Still a lot of stupid bouncing the webs and other means of communication. But what really amazes me is how easily is for some people who know better to purposely lie about the case.
Don’t mind average idiot that takes his daily ingestion of information from the usual sources: they are what they are and at this moment in time there nothing much we can do about it till the tide recedes. I am talking about the purveyors of information that have the self-imposed responsibility to deliver the truth to their viewers, represented and the general public. Instead they invested themselves in a set narrative loaded with political quackery and falsehoods to the point that they are not only not correcting their mistakes, but upping the ante.
As before, the hate for Stand Your Ground laws was the initial precursor for the media hootenanny we saw with the Martin/Zimmerman. It forced the politicians to create a panel that examined the law and its applications, took input from the regular folks and at the end it stayed pretty much the same even though Stand Your Ground was not applicable in the Martin/Zimmerman case. Now that the trial is over, SYG is once more resuscitated and becomes the medieval cat that is accused of consorting with the devil and must be exterminated. More on this later.
But now I am starting to hear the initial volleys of attack against another part of the self-defense laws: Reasonable Fear of Death or Grave Bodily Harm. Their “reasoning” is that fear alone is not good enough and that it may lead to costly mistakes and eventually deaths such as with what happened to Trayvon Martin. Yes, I am not kidding you, that is their complaint and the reason they want it expunged from the books.
Now back to the cat consorting with the devil: It does not take a genius to understand that the elimination of both SYG and Reasonable Fear will make a destructive dent on the peaceful of the citizens of Florida. That the law would force us to turn our backs to immediate danger and that we must be 100% sure that we are being attacked before defending ourselves is so asinine, it begs the total mental examination of those demanding it. The only way to be 100% sure that we are being attacked is…being attacked, to give the aggressor a sporting chance to make us bleed. And is in that given chance you happened to be irreparably injured or die, well crap, at least you did not break the law! Your family should be happy that you went to your grave that way.
Same after Sandy Hook, we are facing the initial wave of emotional BS. People that invested themselves too much on a promise that could not be delivered, are ticked about it and those who made the promise are doing their best to lay blame everywhere else but their shoulders. For now, we just have to strap ourselves against the pilings and let it ride while we deliver properly placed logical punches and assorted loads of derision to the pundits.
After that, it will be our time to attack. Floridians must then reinforce our Self-Defense laws, ask for an investigation into prosecutor misconduct and get legislation passed that punish prosecutors for not seeking justice but for trying to score convictions over the innocence of defendants.
Remember: Nobody wins a fair fight. That a fight has a winner is proof that “fairness” was skewed by skill, preparation, or simply luck.
Any time someone tries to convince you to “fight fair,” what they are actually doing is attempting to restrict the rules of engagement to those which will handicap you while giving them the broadest advantage. Keep this in mind, and always be ready to either give a counteroffer(I will not use my gun against the guy who is twice my size only if the guy who is twice my size has to starve himself for at least 3 weeks before the fight. If he is caught cheating, I get to use my gun.) or outright refusing the proposition.
Finally, in a fight to the death(which Martin vs. Zimmerman was), there is no shame in fighting dirty. Nobody is taller than the last man standing.
“If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.”
The crying about ‘reasonable fear’ is nothing new, as they like to conflate it with ANY fear. We just don’t have a rash of CCW holders shooting people because they suddenly got spooked by someone.
What is simply mind-boggling to to me is that, just like SYG, Reasonable Fear is not applicable! Zimmerman was being attacked by Martin! It was Aggravated Assault! Zimmerman did exactly what those reporting on this issue wanted him to do, wait until his brains were being bashed out before he shot.
Oh wait, what they really wanted him to do was just die.
IANAL, but it seems to me that if that “Reasonable Fear” were removed from self-defense law, you’d have to wait to be shot before reacting in self-defense; if you respond with force and the gun turns out to be unloaded (i.e.: not a “real” danger, under the law), you’re open to criminal and civil lawsuits. The legally UNreasonable fear of the gun (heh, IRONY!) is not enough to justify defensive force.
Removing “Reasonable Fear” would be a disaster. For us, not them; they LOVE having “victims” (read: wounded/dead criminals) to parade and rally around and “vigilantes” (read: honest citizens) to prosecute.
Part of the problem is that people in ordinary conversation use words that don’t bear on the legal issues. If you have reason to believe that you’re in deadly danger and can defend your reasons in court then your fear, or lack of it, is irrelevant.(That’s the big gray animal with the long nose) If you don’t have defensible reasons for what you do, your level of fear will not excuse you. News people, particularly TV “news” people, contribute a great deal to this kind of confusion by insisting that the stand-your-ground law allows people to “shoot if they feel threatened.” The law, of course, mentions nothing about anyone’s feelings or emotions. (From “Lawrence of Arabia” comes the classic line “My fear is my own concern”)
Reasonable Fear is applicable in the Zimmerman case. His head was being pounded into the pavement – which instilled in him the “reasonable fear” of death or grave bodily harm (concussions are a b!tch, brain damage is permanent) – but in FACT he had only suffered some bruising and minor cuts.
Absent Reasonable Fear, he’d have to ACTUALLY suffer a concussion, brain damage, or death before he could invoke his right to self-defense. And he’d be criminally and civilly liable if the doctors said it was not, in fact, a serious injury – which I think is why the prosecutors obsessed over the extent of his injuries, even though it’s not relevant under the current law.
You forget he needed to get his bu** kicked because he got out of his car. If he would have stayed in his car he would have been fine. His fear was his own fault. Got to love this country where getting out of your car is wrong and it is racist to shoot someone beating the stuffing out of you.
Its amazing to me that some sheeple are given credence to want to restrict my RIGHTs based upon their “fear” of me carrying self-protection and then turn right around and discount MY fear of people who REALLY DO want to harm me and mine. Gotta love the double standard.
As my drill sergeant told us:
“Fair is a weather report, or a place where you eat cotton candy and ride ponies. The word ‘fair’ has no meaning in combat.”