100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Stop Inulting Zimmerman Jury | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Black Americans benefit when they exercise their Second Amendment right to possess firearms. Black Americans benefit from Stand Your Ground laws, which enable them to defend themselves. So, which political institution wants to do away with Stand Your Ground and make it more difficult for black Americans to possess firearms? this has nothing to do with the OWNING of guns and everything to do with the reasonable USE of guns do black americans benefit if they are perceived as the 'threatening' minority , by a law that only requires someone feeling threatened to justify them taking a life? I would think not,,,, a castle doctrine is one thing, when people are in their home but its another issue to say that people outside in the open only need to feel 'threatened' to end someones life who is the bigger threat to the public... a white plumber, or an 18 year old black gangster? a redneck with an ar15, or kilo, leader of the MS13? the black businesswoman, or bob, leader of the skinheads... i think you see where i'm going with this... mostly, the gangs... doesn't matter what color or nationality, there's stupid in every group... maybe they should set an age limit on the legalities of owning a gun... who, when dressed in regular clothes, no uniform, no occupational attire is seen as the bigger threat? the white male or the black male? the white woman or the black woman? mostly, black is seen by far too many as threatening, and assumed to be 'suspicious',,,,and that is the issue that makes Stand your ground such a dangerous precedent to uphold,,,, i don't remember TM going to Zimmermans car, i remember Zimmerman following and hunting TM... i can't see how the SYG law applies here, when zimmerman was hunting TM Im not so sure that the SYG law was even used in this case. Didn't the defense plead "self defense"? If so, im not sure why the SYG law is even being called into question... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not so sure that the SYG law was even used in this case. Didn't the defense plead "self defense"?
If so, im not sure why the SYG law is even being called into question... No, Stand Your Ground was not used as a defense in the Zimmerman murder trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MSM decided to throw SYG to push Hussein's disarm the citizen agenda.
Mr Z would be very safe in the town I live. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is that because they all fled when they saw you in that tutu?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's what i thought... SYG was not used, yet they see it as an issue.
I suspect you are correct Willing. Anything can and will be done dwindle personal independence it seems... And no offense, but that tutu kinda makes me want to flee as well... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The tu-tu is for my creative side.
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Thu 08/01/13 03:25 PM
|
|
I had an oBama moment and stutututtered
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's what i thought... SYG was not used, yet they see it as an issue. I suspect you are correct Willing. Anything can and will be done dwindle personal independence it seems... And no offense, but that tutu kinda makes me want to flee as well... it was originally proposed as a defense since then, people have read about and become concerned with its not really about personal independence for me or people I know who are concerned its about RESPONSIBLE reactions and gun use,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Thu 08/01/13 07:44 PM
|
|
That's what i thought... SYG was not used, yet they see it as an issue. I suspect you are correct Willing. Anything can and will be done dwindle personal independence it seems... And no offense, but that tutu kinda makes me want to flee as well... it was originally proposed as a defense since then, people have read about and become concerned with its not really about personal independence for me or people I know who are concerned its about RESPONSIBLE reactions and gun use,,, Indeed, but the SYG law can be beneficial to some who use it responsibly. Depends on the situation. You dont want a situation where a 120lbs woman can't shoot the 6'6'' man who approaches her saying "im going to kill you" (or something of that nature) without going to prison. for murder... I think what bothers many about the law is the open ended for "reasonable cause" for one's life being threatened... In some states you have to prove that you tried to run away and couldn't possibly do so. Problem with that, is that woman from the example earlier, would have had to run first (turning her back on her assailant). If the man caught her she would most likely not know it until it was too late. With SYG, she could have pulled her gun, and told him to back off. If he still approached her she could then protect herself. I feel we are treading on some definite gray territory here. There is no winning, and sometimes when you try to improve something that can't be perfect, we make things worse. Please excuse my random thoughts... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no problem
common sense should prevail, yet its not so common there aren't many 120 year olds, and of course, proving that someone did come at her and say they were going to kill her would be hard to prove without a witness,, otherwise she could merely invite someone she didn't like and shoot them claiming they said the words I think it is a gray area worth exploring that a person should have to retreate if possible whenever in public,,,before using deadly force I think its also worth exploring that initial aggression play a part in the right to use deadly force in defense,,,(meaning a perp should not be able to use their 'fear' as an excuse to kill someone who put them in fear during the course of their own right to defend themselves from that perp) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Thu 08/01/13 08:01 PM
|
|
no problem common sense should prevail, yet its not so common there aren't many 120 year olds, and of course, proving that someone did come at her and say they were going to kill her would be hard to prove without a witness,, otherwise she could merely invite someone she didn't like and shoot them claiming they said the words I think it is a gray area worth exploring that a person should have to retreate if possible whenever in public,,,before using deadly force I think its also worth exploring that initial aggression play a part in the right to use deadly force in defense,,,(meaning a perp should not be able to use their 'fear' as an excuse to kill someone who put them in fear during the course of their own right to defend themselves from that perp) Of course the "120" was poundage.... 
Also, i would tread lightly on requiring a retreat, as it is impossible to predict every scenario. (like the instance mention before) Also, I don't see myself fleeing if a loved one cannot. Its against my nature, as in the nature of any well-trained soldier past or present. I agree on you about initial aggression. If one commits a violent act, retaliation of that act should not be criminalized. If a guy starts a fight (starts swinging) over road rage, then he cannot claim self defense if he is losing the fight (unless the other person pulls out a deadly weapon and threatens to kill him, in which case it now becomes gray). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am getting the gist that some radical groups would love to see the whites and Hispanics disarmed and unable to defend themselves against aggressive ferals bent on murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is there a way for law to only apply to 'whites and hispanics'
and is it not possible for whites or Hispanics to be 'feral' themselves? very revealing,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Black Americans benefit when they exercise their Second Amendment right to possess firearms. Black Americans benefit from Stand Your Ground laws, which enable them to defend themselves. So, which political institution wants to do away with Stand Your Ground and make it more difficult for black Americans to possess firearms? this has nothing to do with the OWNING of guns and everything to do with the reasonable USE of guns do black americans benefit if they are perceived as the 'threatening' minority , by a law that only requires someone feeling threatened to justify them taking a life? I would think not,,,, a castle doctrine is one thing, when people are in their home but its another issue to say that people outside in the open only need to feel 'threatened' to end someones life who is the bigger threat to the public... a white plumber, or an 18 year old black gangster? a redneck with an ar15, or kilo, leader of the MS13? the black businesswoman, or bob, leader of the skinheads... i think you see where i'm going with this... mostly, the gangs... doesn't matter what color or nationality, there's stupid in every group... maybe they should set an age limit on the legalities of owning a gun... who, when dressed in regular clothes, no uniform, no occupational attire is seen as the bigger threat? the white male or the black male? the white woman or the black woman? mostly, black is seen by far too many as threatening, and assumed to be 'suspicious',,,,and that is the issue that makes Stand your ground such a dangerous precedent to uphold,,,, i don't remember TM going to Zimmermans car, i remember Zimmerman following and hunting TM... i can't see how the SYG law applies here, when zimmerman was hunting TM Im not so sure that the SYG law was even used in this case. Didn't the defense plead "self defense"? If so, im not sure why the SYG law is even being called into question... They didn't use it, and it doesn't really apply here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Black Americans benefit when they exercise their Second Amendment right to possess firearms. Black Americans benefit from Stand Your Ground laws, which enable them to defend themselves. So, which political institution wants to do away with Stand Your Ground and make it more difficult for black Americans to possess firearms? this has nothing to do with the OWNING of guns and everything to do with the reasonable USE of guns do black americans benefit if they are perceived as the 'threatening' minority , by a law that only requires someone feeling threatened to justify them taking a life? I would think not,,,, a castle doctrine is one thing, when people are in their home but its another issue to say that people outside in the open only need to feel 'threatened' to end someones life who is the bigger threat to the public... a white plumber, or an 18 year old black gangster? a redneck with an ar15, or kilo, leader of the MS13? the black businesswoman, or bob, leader of the skinheads... i think you see where i'm going with this... mostly, the gangs... doesn't matter what color or nationality, there's stupid in every group... maybe they should set an age limit on the legalities of owning a gun... who, when dressed in regular clothes, no uniform, no occupational attire is seen as the bigger threat? the white male or the black male? the white woman or the black woman? mostly, black is seen by far too many as threatening, and assumed to be 'suspicious',,,,and that is the issue that makes Stand your ground such a dangerous precedent to uphold,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
complete sentence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94% of young black males are killed by another black male. Why isn't that being reported on? Why do they go nuts over a fluke incident where there are real issues they could be focusing on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94% of young black males are killed by another black male. Why isn't that being reported on? Why do they go nuts over a fluke incident where there are real issues they could be focusing on? I didn't know that 94% of young black males were killed. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... is it not possible for whites or Hispanics to be 'feral' themselves?
Of course it is possible. Just look at the white guy wearing a tutu. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94% of young black males are killed by another black male. Why isn't that being reported on? Why do they go nuts over a fluke incident where there are real issues they could be focusing on? I didn't know that 94% of young black males were killed.
What he means is that 94% of murdered black males are murdered by other black males. |
|
|
|
|
