Schumer calls for federal probe of 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Florida shooting

Originally posted by muse7

So being against people being shot for simply wearing a hoodie and walking down a street is political gain now?

The law clearly doesn't give anyone the right to kill someone for wearing a hoodie. Only those who have been brainwashed by the MSM would believe that.

The law states that, if you are confronted outside your home, you have the right to defend your life and property with deadly force, if necessary. It doesn't give one the right to go around picking fights and then start shooting when they start losing the fight and get their but kicked.

I'm sure, as the investigation progresses, it will be determined that what Zimmerman did is not protected by this law. He initiated the confrontation so he should be held responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Golf66

 

Then why isn't Zimmerman in jail for murder?

Why wasn't he arrested immediately?

Evidentiary procedure, due process and lack of probable cause at the scene for starters.

Why he isn't now under arrest?

Sloppy police work.

Originally posted by Sek82

Now Schumer wants a review of the laws and whether or not they are producing unnecessary fatalities, fair enough. I'd be interested in seeing the results of such a probe as well... While we're at it, lets see those lowered assault/robbery statistics in states where open/conceal carry is legal.

This is the rub here - I don't care what Chuck Schumer wants... He's not my State Senator. If he wants to call for a review of NY State law, have at it.

Last time I checked the people of the State of Missouri elect our representatives who make law at the State level.

Those laws are not really anyone else's business. The only issue at the Federal level at all is constitutionality which I think the laws are...

We need to put the States back in States rights. I sometimes wish we could divorce ourselves from the lunacy that is NY, IL and CA among other States.

What is good for NY, IL and CA are not necessarily what is good for us all. The society here is different, the culture regarding guns is different and the laws should be different. Leave us alone...

Again, we are going to count on the DOJ to review these laws? Right - the AG doesn't even know what his own employees are up to.... He's evidently got too full a plate as it is.

reply to post by samhouston1886


My hero....

Originally posted by Sek82
While we're at it, lets see those lowered assault/robbery statistics in states where open/conceal carry is legal

Those aren't the best statistics you want to be throwing around.

Nevada, for example, has a homicide rate of 12.0 for every 100,000 and one of the 'Gold Star' open carry states, according to opencarry.org. Whereas New York is very anti-open carry with a homicide rate of 7.0 for every 100,000.

Open carry doesn't do much to affect crime rate. Low population does.

They should federally probe Schumer...

reply to post by Golf66


LMAO... Schumbag is a life long anti-gunner, anti-second amendment conspirator and would immediately take every gun away from every law abiding American citizen, regardless of the constitution. Shoot, he has been trying to do this for years and years along with his old buddy Teddy Kennedy.

To top that, the Schumbag contacts the criminal Holder (infamous for the illegal and unconstitutional Fast and Furious) debacle in Arizona to further his anti-gun agenda anti-second amendment agenda thru the AGs office.

And of course, history has already recorded Holder as having an anti-gun and anti-second amendment agenda in every position he has held.

Originally posted by links234

Open carry doesn't do much to affect crime rate. Low population does.

This is basically making my point - what is good for the citizens of one State are not necessarily good for those in another.

Keeping that in mind I'd really love for the politicians in these States to realize that they can't dictate to the rest of the country the laws they have enacted in thier little liberal piece of heaven.

The more populated States already have an advantage over the less populated ones by being able to dominate the national agenda with their larger portion of the electoral votes.

People need to realize this is a republic and the States and their populations need some say in how they are governed. One size does not fit all....

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon




"Schumbag"

As someone ho has seen the hypocrite Schumbag smiling while holding a tec-9 pistol, I love this new name "Schumbag" and will refer to him as "Schumbag" in the future!

Like it or not "stand your ground" does need to be looked at. Not from a desire to curb self defense, but to stop what the Zimmerman/Martin case in Florida has done. Any "stand your ground" legislation should specifically make clear that you are not protected by it if you willingly pursue a course of action that may end in you fearing for your life. This in no way diminishes your right to defend yourself, it does however give you something to consider before playing Batman.

That is what is generating alot of the controversy in Florida. This man took it upon himself to follow and corner a young boy despite being advised against it. Then to add to it the police department failed to even gather basic evidence. Even if they arrested Zimmerman and collected evidence only to release him uncharged, it would have been better than the mess we have now. If we are going to have people get away with using the letter of the law to break the spirit of the law, then the letter needs to be changed. And the only way that can happen is for people on either side to drop their extreme irrational fears and do the right thing.

Originally posted by samhouston1886
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

 

"Schumbag"

As someone ho has seen the hypocrite Schumbag smiling while holding a tec-9 pistol, I love this new name "Schumbag" and will refer to him as "Schumbag" in the future!

No problemo.... have ya got that pic? I'ld luv to have it... thanks samhouston...

Well, I haven't read or heard the "smoking gun" testimony that Zimmerman was an innocent and was initially attacked by Trayvon, so I'll run with what has been established.

From what I've heard, Zimmerman and Trayvon had a run in. Zimmerman, a "self-styled neighborhood watch," followed this kid. He probably got all worked up, and led the situation to a head. Supposedly, he held a gun on the youth for long enough for the youth to yell "Help" eight times. Then Zimmerman blasted him in the chest.

1) Zimmerman is more than likely, a racist psycho. A little further digging will probably unearth his usage of pharmaceutical psychiatric stabilizers.

2) The Chief of Police in that town is probably a racist for not investigating/ARRESTING Zimmerman.

This is an isolated incident. It does not negate the value of the law. Those who would use this incident to undermine the law are doing so either out of their own fear of REAL freedom, and/or to erode other people's right to own guns.

The law had nothing to do with Zimmerman being a potential nutjob with a streak of racism in him. The Stand your ground law also would not excuse him from wrong doing either. The problem in this case is the conduct of the Chief of Police not arresting him for investigation. THAT and THAT ALONE is the problem.

I have a concealed carry permit myself. When I took the class, I was made damned aware that just because I have the right to use a gun, does not mean that I can just go about willy-nilly shooting it errantly without any repercussions. Quite the opposite. If you use a gun for self defense, there will still be an investigation to ascertain it was in self-defense. Like, in Louisiana, if someone broke into your house, and you caught them in your house and you pointed a gun at them, and they turned to leave, and you shot them in the back, you would be charged with manslaughter or potentially second degree murder. Why? Even though the suspect was in your house, they made an attempt to leave, and were not endangering your life.

This Zimmerman fellow, if it was true that he chased the lad, cannot use the Stand Your Ground Law; in having to pursue his alleged attacker, he was not endanger/his life was not in danger.

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by spyder550
This law is basically a hunting license - no witness - no problem - your word against the dead guys.

You guys really want to live in that world - really?

It is not - you clearly don't know the law. We have a version here in MO that is pretty clear...

Someone comes after you and you feel your life is in danger, you can protect it - and that of any others nearby as well.

Further it protects the sleepy homeowner, driver and citizen from having to make a bunch of snap decisions while scared and out of it that could cost them their freedom and livelihoods. Then and more importantly it protects them from frivolous litigation from the families of the deceased after the media starts showing 5 year old photos and talking about what a great person the perpetrator was.

Yes I want to live under those laws - I chose to live where I do partially because of the gun/self defense laws.

The FL case that Chuck is concerned about has zero to do with the stand your ground clause as will I am sure come out eventually. The wana-be citizen watch guy was in the wrong...

So I am in jeopardy from every lilly livered gun toting coward I happen to bump into. If he interprets an expression as threatening then he is allowed to come out shooting. I read these boards. There are gun owners out there who are just looking for an excuse.

Self defense is long established int the US hell in the entire world. Now we have a law in Florida that grants the shooter IMMUNITY no hearing no fact finding nothing. Carry a throw down weapon and you can assassinate with impunity. The number of "justifiable" homicides in Fl have been on a increase since this law was enacted.

I think it is you who doesn't understand this issue. This will not end well.

.... yes I do have guns and no I do not live my life in fear

Originally posted by spyder550
This law is basically a hunting license - no witness - no problem - your word against the dead guys.

You guys really want to live in that world - really?

"An armed society is a polite society." . . . and stupid people will still try to harm others, for whatever reasons. Hence stupid people have no place in a polite society as well. And the stupid people would qualify BOTH as 'unarmed' and 'violent-prone'.

People get murdered EVERY DAY!!!!!
ALOT OF PEOPLE!!!!
INNOCENT PEOPLE!!!!!

Do you get THIS PISSED OFF at every single one of them????

Let it go people.
You are being played.
Reclaim your humanity.
Don't let the MSM continue to controll your outrage!

What we need to be asking ourselves is, what are they trying to distract us from or what are they trying to achieve
by blowing this case this far out of proportion??

Which rights are we getting ready to lose this time?

Can you people see past the nose on your face???

lnik

Hmmmm. Almost like I called this.

First of all spyder let's get one thing clear - the case that precipitated all this "call for inquiry" clearly doesn't meet the burden of proof for a justifiable homicide under the stand your ground clause. Zimmerman followed the kid which is the first aggressive action in the chain of events that led to the shooting. So reviewing the law is not really needed. What is needed is for people to let the investigators do their jobs and find the facts.


Now, that said...

Originally posted by spyder550

So I am in jeopardy from every lilly livered gun toting coward I happen to bump into. If he interprets an expression as threatening then he is allowed to come out shooting. I read these boards. There are gun owners out there who are just looking for an excuse.

No... Any person even under the "stand your ground" clause must still pass the reasonable person standard that is written into almost ever law. It is in the law we have in Missouri. Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances feel threatened.

Perhaps there are some who would like to engage someone as a 24 year veteran with 17 in Special Forces and multiple combat tours - I am not one of them. I have had to take life before both on a large scale using aircraft and artillery systems (destroying large groups) but thankfully only a few times up close and personal - sometimes I see their faces in my dreams. It is not something I yearn for I assure you. It is a heavy burden.

Originally posted by spyder550

Self defense is long established int the US hell in the entire world. Um, yeah go ahead and shoot an intruder in your home in Maryland and see who gets arrested. It will be you. Why? Because there you (the defendant) have to prove that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would feel his life threatened.

The law here as it is written so as to switch that burden. Anyone entering or attempting to enter your car, or home or another place you are lawfully allowed to be is presumed to be a threat and you are clear in your right to defend yourself even with deadly force.

No waiting around to see if he'd just like to take your stuff or rape your wife... No, questions - Is that a knife, can I use a gun, no a bat - maybe... I get out through the window, um, I don’t know I just woke up # what... by then it’s all too late. That is silly nonsense that people must go through in States without this law.

Originally posted by spyder550

Now we have a law in Florida that grants the shooter IMMUNITY no hearing no fact finding nothing. Carry a throw down weapon and you can assassinate with impunity. The number of "justifiable" homicides in Fl have been on a increase since this law was enacted.

I think you are making this out to be something it is not - the law doesn't grant anyone immunity from prosecution. What it does is simply shift the burden of proof from the defendant to the State so that people have more freedom to make good choices without having fear of overzealous prosecution. Rather than arrest every person that defends her/himself and then requiring the person defend justify their actions in hopes they can be released it’s the opposite. A person is released and the State has to establish that the individual acted outside the law. Seems fair to me.

As for people having a throw away weapon - that is a criminal act, perpetrated by criminals not law abiding citizens protecting themselves. The facts will come out in the wash - they always do. As for the number of justifiable homicides going up; meh... of course they will as laws change the system has to get used to investigating them and prosecuting them correctly. As the knowledge base of the system increases so too will the convictions for unlawful death and manslaughter etc.

However, what will never be quantified is how many crimes have been prevented by the change in the law - those criminals who thought twice because they knew they no longer had all the cards in an invasion?

Originally posted by spyder550

I think it is you who doesn't understand this issue.

If you say so...

Originally posted by spyder550

This will not end well.

I agree - nothing handled with emotion ever is. This is a classic example of using a crisis to take away our rights.

Finally, you don't want castle doctrine/no retreat clause don't live in a State with them or if you do lobby your legislature to remove/change them. Don't lobby the federal government to take them away from us all.

This is a State not federal issue - bottom line this thread is about that not the circumstances in the shooting in FL.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Golf66

 

Then why isn't Zimmerman in jail for murder?

I don't know anything about this agency and can't make a judgement on their capabilities, but when there are circumstances, wherein there is no clear probable cause or there is any question about the evidence, all the case info (reports, forensics, witness testimony, etc.) will be handed to a grand jury, which will make the determination of the existence or absence of probable cause.

This is extremely common and prevents the law enforcement agency from making arbitrary decisions.

reply to post by Golf66


To tell you the trueth - gun laws in New York are working out fine...for us law abiding citizens who want to own a gun. It takes anywhere from 6 - 9 from the time you apply until you can actually buy a gun. "They" got what they wanted.

If I am a criminal.....I can go to any one of two dozen projects or my local drug dealer and buy one today.

So, in conclusion, it's easier for a criminal to buy a gun than it is for a regular citizen.....

Originally posted by WTFover

I don't know anything about this agency and can't make a judgement on their capabilities, but when there are circumstances, wherein there is no clear probable cause or there is any question about the evidence, all the case info (reports, forensics, witness testimony, etc.) will be handed to a grand jury, which will make the determination of the existence or absence of probable cause.

This is extremely common and prevents the law enforcement agency from making arbitrary decisions.

Indeed - this is the fundamental change in the law. It requires the State to prove that the person defending him/herself acted outside the law.

They didn't have enough evidence at the scene to arrest the guy - this happens all the time in law enforcement in all sorts of crimes. In fact is it very rare that they arrest someone at the scene right away. At least a preliminary investigation is held, witnesses interviewed etc.

Like you said this ensures that the rules for discovery are followed and that any evidence that is obtained will bear the burden of legality during the trial. This helps the system convict people rather than lose them to some techno-loophole.