close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

House to vote on Trayvon amendment

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Don H, May 8, 2012.

  1. JFrame

    JFrame

    39,299
    7,807
    May 29, 2001
    Mid-Atlantic, US of A
    Oh, good grief...Trust leftists to never waste a "crisis" -- manufactured or otherwise... :upeyes:


    .
     

  2. G-19

    G-19

    1,735
    0
    Jul 1, 2004
    Another reason to get the Dems. out of D.C.
     
  3. Deployment Solu

    Deployment Solu Kydex Crafter

    6,010
    4
    Jul 18, 2007
    Arkansas
    The Zimmerman case has not even been heard yet. These people are ALL idiots and need to be removed from office, tarred and feathered, and barred from the USA forever.

    Anything to make it easier for the Homeboys to rape, rob, and pillage. Maybe they need a Stand Your Ground Against Politicians Law??????
     
  4. F350

    F350

    2,712
    712
    Feb 3, 2005
    The Wyoming Plains
    This needs to be read in it's true meaning

    "Too many of our core voter base are getting killed off by by those nasty conservatives defending themselves from people just trying to earn a living"
     
  5. oldman11

    oldman11

    5,248
    2,241
    Mar 1, 2012
    Texas
    The biggest group of people against the "stand your ground rule" are the criminals. Does that tell you anything about the voting on this law? Another thing to remember is that most of the people voting on this employ armed guards/drivers for their own security.
     
  6. frank4570

    frank4570

    15,508
    7
    Jun 25, 2004
    It's funny because "stand your ground" has noting to do with the Zimmerman case. But as a result of peoples *perception*, the law is now in danger. Once again, perception is reality.

    Anybody who thinks image takes a backseat to reality, is mistaken.
     
  7. madbaumer

    madbaumer

    1,195
    97
    Mar 17, 2007
    Cental Florida
    And yet...this is the only occurance that has gained National Attention.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. I have briefly looked at the relation to the "Stand Your Ground" law as it relates to any shooting. It seems to move the onus of proof to the prosecutor to show that the accused was not reacting as the reasonably prudent person.

    The presumption is that the person claiming self defense acted prudently and based on the preponderance of evidence, the defendant may not be prosecuted. The prosecutor must show that adequate evidence exists to be able to successfully pursue a trial.

    Those who complain about the law tends to focus on the presumption of reasonableness on the part of the accused.

    It is not simply an issue of run away vs. not to run away.

    Prosecutors who have a tendency to pursue an agenda may not blindly charge ahead in the absence of evidence. A hunch will not be adequate.

    Anyway, those who claim the Stand Your Ground issue does not apply in the Zimmerman case should first do a little more research outside the Internet forums. Ultimately, the law seems to apply most directly due to the presumption of reasonableness.


    Out there in fly-over country...
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
  9. madbaumer

    madbaumer

    1,195
    97
    Mar 17, 2007
    Cental Florida
    Reading the Florida Statute would be a good place to start.

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
     
  10. NDCent

    NDCent Socially Inept

    3,864
    413
    Mar 19, 2010
    Ozarks
    Hogwash. :miff:
     
  11. Snowman92D

    Snowman92D

    3,892
    20
    Oct 6, 2001
    Indianapolis
    I don't think it's going anywhere after seeing the bill's co-sponsors.

    "Federal money shouldn't be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people," said Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the two Democrats who are offering the legislation.
     
  12. Wake_jumper

    Wake_jumper

    2,324
    325
    May 3, 2007
    Kansas
    Federal money shouldn't be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people," said Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the two Democrats who are offering the legislation. "This is no different than withholding transportation funds from states that don't enforce seat-belt laws."

    And this, gentlemen, is just the beginning. A not so subtle way to get the states to do the bidding of the Federal Gov't. It isn't hard to image where this could end up.
     
  13. gunowner1

    gunowner1

    1,386
    126
    Jul 11, 2011
    Jensen Beach
    It's amazing they actually think we should have to retreat from these scumbags before we can defend ourselves.
     
  14. callihan_44

    callihan_44 INFIDEL

    5,603
    2,411
    Aug 19, 2010
    Flyover,USA
    i agree, dont resist when your confronted in a life threatening situation....PH_K DEMOCRATS:steamed:
     
  15. QNman

    QNman resU deretsigeR Silver Member

    10,061
    497
    Oct 5, 2005
    St. Louis, MO
    Absolutely right.
     
  16. G22Dude

    G22Dude

    2,956
    107
    Jan 23, 2009
    How anyone can stand behind a party that is more interested in a criminals rights than that of a law abiding citizen is beyond me. Do these nitwits and their moronic supporters realize that standing your ground doesn't mean you have to use a firearm to defend yourself.

    Are you telling me that idiots who vote democrat would not want the right to defend themselves by any means accessible. If so they truely are sheep being led around by their noses
     
  17. cowboywannabe

    cowboywannabe you savvy?

    22,670
    6,807
    Jan 26, 2001
    seat belts, drinking age.....speed limits....the federal gubmint has grown stronger than the states.
     
  18. well, on the positive side, it promoted a lot of good posts here. trayvon, unfortunately, will do more harm in death than he could do while living.
     
  19. DOC44

    DOC44

    15,726
    4,736
    Jan 10, 2004
    in my recliner
    screw 'em

    Doc44