[smoothy]

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things... Like my friend Henry, I too have no problem with the verdict, and I too don't think there's grounds for civil rights charges.

Nonetheless, stand your ground needs to be repealed. It's a license to kill black people.

Prior to stand your ground, our self defense laws allowed you to kill, if you had NO OTHER OPTION.. Stand your ground allows you to kill even if you HAVE OTHER OPTIONS. If you have a SAFE avenue of escape, sticking around to "stand your ground" ISN'T about self defense.. It's about kicking some a$$.

excon

Ok cripes... its a lisces to kill people before they can kill you... if it HAPPENS to be a black person tryuing to kill you... then so be it... they have no more right to try to kill you than a Hispanic.. an Asian, a white person or any other ethnic group does.

How about the black community learning committing crimes isn't a cultural thing or a cultural right... its a lack of respect thing.
And anyone that lacks the respect for others that feels this need to assault other people... usually smaller than they are... really deserves to get shot for not picking someone who is a closer physical match to themselves to assault.

But go ahead... without a stand your grould women won't be allowed to defend themselves against rapists either... they should just run home and hide there instead... assuming they can even get away..

I'm curious what part of the Stand your ground law allows us to single out blacks excusively to murder since you made that claim. Here all this time we could have been making money rounding up hunting expeditions to the inner cities for the good ole boys...

[talaniman]

Lol, I can see where stand your ground makes you feel better, or like Clint Eastwood, "Make my day punk!', except you shoot first and justify it with "I was scared for my life". Feels good to shoot anyone who scares you doesn't it?

[smoothy]

It allows you to defend yourself from the Punks like treyvon who have no use or respect for the law..

You know they people that actually DO deserve to die... because they don't have respect for others.


But then.. I hope the people who fight AGAINT the stand your ground laws... get their butts kicked bu thugs larger than they are... because after all... you don't have the right to defend yourself... same with your daughters, girlfriends and wives too. THey should just lay down and do whatever they are told. Because the rights of the criminal excede the rights of the law abiding citizen.

[excon]

Hello again, smoothy:

Here's a short lesson on self defense laws. These were the laws BEFORE stand your ground displaced them..

If threatened, and there's a safe avenue of escape, you MUST take it. If there's NO safe avenue of escape, you may use deadly force to protect your life and property..

I'm sure you'll IGNORE this because it doesn't fit your pictures, but I thought I'd help you out and tell you what's so.

excon

[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:

Here's a short lesson on self defense laws. These were the laws BEFORE stand your ground displaced them..

If threatened, and there's a safe avenue of escape, you MUST take it. If there's NO safe avenue of escape, you may use deadly force to protect your life and property..

I'm sure you'll IGNORE this because it doesn't fit your pictures, but I thought I'd help you out and tell you what's so.

excon

Yeah... protect the criminals rights... this is what happens when the bullies in high school grow up and get elected politition... because thugs and bullies never pick on a bigger guy... they always pick on the smaller or older and weaker person.

Only a democrat would think the criminal has greater rights than the innoicent person.

How about if the criminals respect the law and other people and they won't be getting shot in the first place? Or do they just lack the mental capaicty do do that?

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things... Like my friend Henry, I too have no problem with the verdict, and I too don't think there's grounds for civil rights charges.

Nonetheless, stand your ground needs to be repealed. It's a license to kill black people.

Prior to stand your ground, our self defense laws allowed you to kill, if you had NO OTHER OPTION.. Stand your ground allows you to kill even if you HAVE OTHER OPTIONS. If you have a SAFE avenue of escape, sticking around to "stand your ground" ISN'T about self defense.. It's about kicking some a$$.

Excon

I get it, you guys didn't get the desired outcome of the trial forced by activists with the aide of the feds so the next best thing is attack SYG and distort it just like you did the whole tragedy.

The false narrative also makes it axiomatic that a black man in Zimmerman’s shoes wouldn’t stand a chance—especially if he had shot someone white. Never mind examples to the contrary, such as a 2009 case in Rochester, New York in which a black man, Roderick Scott, shot and killed an unarmed white teenager and was acquitted. Scott, who had caught 17-year-old Christopher Cervini and two other boys breaking into a car, said that the boy charged him and he feared for his life.

What about general patterns? In the New Republic article, Ford cites a report in the Tampa Bay Times showing that “stand your ground” self-defense claims in Florida are more successful for defendants who kill a black person (73 percent face no penalty, compared to 59 percent of those who kill a white person). But he leaves out a salient detail: since most homicides involve people of the same race, this also means more black defendants go free. Nor does he mention that another article based on the same study of “stand your ground” cases noted “no obvious bias” in the treatment of black defendants—or mixed-race homicides: “Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.”

Read more: How the Media Has Distorted a Tragedy | RealClearPolitics
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Of course you libs want America to believe that in reality most don't try to avoid confrontation and the ones that don't are a bunch of rednecks bent on whacking a black guy. The reality is retreat isn't always an option when some thug shows up, just ask the mom whose baby was shot in the face in its stroller by a black kid that apparently still has no one in an uproar.

[smoothy]

Treyvon had an obligation to retreat... he decided to assault instead.. he got what he deserved.

Just think of how much all the future victims of Treyvons crimes lives have improved.

And we got photographic evidence from Treyvons own phone of his numerous crimes he already committed.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

The reality is retreat isn't always an option when some thug shows up,

Couple things.. In terms of the trial, my only desired outcome was that justice is served, and it was...

Second, I don't know what's so difficult to understand about our old self defense laws. It you HAVE a safe avenue of escape, you MUST take it. If not, you may use deadly force. If the mom had been armed should could have shot the guy.

What's so hard about this?

Excon

[excon]

Hello again, smoothy:

I'm curious what part of the Stand your ground law allows us to single out blacks excusively to murder since you made that claim.

Not exclusively... But, I can't see you thinking it's about killing white people...

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:
Couple things.. In terms of the trial, my only desired outcome was that justice is served, and it was...

Second, I dunno what's so difficult to understand about our old self defense laws. It you HAVE a safe avenue of escape, you MUST take it. If not, you may use deadly force. If the mom had been armed should could have shot the guy.

What's so hard about this?

excon

A) Why should I have to try and escape if I'm attacked?

B) Zimmerman would have likely gotten off had there been no SYG law, you just justified the use of deadly force either way.

Like I said, you LOST the battle over making it a racial case, you LOST the circus trial forced on us, so SYG is your next target. Why do you need a target in the first place? SYG merely tilts the balance toward the attacked, it is not a license to kill.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

A) Why should I have to try and escape if I'm attacked?

B) Zimmerman would have likely gotten off had there been no SYG law, you just justified the use of deadly force either way.

(A) You don't. You had the right to use deadly force BEFORE you were attacked. But, if it's only a THREAT, and you can escape, you MUST. And, why wouldn't you?

(B) I'm sure he would have.

(C) My belief that justice was served does NOT, in any way, justify Zimmerman's behavior. I don't carry water for the Justice system, the jury, the prosecutor, OR the defense attorney... Simply because THEY did thus and so, and because THEY concluded thus and so, does NOT mean I conclude thus and so.

Let me explain.. It's pretty simple... The threshold in a criminal case, is proof BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Nobody was there except Zimmerman. Even if a juror thought he was LYING through his teeth, (and I DO), without CORROBORATION, the juror COULDN'T have known who attacked who, BEYOND a reasonable doubt... It's an IMPOSSIBILITY. Indeed, there is PLENTY of doubt... That is the system at work.

Now, I'm absolutely positive the jury did NOT decide this case based on what I think it should have been decided on. But, they reached the right legal conclusion, even if the reasons may have been wrong.

SOME people however, believe that because the jury came back with a not guilty verdict, it means that every word out of Zimmerman's mouth was VERIFIED by the jury. I don't think that's what it means at all.

Excon

[smoothy]

THis says it all about liberal... even even more so... black values..

Chicago Murder, Homicide & Crime 2013 Stats | Chicago Murder, Crime & Mayhem | HeyJackass!

[NeedKarma]

No one should click on a link to a domain called heyjacka$$.

[smoothy]

Really.. unless you don't want to see what the REAL crime statistics for Chicago are and how they break down... because that's ALL that's there, and they do it by the day... the week and the year...

But then you never hear about this on the drive by media... because they don't want the world to see how lberals behave when they are a supermajority.

And it demostrates the lefts hypocrisy about getting tiheir panties iin a knot over a legitimate case of self defense... while ignoring far worse behaviour every single day in just ONE city.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:
(A) You had the right to use deadly force BEFORE you were attacked. If it's only a THREAT, and you can escape, you MUST.

(B) I'm sure he would have.

(C) My belief that justice was served does NOT, in any way, justify Zimmerman's behavior. I don't carry water for the Justice system, the jury, the prosecutor, OR the defense attorney... Simply because THEY did thus and so, and because THEY concluded thus and so, does NOT mean I conclude thus and so.

Let me explain.. It's pretty simple... The threshold in a criminal case, is proof BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Nobody was there except Zimmerman. Even if a juror thought he was LYING through his teeth, without CORROBORATION, the juror COULDN'T have known who attacked who, BEYOND a reasonable doubt... It's an IMPOSSIBILITY. Indeed, there is PLENTY of doubt... That is the system at work.

Now, I'm absolutely positive the jury did NOT decide this case based on what I think it should have been decided on. But, they reached the right legal conclusion, even if the reasons may have been wrong.

SOME people however, believe that because the jury came back with a not guilty verdict, it means that every word out of Zimmerman's mouth was VERIFIED by the jury. I don't think that's what it means at all.

Excon

Pinned to the ground getting your head bashed on the concrete is past a threat, and I for one have never said what Zimmerman did was right or that I believed every word he says. I have yet to see any account by us wingers that even closely resembles your description of our response so I can only conclude that's yet another false narrative.

This however, is not... Eugene Volokh is a constitutional lawyer.

Duty to Retreat and Stand Your Ground: Counting the States

Eugene Volokh • July 17, 2013 10:11 am

People are talking about how common “stand your ground” states are compared to “duty to retreat” states, so I thought I’d do a bit of looking to see the current head count. First, let me explain what I mean by “duty to retreat,” which is something of a misnomer (though a very common one):

Say that a defendant is facing the risk of death or serious bodily injury (or rape or kidnapping or, in some states, robbery or some other crimes). And say that the defendant

1. is not in his home or other property that he owns or his place of business,
2. is in a place where he may lawfully be,
3. is not engaged in the commission of such crime, and
4. has not attacked the victim first or deliberately provoked the victim with the specific purpose of getting the victim to attack or threaten him.

In duty-to-retreat states, the defendant is not legally allowed to use deadly force to defend himself if the jury concludes that he could have safely avoided the risk of death or serious bodily injury (or the other relevant crimes) by retreating.

In stand-your-ground states, the defendant is legally allowed to use deadly force to defend himself without regard to whether the jury concludes that he could have safely avoided the risk of death or serious bodily injury (or the other relevant crimes) by retreating.

Relaxing criterion 1 above moves states into the stand-your-ground category; for instance, nearly all (and perhaps all) states don’t require retreat when the defender is in his own home, except in some narrow circumstances. Relaxing criterions 2 to 4 above moves states into the duty-to-retreat category, or even denies a right to self-defense regardless of whether the defendant tried to retreat. I’m speaking here of the core duty-to-retreat vs. stand-your-ground case, in which all four elements are satisfied.

As best I can tell, the current rule is that 19 states (plus D.C.) fall in the duty to retreat category, with the states being bunched up quite a bit geographically:

Northeast/Mid-Atlantic: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island.
Midwest/Plains: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin.
West: Hawaii, Wyoming.

All the other states do not impose a duty to retreat. The rule in federal cases seems to be ambiguous.

This oversimplifies matters somewhat (Pennsylvania, for instance, imposes a duty to retreat only when the person whom the defendant is defending against has not displayed a “weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use”); and I might have erred in classifying one or two states in either direction, since this is the result of a few hours’ worth of research and has not been fully cite-checked. Still, I think this reflects the general pattern:

1. The substantial majority view among the states, by a 31-19 margin, is no duty to retreat. Florida is thus part of this substantial majority on this point. And most of these states took this view even before the recent spate of “stand your ground” statutes, including the Florida statute.

2. There is however a significant minority in favor of a duty to retreat.

3. Of course, none of this tells us what the right rule ought to be.

I believe the balance should be rightly tilted in favor of the attacked, not the attacker.

[excon]

Hello again,

If you'd be amenable to changing the name of the law from Stand Your Ground, to Killing the A$$holes law, I'd support it.

excon

[NeedKarma]

Really..unless you don't want to see what...

No, just from a computer security standpoint. In the same vein as shying away from .ru domains.

[smoothy]

No, just from a computer security standpoint. In the same vein as shying away from .ru domains.

This one is safe... with the firewalls and stuff I deal with at my office... if it was hoaky... it would have been raising flags...

I can't get into a lot of sites from here as a result of those.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again,

If you'd be amenable to changing the name of the law from Stand Your Ground, to Killing the A$$holes law, I'd support it.

excon

In Texas it's just called self-defense. Your portrayal as a "license to kill" law is just another false narrative.

[smoothy]

I think the left is more concerned about the criminal element being able to continue committing crimes without fear of consequences so they can continue to vote multiple times on elections.