(Credit: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Salon
The National Rifle Association accused the Obama Administration of politicizing Trayvon Martin’s death after Attorney General Eric Holder called for a possible end to the “Stand-Your-Ground” self-defense laws in states like Florida, where Martin was shot.
“The attorney general fails to understand that self-defense is not a concept, it’s a fundamental human right,” NRA executive director Chris Cox said in a statement. “To send a message that legitimate self-defense is to blame is unconscionable, and demonstrates once again that this administration will exploit tragedies to push their political agenda.”
In a speech on Tuesday, Holder said that it’s time to take a “hard look” at the laws, which are currently active in at least 22 states. “[S]eparate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” Holder said.
Did you see how Cox changed the argument? Being on the wrong side of the discussion, the pro-gun fanatics always resort to smoke and mirrors - either that or blatant exaggeration and lies.
The Attorney General said we need to do away with SYG. Cox responded that SELF-DEFENSE is a fundamental human right.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
If self-defence is a fundamental right--what about Trayvon Martin's right to defend himself against an armed attacker?
ReplyDeleteTHE defence of one’s self, or the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affrayd . For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lenghs of reapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defence therefore as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away be the law of society. In the English law particularly it is held an excuse for breaches of the peace, nay even for homicide itself: but care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defence and prevention; for then the defender would himself become an aggressor.--Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the Third, Chapter the First: Of the Redress of Private Wrongs by the Mere Act of Parties p.3
Armed guy killing an unarmed person is self-defence????
Give me a break!
If only Trayvon Martin had a gun.
"If self-defence is a fundamental right--what about Trayvon Martin's right to defend himself against an armed attacker?"
DeleteYour logic could hold water IF Zimmerman were the attacker. But it turns out that Martian is the attacker and is not protected under self defense law. Disparity of force is also considered in self defense, Zimmerman was at the disadvantage and is allowed to use greater force to fend off his attacker.
"If only Trayvon Martin had a gun."
I will ask again, are you advocating that we dispense all of those pesky laws and regulations that prevent Travon for legally purchasing and possessing a gun? I mean I believe in "Shall Not Be Infringed" myself. It is those infringements that legally prevent Travon's possession of firearms anyway.
An armed society is a polite society, correct? If both were equally armed, would either have pulled one? Come on Laci, inquiring minds want to know about how to fix this from your great infallible logical mind.
You keep acting like the law of self defense cannot include using a gun against an unarmed attacker. This is wrong, and you know that it is. If a person is attacked and reasonably fears that the attacker is going to beat them to death, the law completely vindicates their shooting the attacker--doing so is not an escalation of the amount of force involved, it is merely responding with lethal force when they perceive that lethal force is being used against them.
DeleteThe question in the Zimmerman case was did he escalate to that force in a fight he started (manslaughter or murder after Trayvon legitimately started fighting in self defense) or was he attacked first and did he reasonably believe he was going to suffer death or serious bodily injury.
1L's could pick out that issue, and you do a disservice to the law to obfuscate it for political reasons.
I've yet to see any evidence that Laci can provide a passing analysis of the law in any case.
DeleteTexas Colt carry seems mighty sure that Zimmerman was not the attacker. And that is the crucial question, about which three jurors were not convinced at the end of the trial. But our man in Texas is certain.
DeleteThe jury reached the conclusion that Zimmerman is not guilty. Unlike you, they didn't cling to what they initially believed.
DeleteMore certain given the evidence and the jury's finding.
DeleteBut more than that, and I have asked Laci at least twice, Laci wants the Martian's to have guns. OK, how do we get to do that? I believe in "Shall Not Be Infringed"
Even if we rid ourselves of all restrictive gun laws, or all gun laws, its still not possible for T Martian to possess to gun under the terms of the constitution. Unsavory person, felonious action and so on in the constitution will remove any or all of the protections provided the Bill Of Rights. It can be done without one single modern law. Remember the thing about rights not being unlimited? Its right there in the constitution explaining those limits and again, no modern law needed.
So here again I pose the question to Laci, you want to give T Martin and others like him (I am NOT talking about race) that have a disturbing past actions, to have guns as well. How do you propose to go about it? If Laci cant answer to his own wishes then he is not a lawyer, he is a blow hard that does nothing but stir up meaningless crap.
I read somewhere that the private citizen in the US holds more than half of all the guns in the world. Guns here will never go away, ever. Deal with that reality and propose a way for every one to be equally armed without any infringement, Laci. I want to hear of the clever way that you can arm the Travons in this country, black, white, brown, yellow, green or blue. Natural born, legal citizen or even illegal aliens. Make everyone on level grounds, that was your desire in your comment. Lets get an answer, I want that answer.
Or are you just full of crap. I think you are full of it Laci. Prove me wrong.
Recognizing that good people are not obliged to run away is part of self-defense. If you oppose Stand Your Ground, you oppose our rights to protect our lives.
ReplyDeleteWrong. The way the law used to read made more sense, that is if you value the life of all people and not just the gun owners.
DeleteIn other words, you value the lives of thugs equally with those of good citizens.
DeleteYes, equally.
DeleteAnd that's why you continue to lose, Mikeb. Large majorities of Americans value good citizens over thugs.
DeleteHolder, Laci, Mike, et al., are fundamentally anti-self-defense. That doesn't mean you oppose every instance of self-defense, but like the anti-abortion legislators in Texas, you try to chip away at the edges. Your type also tends to approve of self-defense so long as the "self" is yourself. Look what Laci said: you can only defend yourself with a gun when you are being attacked with a gun. Do you think the police practice that? Or Mike's arguments in the Zimmerman trial as if the number of times someone had they head bashed into the concrete matters. Do you think after the first time someone bashes Holder's head into the ground his security detail would say, "wait... Let's see where he's going with this"?
ReplyDeleteYou guys don't even get the core aspect of self-defense.
I didn't say the number of times one's head is bashed into the concrete matters. I said Zimmerman's minor injuries were not consistent with bashing or slamming at all. Expert testimony proved that.
DeleteAnd how, pray tell, did he get the multiple cuts if his head wasn't knocked into the ground several times?
DeleteAnd again, you are not showing an understanding of the core aspect of self-defense. What you are talking about is called “revenge”- if someone hits you, you get to hit them back.
DeleteThe prosecution didn’t even get it. They needed to make their case that Zimmerman started the fight, not that his head injuries weren’t that bad implying that he should have lied there and take more of them. That’s not how self-defense works. And people were surprised they lost the case?
By the way, there were other expert testimonies that didn’t blow off the seriousness of head injuries.
Or did they just not come through?
DeleteHis head hit the ground, maybe when he fell backwards, maybe when he was punched in the nose. My point is that you guys have always exaggerated the extent of those injuries with words like "repeatedly smashed" and all the rest. The evidence didn't support that.
DeleteHow come I'm all of a sudden reminding you guys of the evidence? Isn't that your thing?
Mikeb, your standard of evidence is to ask whether the facts agree with your pet narrative, so no, we don't view evidence in the same way.
DeleteThat doctor's testimony was a joke. Multiple cuts caused by one blow? Other doctors disagreed. But why dies it matter? In either case it is justifiable to defend yourself against it.
DeleteHe had cuts in different directions on different parts of the back of his head. That indicates that his head probably hit the ground several times, whether it was because Trayvon had him by the head, slamming it down, or just kept knocking it into the ground with extra punches.
DeleteEither way, it indicates that Trayvon was on top and that Zimmerman was receiving a pretty severe beating, which could have convinced him that he was in danger of death or severe bodily injury from all of the head trauma.
You may be able to come up with a different, plausible explanation for the injuries, but you would need to be able to prove that explanation beyond a reasonable doubt to justify a conviction.
You're basing your analysis on a digitally enhanced photo. Those are the ones supposedly taken some time after the action but with bright red blood even on his lower lip. Does that make sense to you that he would have been able to resist wiping his lower lip for hours?
DeleteOf course it makes sense to you.
Go look at the discussion about the photos. Mikeb, your questions were answered there.
DeleteThat was the EVIDENCE PHOTO--the state did not digitally enhance it to the detriment of their case. If you simply look at the news stories, you'll see that that is the photo taken at the scene before the paramedics took care of him. His nose was still bleeding.
DeleteThe photos taken hours later were the ones where the lacerations have scabbed over. he's still wearing the same jacket because those were taken the next morning.
Care to try again?
That's a pretty damning statement of how inept the prosecution was. You're saying they werent able to detect that an image was photoshopped (something obvious to you), and bring on a case of evidence tampering on whomever did it.
DeleteIII find it pretty bold of Mr. Holder to be critical of laws passed by state legislatures governing their own states when his organization has enabled a fair number of firearms to be transported into another country and used to kill innocents and law enforcement officials in both Mexico and the US.
ReplyDeleteAs a percentage of population, more Blacks in Florida took advantage of SYG laws than other races including Whites.
ReplyDelete*Notice I said percentage of state population of a particular race or ethnicity.
So? Is someone arguing that the SYG law is racist?
DeleteLots of people. Look at the comments on the HuffnPuff. Look at your own attitude, Mikeb.
DeleteLook at your and Laci's posts about how the Alexander case shows that blacks don't get off like whites do, and various similar posts on here.
DeleteMikeB: "So? Is someone arguing that the SYG law is racist?"
DeleteYes. Your blog does (from your blog partner).
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/07/of-course-its-about-racism.html#comment-form
Well, speaking for myself, I don't think SYG is, in and of itself, racist. But, on the other hand, since the vast majority of gun owners who may want to use SYG someday are white, and in their sick minds the proverbial danger is a black man, I suppose it could be considered a racist law. I can definitely see how people might say that. Can't you?
DeleteThe problem with that statement Mike, is that more blacks in Florida benefit from SYG law than any other race there. Are you proposing taking that protection away from them?
DeleteI can see how people who like to irrationally cry "racism" at every corner would say that, yes. But as the facts point out, this is simply not true.
DeleteYes I would. The reason is, many of those blacks who have benefited from the SYG were as guilty as Zimmerman. The self defense laws were fine before the gun-rights fanatics and the NRA embellished them with SYG. Then they became a travesty of the original intent.
DeleteThat's the most convoluted explanation for why a law is racist that I've ever seen.
DeleteAlso, it could apply to ANY law. Laws against burglary are not, in and of themselves racist, but since the vast majority of Americans who will be protected by it are white, and in their sick minds the danger is the proverbial black man, I suppose laws against burglary can be considered racist.
Etc. etc. etc.
And none of this even touches on the assumption that white gun owners are mostly racist in your example, or that white Americans are mostly racist in mine.