I'll pass on the video. Having seen a couple of them on this site, I have a pretty good notion of what that loud-mouthed blowhard has to say. He sings straight from the left wing choir book without showing any glimmer of independent thought.
"Really? So, you think that without "Castle Doctrine" as a precursor law that "Stand your ground" would have ever gotten on the books?"
Good grief. "Stand your ground" is the anti's buzzword for "Castle Doctrine". What's the matter, lost in your sides own rhetoric? I think if you check Florida again, there is only one law that was passed, "Castle Doctrine".
Maybe you didn't pick up on that without enough ZZZZZ and KKKKK to figure it out.
Fat White Man: “Good grief. "Stand your ground" is the anti's buzzword for "Castle Doctrine".
I disagree. The buzzword is “shoot first”.
Cenk is ridiculous. It is pure conjecture that without this law this shooting would not have happened. He is claiming its mere presence fueled the fire. Who are the ones who have been calling this a “license to kill”? Who are the ones saying this law allows anyone to get away with murder by just saying the magic words “self-defense”? If you are going to believe rhetoric led to this shooting, that is blood on your hands, Cenk.
This whole misinformation on Stand Your Ground is just like “death panel” claims from the right. Just keep the lies flowing, don’t ever quote the supposed part of the law that makes your claims valid, and keep riling up your base. Don’t worry, they’ll believe whatever you say, and they won’t bother to think for themselves or read the law (or in the case of Stand Your Ground, they won’t even bother to internalize the three words that makeup the name of the law). Then wait for some tragedy and jump on it for political gain. “Look! That woman died under Obamacare because she didn’t get the care she needed. Death panel! Death panel!”
It's interesting that Cenk's comments are pure conjecture where those of TS, FatWhiteMan and Greg Chump are not--just sayin.
"Castle Law" doctrine of one sort or another has been in effect since at least 1895. Florida's "Stand your ground" tune-up is nothing more than a hunting license for humans for any sociopath who haz teh gunz. Now, then, if you boyz ain't sociopathz why would you want oneathem huntin' licenses.
Basically, what you're all saying is that because you might make a stupid mistake and kill someone who ISN'T a threat you wanna make sure that you have no responibility under the law. Cowardly behavior from those who talk tough.
Demmocommunist doesn't understand the rationale behind "stand your ground" laws. Let me 'splain it to you in words you might be able to understand.
The law means that if you lawfully have a right to be where you are and some stupid son of a bitch decides to rob you at knife or gun point, you don't have to try and run away. You may use whatever force is necessary to deflect the threat. If that means four 9mm rounds into the thoracic cavity...well they say you can't fix stupid, but I beg to differ.
Regardless of what you call it, the law is not a license to kill. The law changed nothing. In order to claim self defense as a reason for justifiable homicide, all three conditions must be met. 1st, you cannot be the aggressor nor escalate an encounter to that of deadly force. 2nd, you have to have a genuine fear for your life or serious bodily harm and, 3rd, you have to not be able to safely retreat or do not have a duty to retreat.
All that the Stand-In-Your-Castle-While-Shooting-To-Kill law, or whatever nonsensical tag that the antis want to apply to it does, is remove the duty to retreat if you are some place you are legally allowed to be.
Newsflash: the other conditions must still be met to be able to claim self defense, even in your home. The only thing that Castle does in this case is meet condition #3. The state does not even need to prove the other two conditions have not been met, the defendant just has to fail to prove that those two conditions were met.
No, it is not a shoot first, or license to kill or blood in the street bill like the antis claim. All that the defendant gains from the Castle Doctrine is that he does not have to prove he had no duty to retreat. He still has to convince a court that he was not the aggressor AND that he indeed feared for his life.
Your 3rd criterion seems a bit off, don't you think. "you have to not be able to safely retreat" is what's been removed. Even if you could retreat, now you don't have to.
Why do you see retreating as such a desirable thing? But since you like it so much, how about practicing it yourself? Retreat in the face of opposition to gun control.
Correct Mike. All the law has done is remove the duty to retreat. You still cannot commit murder. The anti's rhetoric about "license to kill" is nonsense. But then I think you realize that..
"You may use whatever force is necessary to deflect the threat. If that means four 9mm rounds into the thoracic cavity...well they say you can't fix stupid, but I beg to differ."
Spoken, honestly (although I'm sure it was inadvertent and unitentional), by someone who sees themselves as a vigilante who will right the world's wrongs--if only he has enough rounds in the magazine.
"Correct Mike. All the law has done is remove the duty to retreat. You still cannot commit murder. The anti's rhetoric about "license to kill" is nonsense. But then I think you realize that.."
By removing the duty to retreat, coupling it with the actions of a Sanfordsorta PD and the STILL rampant racism in much of the U.S., the "Stand your ground" permit to kill folks whom you perceive as a threat removes RESPONSIBILITY from the shooter's actions.
If Trayvon Martin had a record as a criminal, regardless whether it was for violent crime or petit larceny, you would be okay with him being gunned down by anyone in Florida who perceived his presence in public as a threat to their safety? 'Cuz, y'know, a dead perp is a dead perp and a perp-o-whacker is a hero.
You really can't understand what jeopardy means, I see. This law doesn't allow me to shoot someone just because I don't like the way he looks. It just means that if someone is putting my life in danger right now, I don't have to try to run away.
Besides being mentally ill, a loser and possibly borderline retarded, Cent is flat out wrong. Castle does not apply in this case.
ReplyDeleteNice that he dredged up all the "blood In The Streets" arguments that didn't happen.
"Besides being mentally ill, a loser and possibly borderline retarded, Cent is flat out wrong. Castle does not apply in this case."
ReplyDeleteReally? So, you think that without "Castle Doctrine" as a precursor law that "Stand your ground" would have ever gotten on the books?
I'll pass on the video. Having seen a couple of them on this site, I have a pretty good notion of what that loud-mouthed blowhard has to say. He sings straight from the left wing choir book without showing any glimmer of independent thought.
ReplyDeleteActually that's not true at all. He's been one of the worst Obama critics on the left.
DeleteWhich only demonstrates my point. The Left can't stand Obama, and it drives them nuts that they have no alternative candidate.
Delete"Really? So, you think that without "Castle Doctrine" as a precursor law that "Stand your ground" would have ever gotten on the books?"
ReplyDeleteGood grief. "Stand your ground" is the anti's buzzword for "Castle Doctrine". What's the matter, lost in your sides own rhetoric? I think if you check Florida again, there is only one law that was passed, "Castle Doctrine".
Maybe you didn't pick up on that without enough ZZZZZ and KKKKK to figure it out.
Fat White Man: “Good grief. "Stand your ground" is the anti's buzzword for "Castle Doctrine".
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The buzzword is “shoot first”.
Cenk is ridiculous. It is pure conjecture that without this law this shooting would not have happened. He is claiming its mere presence fueled the fire. Who are the ones who have been calling this a “license to kill”? Who are the ones saying this law allows anyone to get away with murder by just saying the magic words “self-defense”? If you are going to believe rhetoric led to this shooting, that is blood on your hands, Cenk.
This whole misinformation on Stand Your Ground is just like “death panel” claims from the right. Just keep the lies flowing, don’t ever quote the supposed part of the law that makes your claims valid, and keep riling up your base. Don’t worry, they’ll believe whatever you say, and they won’t bother to think for themselves or read the law (or in the case of Stand Your Ground, they won’t even bother to internalize the three words that makeup the name of the law). Then wait for some tragedy and jump on it for political gain. “Look! That woman died under Obamacare because she didn’t get the care she needed. Death panel! Death panel!”
It's interesting that Cenk's comments are pure conjecture where those of TS, FatWhiteMan and Greg Chump are not--just sayin.
ReplyDelete"Castle Law" doctrine of one sort or another has been in effect since at least 1895. Florida's "Stand your ground" tune-up is nothing more than a hunting license for humans for any sociopath who haz teh gunz. Now, then, if you boyz ain't sociopathz why would you want oneathem huntin' licenses.
Basically, what you're all saying is that because you might make a stupid mistake and kill someone who ISN'T a threat you wanna make sure that you have no responibility under the law. Cowardly behavior from those who talk tough.
Demmocommunist doesn't understand the rationale behind "stand your ground" laws. Let me 'splain it to you in words you might be able to understand.
ReplyDeleteThe law means that if you lawfully have a right to be where you are and some stupid son of a bitch decides to rob you at knife or gun point, you don't have to try and run away. You may use whatever force is necessary to deflect the threat. If that means four 9mm rounds into the thoracic cavity...well they say you can't fix stupid, but I beg to differ.
Regardless of what you call it, the law is not a license to kill. The law changed nothing. In order to claim self defense as a reason for justifiable homicide, all three conditions must be met. 1st, you cannot be the aggressor nor escalate an encounter to that of deadly force. 2nd, you have to have a genuine fear for your life or serious bodily harm and, 3rd, you have to not be able to safely retreat or do not have a duty to retreat.
ReplyDeleteAll that the Stand-In-Your-Castle-While-Shooting-To-Kill law, or whatever nonsensical tag that the antis want to apply to it does, is remove the duty to retreat if you are some place you are legally allowed to be.
Newsflash: the other conditions must still be met to be able to claim self defense, even in your home. The only thing that Castle does in this case is meet condition #3. The state does not even need to prove the other two conditions have not been met, the defendant just has to fail to prove that those two conditions were met.
No, it is not a shoot first, or license to kill or blood in the street bill like the antis claim. All that the defendant gains from the Castle Doctrine is that he does not have to prove he had no duty to retreat. He still has to convince a court that he was not the aggressor AND that he indeed feared for his life.
Your 3rd criterion seems a bit off, don't you think. "you have to not be able to safely retreat" is what's been removed. Even if you could retreat, now you don't have to.
DeleteWhy do you see retreating as such a desirable thing? But since you like it so much, how about practicing it yourself? Retreat in the face of opposition to gun control.
DeleteCorrect Mike. All the law has done is remove the duty to retreat. You still cannot commit murder. The anti's rhetoric about "license to kill" is nonsense. But then I think you realize that..
Delete"You may use whatever force is necessary to deflect the threat. If that means four 9mm rounds into the thoracic cavity...well they say you can't fix stupid, but I beg to differ."
ReplyDeleteSpoken, honestly (although I'm sure it was inadvertent and unitentional), by someone who sees themselves as a vigilante who will right the world's wrongs--if only he has enough rounds in the magazine.
"Correct Mike. All the law has done is remove the duty to retreat. You still cannot commit murder. The anti's rhetoric about "license to kill" is nonsense. But then I think you realize that.."
By removing the duty to retreat, coupling it with the actions of a Sanfordsorta PD and the STILL rampant racism in much of the U.S., the "Stand your ground" permit to kill folks whom you perceive as a threat removes RESPONSIBILITY from the shooter's actions.
If Trayvon Martin had a record as a criminal, regardless whether it was for violent crime or petit larceny, you would be okay with him being gunned down by anyone in Florida who perceived his presence in public as a threat to their safety? 'Cuz, y'know, a dead perp is a dead perp and a perp-o-whacker is a hero.
You really can't understand what jeopardy means, I see. This law doesn't allow me to shoot someone just because I don't like the way he looks. It just means that if someone is putting my life in danger right now, I don't have to try to run away.
DeleteAnd you are the one to make that determination. You're the only other one there. Are you talkin' to me? I'm the only one here, you talkin' to me?
Delete