Stand Your Ground: The United State Of Cowardice

Sheriff Bob Gualtieri is a sicko. Since the victim is black and the shooter white, common sense states that Gualtieri's background be checked.

 

The shooter had a concealed weapon, so presumably he was complying with Florida law on concealed carry. Now I would bet that Florida requires you to attend a class on the legal requirements involved with concealed carry before you get a license. (If not ... they definitely should.) And surely this class tells you what 'stand your ground' involves, when you can legally use your weapon and when you can't. If these classes don't, they should.

In fact, given that it's America, why don't the schools teach this? It's been several decades since I was in the American school system, which of course varies from state to state, but I don't recall us being taught anything at all about, for instance, your rights when arrested, what trespass is, buying a house, how to register to vote .. ... all of the legal and quasi-legal things that an adult needs to know about. Which they should do.

 

So you ran away but he was the coward.

 

Drejka is Red Flag Ronnie as the poster boy for such laws.

 

It does make a case for red flag laws and, although I might be convinced otherwise, I think gun rights people like myself ought to favor them.

"Pro-gun" people need to understand that the gun-banners DO have a case. I've seen some of the most absurd arguments put forward against any change in the gun laws, arguments that logically would allow people to own their own nuclear weapon. It actually harms our case to act like there is no problem.

But ... in any case, people need to know the law, and I think the law, plus some other practical things, should be taught in schools. I don't know why it's not, in fact.
In any case, when you get your concealed carry permit, you ought to have to pass a test about things like how far bullets of different calibres will go and still bear lethal kinetic energy, what their penetrating power is with respect to the walls of houses, when you are allowed to shoot someone and when not, and, if you shoot someone illegally, what the maximum penalities are. (This particular guy had form, anyway, like George Zimmerman. )

 

If he had punched him and then stepped back it would have been murder.

 

The law in question does not allow or otherwise authorize private individuals to act in any specific manner that they would not normally act. It merely clarifies that an individual who has a legal right to be in a given location, is under no legal obligation to retreat from a threat if said threat presents itself to them. That is ultimately the long and the short of the matter, and it is truly no more complicated than that.

 

I'm wondering why the police were not called and the driver with the bad language wasn't turned in with his license plate number for road rage. That would have been appropriate and just. Idiots cannot be beaten into right behavior. It only causes lies to be told and more idiots to come out of the woodwork.

 

Ahhh......no.

It was over politics, threats, and general law and order.

 

In the larger sense I suppose it was, but the actual offense in question involved the Clantons carrying guns illegally, or so I was always told.

Weren't the Earps actually running Tombstone's main whorehouse? (It was legal then).

 

Then why was it ever written in the first place? It's pretty obvious to me that it''s nothing more than red meat for the more rabid gunnies. Republican State legislators don't give a flying fandango about how many people they mislead into murdering someone, as long as they get an extra vote out of it but it also shows how many gunnies must spend a good deal of their time just fantasizing about killing someone

 

There will always be those who fail to understand what the law does and does not say, or otherwise how it does or does not apply to them. It is simply not possible to construct laws in such a manner that misinterpretation simply does not happen.

 

In response to the abuses of the authority held by prosecuting attorneys.

In the same sense it was supposedly obvious to Michael Drejka that the law authorized him to engage in the pattern of behavior that he did?

 

Two thirds of SYG shootings in Florida are black on black and prior to modifying the SYG law last year we had a number of false prosecutions of black people who claimed SYG but didn't shoot the attacker, this was due to overzealous anti-gun prosecutors holding SYG hearings to determine if the person who fired a gun was truly in fear of his or her life.

I one particular case in Dade county a woman was sent to prison because she fired a warning shot which scared off her attacker who was her ex.

The prosecution convicted her based on the theory she could not have been in fear of her life because she did not kill him.

 

Sounds as if the law is flaky.

 

It is illegal to brandish and fire a weapon to intimidate and she had kids present.

 

If you want to attack someone, you best be prepared to face the consequences of your actions.

 

there was no stepping back. He was shot in the act.

 

And that is why the U.K. is such a screwed up place where one is not even allowed to defend himself or his family.

 

Around four or five years back the Florida Legislature made it nearly impossible for a criminal or his family to sue the victim should he be injured or killed in the commission of a crime and should he find a way to sue the they made it much easier for the victim to countersue the criminal or family for three times the amount of the criminals suit.

 

I would take that write up with a grain of salt, in Florida Sheriff's do not have the authority to decide who gets prosecuted or not, that decision can only be decided by a Grand Jury or the States District Attorney.

 

good