Jump to content
"We should all be able to agree that the stand your ground law should be repealed"
Really? and why is that?
First, what exactly does stand your ground mean and how are things different without stand your ground? Prior to the stand your ground law, in Florida, you had an obligation to retreat as much as possible prior to using deadly force for self-defense, if you felt you were in danger of serious bodily harm or death. If you were on a street and a predator was trying to attack you, whether it be with their fists, a knife, or their own firearm, the law said you had to retreat as much as possible before you could respond with your own force. Stand your ground removed the requirement that you first retreat as far as possible.
Stand your ground was not used as a defense in the Zimmerman trial, because it did not apply. At the point in time in which Zimmerman unholstered his weapon and used it in self-defense, he was on his back on the ground. It would not have been possible for him to retreat any further, while on his back. So even had stand your ground not been Florida law, he would have still been justified in using his firearm, at that moment.
Now a broader discussion of stand your ground:
Let's assume a law abiding citizen is carrying their firearm and they are in a shopping center parking lot. They observe a man attempting to abduct a girl. Under stand your ground, that citizen would be able to use their firearm to defend the girl from a forceable felony. But absent stand your ground, that citizen would have to retreat as far as possible, content with only calling 911 and hoping the police can get there quick enough, which is statistically unlikely.
Scenario 2: a law abiding citizen is out for a jog, once again carrying their legally owned firearm. A mugger appears and points a firearm at the jogger demanding their money. Under this scenario, the jogger can claim they reasonably feared for their life. With stand your ground, they can take the chance that the mugger is truly only after their money and hand over the money or they can pull and discharge their own firearm. However, absent stand your ground laws, that jogger would first have to try and run away as far as possible and hope the mugger does not attempt to use their firearm.
In summary, stand your ground upholds the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves, outside of their home, without turning the law abiding citizen into a criminal.
And U6 (the true, economic unemployment number) went up to 13.9 percent. And the number of "total job increases" is almost identical to the number of new part-time workers. Translation, we are creating a part-time labor force.
And yet, you respond.
@pcjohn, if the suspect were to have used the taser on the officer, it would have incapacitated the officer. That would have provided the criminal with the opportunity to grab the officers service weapon and potentially use it against the officer. Thus the officer did what he felt was prudent to protect himself and potentially the lives of others had the criminal decided to use the service weapon after acquisition.
Quit being a damn prude. If you cannot see the comedic humor in these videos, not to mention the comradery that they can help foster by having the groups come together to work on something outside together outside of their normal tasks, than you are too narrow minded. Lighten up and get over it, that or just don't watch. Last I checked nobody was forcing you to.
Haha, can you imagine seeing a bunch of police chasing after a doughnut truck with lights and sirens? "Just free the doughnuts unharmed and we'll let you go."
This is absolutely priceless. I hope you allow me to reuse with a h/t to you.
Clearly Mack has never traversed the diverging diamond at Ashford-Dunwoody, as you and I obviously have. I have found it to be far better than it used to be.
Additionally, I think Mack has failed to look at officials across the country where the DD interchange have been installed and have been declared successful.
While both you and thurisaz have valid points, that was not the reason given by the school administrator. That is the argument most of us are making is to at least be honest with the reason for installation. Saying you are installing the cameras in the wake of Sandy Hook is absurd because it wouldn't have stopped the tragedy from happening.
"In light of the shooting in Newton, Conn"? Oh so now we can have a video taped historical record if a shooting ever happened. I totally understand putting surveillance cameras into the school, but don't use the Newton shooting as your excuse when cameras clearly would not have prevented the tragedy.
Last login: Monday, July 22, 2013