle doctrine permits use of lethal force in public spaces ??

wrong again ... castle = property and persons on said property.
stand your ground = persons, wherever they are lawfully present unless otherwise designated.

"following" anyone is completely lawful.
stalking someone is still a crime.

"self-defense" is an absolute right in every situation, this is undisputable.

i'm not unaware at all ... i'm lawfully armed and likely following somebody, somewhere.
doesn't matter if it's on the sidewalk, the grocery or the highway ... it's my right and i will be exercising it.

any wannabe thugs who assault me will meet a similar (although more rapid) fate.