Fox News is using an ad opposing Stand Your Ground self-defense laws that reenacted the fatal 2012 shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin to revive the false claim that Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute played no role in the acquittal of Martin’s shooter, George Zimmerman.
If you saw the trial in its entirety or even in any channel where they were actually reporting it and not trying to create more controversy, you may have noticed that the Defense Lawyers never brought SYG because it simply did not apply. All through the trial, evidence, witnesses, etc nobody mentions SYG. The only time we hear the term “Stand Your Ground is at the end of the trial when the judge gives the Jury instructions:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Only the dumbest of the dumb will say that no attack was taking place.But the EVIDENCE tells us otherwise. If an attack is happening and it raises to the level of forcible felony, deadly force is authorized: end of discussion.
Trayvon was not approaching, was not waving a weapon from afar, was not using language that suggested he would apply bodily harm: he was actually beating down on George Zimmerman with “ground & pound.” Stand Your Ground is simply a choice you have to either leave or face the assailant. George Zimmerman was not given the courtesy to choose and acted accordingly by using deadly force o an already engaged attacker. That is straight, plain old classic self-defense…which it is also hated by Gun Control Cultists.
At the end, if it is not Stand Your ground, it will be Castle Doctrine or basic self-defense or defense of others. There will always be something that is “immoral” , “racist” , “Redneck: , etc about the basic right to stay alive without the need of Governmental permission.Or maybe is just that they do not have the will to face danger and the idea of meeting violence with violence freaks the hell out of them. And like revengeful, petty children, if they can do it, then you can’t either.
So according to them, it’s better for a criminal to kill you or your wife/children than it is to kill the criminal?
Replace the “or” with an “and,” but the answer is “yes.”
According to them, it is better for a crazed gunman to massacre an entire school full of young children than for someone to step in and gun the monster down.
According to them, it is better for terrorists to blow up a small town than for someone to stop the terrorists.
At the risk of triggering Godwin’s law, according to them, it is better for the Nazis to wipe out the entire non-Aryan population of Earth than it is for someone to start a war and halt the most prominent genocide in human memory.(Stalin and Mao were worse, but not as well remembered.)
Ask yourself who it appears they sympathize with, why, and what that tells you about their intentions.
When people claim we should ban X-gun or X-accessory because it is “Just for Killing” I’ve completely given up on the hair-splitting talk on target and training guns. A) because its a lot of work for minimal gain, and B) it delves into the “Sporting purposes” bullshit.
I dive right into “Yeah, and under some circumstances killing is 100% legal and supported in some form by every government I can think of.”
Some nations have very narrow definitions of “Justifiable homicide”, or HEAVY restrictions on what can be used as defensive items. But I can’t think of a single nation in the world where it is 100% illegal for a private citizen cannot take the life of another citizen to prevent a serious crime (such as to prevent an act of murder or rape).
Now in England if you SHOOT an attacker you’ll go to prison, but you can still kill an attacker in England and have the homicide be deemed “Justifiable”.
So people like Ladd in this instance are MONSTERS who are operating on the extreme radical edge of all HUMANITY, not just American culture.
We need to hold their feet to the fire on that one.
The problem people like Ladd have with self-defense is they know it will be used against them. They know they’re the monsters, and they want to ensure weak victims.
How many anti-gun voices are known felons? How many have served prison time for assault and rape and murder charges?
I was rather shocked that so many of them would protest so transparently.
The press never investigates them; it takes people committed to liberty to dig into the histories of the “activists” and expose them as criminals.
True. Because the press are on their side, and it’s bad publicity when you’re open about the fact that you’re the party of felons and predators.
Not rape, not everywhere. I remember one case in Finland where a woman used a knife on a man who was raping her, he died, she was sentenced to four years. This happened during the 90’s, and I have never been able to find anything about it online, so I can’t swear I remember the details accurately, but the case and her tale could have been seen as questionable – they were co-workers, had been in the same workplace evening get-together, she had missed the last bus or something and he had offered her his couch, she had accepted since she thought she could trust him but had then later woken up with him on top of her, and there had been a fruit knife on the table next to the couch, she grabs it and stabs him and happens to hit something vital – but as far as I remember the news her tale was believed in court, and it was acknowledged as rape, only then it was judged that she hadn’t had the right to use deadly force in her defense.
Also, very recently, a woman was raped, in her home, and when the man finally got up and started to dress she stabbed him in the leg and escaped (mostly naked, in winter). I think she ended up paying him. The reason: the rape was already over, so it was, obviously, just revenge.
So, a woman here can pretty much assume that she is, in the eyes of law, not allowed to cause physical damage to her rapist, and definitely not allowed to kill him (and heaven help her if she manages to _prevent_ the rape by physically hurting the assailant… and even worse if it’s not her but her husband or boyfriend or other male defender, he most definitely would end up as the bad guy in court).
The law is obviously trying to prevent violence, and they don’t seem to care one way or the other who did what to whom, and for what reason. In our state, we are allowed to use deadly force if you catch someone stealing your property. I would never do that, but if that person approached me or a member of my family in an aggressive manner, I wouldn’t hesitate to shoot him until he stops moving.
[…] This is what the anti-gunners actually want […]
So its not okay to kill in self-defense….but its okay for the criminal to kill? The entire universe just facepalmed at the illogical hypocracy of that.
I wound if this claim of you should die if attacked comes from someone living in a nice safe suburb never having been attacked or lost someone close to them. How extremely insensitive and unfeeling can one human being be to the victims and there families of a rape, beating and murder. Time to call them out on there feelings since there is no fact or support for their position use feelings v feelings and we win again.
Regarding the jury instructions, just point out how many times excusable homicide was defined, along with its proximity to the homicide definitions. Yet no one is calling this an excusable homicide case for the very reason that it wasn’t brought up as an issue by either side!
Dads_Demand thinks that we should let the murderers kill us, thus proving that they are as dumb as a box o’ rocks My Bible says different, so their opinion matters not to me
These people would let a murderer kill their own family They are not worthy of the name “Dad”
Paraphrased…A Believer who does not provide for his family is worse than a non Believer.
This would obviously include defense of them.
They are moral reprobates to suggest that self defense, to include killing an attacker, is illegitimate. If they were right we would all have been decimated in the Nazi concentration camps by now.
We avoid all areas where ‘gun-free zone’ signs are posted. Why? The mass murder at Fort Hood occurred in a gun-free-zone, the massacre at Sandy Hook occurred in a gun free-zone, and to top it all off, my wife was shot and left for dead in a gun-free zone. Any sane person should easily come to the conclusion that someone planning a robbery, or a murder would obviously choose a gun-free zone over one where they might get shot; but as usual, logic goes out the window when your dealing with idiots.
[…] little quote has been making the rounds. Others’ comments can be found here, here, here, and here. and the […]
I’ve posted this a few places today already.
The reason they want the State to have an absolute legal monopoly on force (both initiating and reacting), is because they plan on having absolute control of the State.
When your plan is, “L’état, c’est moi!“, of course you want a lock on force.
The are narcissists. Evil, dangerous, sociopathic narcissists. Who have made it quite clear, time and time again, through their OWN words, that they want me and (more importantly, to me) mine dead. . . liquidated. . . exterminated. . . pick your favorite phrase.
I will not cede my absolute right of self defense to the state. The state is the one doing nearly all of the genocides in history. No thank you.
See USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Turkey, the Middle East (except Israel), chunks of Africa, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and so on. Only your enemy wants you disarmed. To hell with every one of our politicians who propose any gun control legislation.
Just go back 150 years. Samuel Colt gave us equality with the monsters among us. This is about true civil rights…the right to life.