So they took up this one.
Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground" laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
This is a mere codification of the Common Law found in Anglo jurisprudence since 1216. In the Common Law, however, one had to be in his home or curtilage. This limited provision is classically know as the "Castle Doctrine" (ever man's home is his castle). The "Stand Your Ground" laws expand on this concept to include ANYWHERE you happen to legally be - your car, the street corner, in the dentist's chair - wherever.
As to the shooter not being arrested immediately, this case is no different than if a cop shoots a suspect. There will be an investigation and the results of the investigation will determine whether the shooter was justified in his (stated) belief that he felt his life was in danger.
I would note that, by statute, the UK has done away with the Castle Doctrine, upending 800 years of common sense. Now, if an armed intruder forces his way into a British home, the threatened family must, I repeat, MUST, retreat if at all possible.
I notice there are some crime problems in Blighty these days...
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it (or it found you.)
>
Stupid political comment. We expect no less from you, Harry.
Reuters did not know where come down on this issue calling the dude a White Hispnic.
I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight, this guy is going down.
I have been following it. The evidence will be presented to a grand jury to determine if charges will be brought. Based on what I've heard so far, I agree the guy is likely to be charged. Some folks just can't wait to jump on the system before letting it play out. And the media can't wait to try to link this somehow to the FL "stand your ground" law. I don't see that as really having any direct bearing on the case.
The guy in question singled the victim out for acting suspicously apparently without any real basis other than he was walking down the street with his hand in his waistband. He called it in to 911 and the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow the guy. He chose to leave his car and engage him. What followed next is what needs to be determined. But since the kid was 17, didn't look to be very big, and was unarmed, I think the guy is in a heap of trouble and should be. Where in the stand your ground law does it OK that?
Also disturbing is that the guy had called 911 47 times in the last year with similar calls, almost all of which were for bogus nonsense. You have to wonder if the calls were mostly BS, why the police didn't have a talk with him to disuade him from false reporting and to tell him to stop playing cop.
I believe he was a member of an official police volunteer organization, however. His rank was quoted (captain?). Such groups aren't unusual here. They even have cars in the city I work in now.
You mean like in the movie "Death Wish"?
And isn't that what cops on patrol do?
One day this bold Muscovite shouldered his gun, And walked down the streets with a sneer, He was looking for fun, When he happened to run, Upon Abdul el-BulBul Amir.
"Young man," said BulBul, "Is existence so dull, That you're anxious to finish your career?" "For infidel know, You have tread on the toe, Of Abdul el-BulBul Amir!"
Then a fight broke out. I'll spare you the details since there are (it is reported) over a thousand stanzas to this epic saga.
And, contrary to your assertion, just walking down the streets with a sneer is perfectly legal, whether in Florida or Buffalo. We condem those who claim a rape victim, for instance, "was just asking for it", but there's really nothing wrong with "just asking for it."
Well, maybe one more...
Then this bold Maraluke Drew his trusty Seljuk And shouted "Allah, Akbar! Akbar! Then with murderous intent, He most suddenly went, For Ivan Skavinsky Skivar!
Apparently the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" has been lost in Britain No wonder the country produces shitheads like you.
If you had a Taser, it would be much more appropriate in a situation like Sanford. If the guy coming at you was into body building or boxing, yes, he could take you out with one punch. But . . .
If you are the local vigilante, you should have had at least some basic training on what to do. You should also carry some pepper spray and perhaps a Taser.
It will be interesting to see what the final investigation reveals. At
17, the kid may have been mouthy as many would be, but he does not look like he could be much of a physical threat.
I did say "appears" (grin). Instead it will be decided by dirt bags like Al Sharpton pontificating in front of the aforementioned cameras.
To me, the telling part of the story is that the shooter followed the kid, rather than let the police handle it. One news outlet, listening last night on the radio. The kid was aware someone was following him.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
If you had a Taser, it would be much more appropriate in a situation like Sanford. If the guy coming at you was into body building or boxing, yes, he could take you out with one punch. But . . .
If you are the local vigilante, you should have had at least some basic training on what to do. You should also carry some pepper spray and perhaps a Taser.
It will be interesting to see what the final investigation reveals. At
17, the kid may have been mouthy as many would be, but he does not look like he could be much of a physical threat.
Yep. The first case in my state involving a concealed handgun license holder revolved around that very concept. His lawyer said that a detached retina was a common outcome of a punch to the head. For amusement, here's the facts in that case.
Two van drivers, trapped in heavy Dallas traffic, banged their outside rearview mirrors. The driver of van #1 became irate, jumped from his van, reached throught the driver's side window of van #2 and began pummeling the driver.
The driver of van #2, constrained by his seat belt but carrying a pistol, shot the aggressor dead.
The subsequent investigation and grand jury exonerated the driver of van #2.
Here's the amusing part:
The driver of van #1 - the angry aggressor - was a new-hire for the delivery service. His supervisor was riding with him to show him the route.
Now imagine what happened later as the supervisor ultimately returned to the office. I see him pouring a cup of coffee in the break room while one of his colleagues asks: "How's the new guy working out, Stan?"
With downcast eyes and a small shake of the head, Stan replies: "KIA... We're gonna need another driver."
That's ammusing, but in a bitter way.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
Yep. The first case in my state involving a concealed handgun license holder revolved around that very concept. His lawyer said that a detached retina was a common outcome of a punch to the head. For amusement, here's the facts in that case.
Two van drivers, trapped in heavy Dallas traffic, banged their outside rearview mirrors. The driver of van #1 became irate, jumped from his van, reached throught the driver's side window of van #2 and began pummeling the driver.
The driver of van #2, constrained by his seat belt but carrying a pistol, shot the aggressor dead.
The subsequent investigation and grand jury exonerated the driver of van #2.
Here's the amusing part:
The driver of van #1 - the angry aggressor - was a new-hire for the delivery service. His supervisor was riding with him to show him the route.
Now imagine what happened later as the supervisor ultimately returned to the office. I see him pouring a cup of coffee in the break room while one of his colleagues asks: "How's the new guy working out, Stan?"
With downcast eyes and a small shake of the head, Stan replies: "KIA... We're gonna need another driver."
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in news:V7jbr.107686$ snipped-for-privacy@news.usenetserver.com:
ALL volunteer watch people are told not to confront anyone (I was on one for a while when we lived on Long Island). I also heard that was the case in Sanford (sp?). Moreover, those watches should not carry any weapons whatsoever. Period. The fact that Zimmerman did carry a firearm, did follow the kid, and did confront him AND struggled with him means to me (but I'm not on the jury) that Zimmerman is guilty as sin.
07686$ snipped-for-privacy@news.usenetserver.com:
I guess when you're doing the watching, you can decide. Me, if I was doing it in a state that allows carry, I'd be carrying. Instead of focusing on the few cases where a person legally carrying created a disaster, you need to look at ALL the cases. And in the big picture, there have been far more cases where just pulling a gun out ended what could have been a serious crime.
The key thing that matters here to me is can you convince a jury that Zimmerman really believed that his life was in jeopardy from a 17 yr old kid that was 100lbs lighter?
There may be some more interesting turns in this story before it's done. Another guy on the neighborhood watch was interviewed and he said Zimmerman was a perfectly reasonable fellow. Never heard any racist remarks. He also said that there had been some recent break-ins in the neighborhood. It's possible Martin could somehow wind up connected to one of them. Not saying he is, just that it was a gated community that he didn't live in and no one has really focused on what exactly he was doing....
He was in the community of family and went to the store for snacks. The original call, it seems, was from someone that was afraid of a black kid walking down the street.
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
Seems a priori unlikely.
Yes, I can perfectly see how one can be suspicious. I am too if I see someone who does not belong in my neighborhood, but I won't go chasing a kid in the dark with a gun in my hand. And luckily, the police will be here in minutes if I call them. I have a cell phone and can stay back far enough without losing sight of the individual. It hasn't yet been necessary.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.