Capitol Hill Blue Forums Hot Topics & Breaking News News US airman stands his ground in Florida, sentenced to 25 years

It seems that the gun laws in florida are not always so lax


link

Oh, Ardy, this is Florida! Stand-your-ground only applies if you are white. Otherwise, it's just 'black-on-black violence.'

That's exactly what the T-Tards are Greta's write: When a white kills a minority, it's SYG. When a minority kills another minority, it's minority-on-minority violence.

Well, you have to consider the basic premise of "Stand Your Ground": It is based on the person having some ground to stand on to begin with (IE. the right to be where they are), and the right to live and protect themselves from injury.

If the jury assumes that Black people have no right to any of those things, then Stand Your Ground is inapplicable! Nice way to enact Jim Crow back into the law.

Of course, the whole idea of Stand Your Ground falls apart when you consider the outcome: Those laws say that violence in response to fear is justified, and no attempt to back away is required. The net effect of any encounter between two people who fear each other (for whatever reason) can be that the one who survives and tells their story to police or a jury gets to provide an account of their fear, but the victim has no chance to talk about his.

There is no logical way to decide if any Stand Your Ground claim is justified or not, so juries just go with their impressions and prejudices regarding the parties they see in court.

Well let's see. He left, armed himself and returned to a place where it was illegal to possess a firearm (even with a CCW permit) and shot and wounded an unarmed person (and injured several others) who punched him.

Dont know all the details but the verdict sounds good. The penalty is rather steep though.

Regards,
C.J.

Just as a point of trivia it isn't a gun law. In fact the words "gun" or firearm aren't found in the law.

Regards,
"C.J.

I think you should have said "even with his CCW permit" since he did have one. And also "shot and wounded an unarmed person who punched him in the face, injuring several others."

The legal requirements and restrictions for concealed carry are complex. The result is that people with CCW permits who are going someplace they feel might be dangerous take their gun, despite the legality. Turns out he was right about it being dangerous, since somebody jumped out of the crowd and punched him in the face for no reason. The minor shrapnel injuries to other people was not intentional, but simply due to the inherent danger in the ammo he was legally entitled to use in his permitted gun.

I think if a white guy did the very same thing (return to the bar with his gun since he was concerned about his friends' safety), the legal process would have involved a written citation and possible loss of his CCW permit.

So it comes down to his reaction to being attacked by a stranger for no apparent reason. Should he have assumed this attacker would then walk away? Blows to the face can easily render people unconscious and in the middle of a riot that can end in death after a few kicks to the head. What is the purpose of a Stand Your Ground law, if not to let you shoot somebody who has just attacked you and who you think intends to kill or injure you?

Personally, I don't think we need concealed weapons for anybody but law enforcement, security officers, people transporting deposit bags, etc. Mostly because all the rules get tossed by the wayside when the permit holder feels threatened. I also think Stand Your Ground laws are extremely dangerous because they legalize gunfights and encourage all sorts of people (even in states where they have no such law) to shoot first and ask questions later. But states that have such policies should deliver race-blind justice regarding those laws and I keep reading about cases where they do no such thing.

There Are so many questions that strike me in all of this

A common argument. For guns is that they make us safer.
So for example, armed students and teachers make schools safer. Armed theater patrons make attending A movie safer. And I suppose armed bar patrons make them safer as well. So, leaving aside the law and the verdict, this guy was just trying to make the world a safer place.

Next the guy did go back to his car. But I think the verdict would be the same if he carried from the beginning?

Did this guy have a right to go to his car and return. I think so

Was this guy attacked? That seems clear

Did he have reason to fear for his life? As much as zimmerman I think.


I Agree with piA. It seems to me that stAnd your ground laws promote a way of thinking that led to this situation.p

I think this guy thought he was behaving reasonably. And that thought process was tied to the ethics of the stand your ground law.

It seems to me that he got caught up in the minutiae of when it applies and when it does not. Because frankly I do not see an enormous difference between what zimmerman did and what he did. Other than the obvious differences of race and the fact that the killer went free and the wounder got
25 years to serve.

Sorry, I should have not assumed everyone responding had read the article.

Actually the requirements and restrictions are quite simple, sometimes lacking but simple. Where I come from, we avoid places we feel might be dangerous.
I must have missed the reference to any type of ammunition in the article.

As long as we are throwing in what we think, I think Blacks use the “Stand Your Ground” defense disproportionately to their population in Florida. They also are successful disproportionately to their population in Florida.

Not necessarily, but there is nothing in the article which indicates the attacker was a further threat.

I thought we were discussing the article. Giles was not knocked out, nor was there any mention of the attacker kicking him or being a further threat.



In the case of Florida law, shooting or using a firearm/gun is not mentioned. Deadly force is though. Deadly force can be used if one reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to oneself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Note it does not apply if you believe someone is trying to injure you as you stated.

And the rules don’t get tossed when those you mentioned get threatened? Or is there just not enough of them to matter? Or are they the only ones who matter. You support the use of deadly force to protect money and property, then not support someone protecting themselves or their family?

You do know that 46 states have some variant of Stand Your Ground laws don’t you? And the number of gunfights and people who “shoot first and ask questions later” in these states and claim defense or immunity under those states laws is how many?
As do I, but merely saying it’s not does not work. As I mentioned above, Blacks use the “Stand Your Ground” defense disproportionately to their population in Florida. Blacks make up approximately 16% of Florida’s population, yet Blacks account for approximately 33% of Florida’s SYG claims and are successful in approximately 55% of these claims. BTW this rate surpasses the White success rate.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/b...our-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/

They may make the good guys safer from the bad guys, this does not mean they make everyone safer.

Not necessarily, and no not the world. It was inferred that he was returning to find his lost friends and apparently felt the need for protection. A felt need for protection is not making the world a safer place.

Very likely.



Certainly, but he did not have legal authority to carry a firearm in to an establishment where alcohol was served (A Club).

Sure, but was he in any further danger after being struck once? I can’t tell from the article. But for instance if someone hits you and turns around and walks off you CANNOT use deadly force on him. You also cannot chase him down and then claim SYG.


Nope, not if you believe Zimmerman and only what was stated in the article about Giles. Zimmerman claimed his head was being repeatedly slammed down. Giles according to the article was hit once, and the article mentioned no other attempts by his attacker to harm him.


I think the guy didn’t fully understand the basics of the use of deadly force. He may have been better off if he had killed the attacker, because when one is truly fearful of grave injury or death one shoots to stop the attacker, which means you go for the biggest part of the body. This is why if one fires a warning shot he will usually be denied any SYG benefits.

I disagree. If he knew what his boundaries were, he deliberately violated them. If he did not, then he didn’t pay attention. When he went to his car he had the necessary time to cool down and realize his mistake before going back in. I am a pro-gun as there is. I believe in open carry or concealed where necessary, but if one does not recognize and abide by whatever rules there are, one will pay a price.

Regards,
“C.J.”