Trayvon Martin Case Prompts Civil Rights Commission Investigation On Stand Your Ground Laws

[Tx4obama]

Source: MEDIAite

The United States Commission on Civil Rights is launching an investigation into the various state Stand Your Ground laws, as a responses to the controversy surrounding the killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. According to the Commission, the review will look at specific case studies like Floria and amass national statistics on who is affected and how effective the law is of suppressing crime.

Calling the timing “a unique opportunity to uncover facts and provide thoughtful analysis on whether and how racial bias enters into the operation of SYG laws in Florida and elsewhere,” the Commission noted that it would look at at least three states as case studies and begin conducting hearings on the matter. Included in the information they are seeking are statistics such as: ...

Read more: http://www.mediaite.com/online/trayvon-martin-case-prompts-civil-rights-commission-investigation-on-stand-your-ground-laws/

---

Read the full United States Commission on Civil Rights announcement here - PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/96430532/U-S-Commission-On-Civil-Rights-Proposal

[Tx4obama]

1. A link to additional article, below

U.S. Commission On Civil Rights To Investigate ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws For Racial Bias
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/10/496949/us-commission-on-civil-rights-to-investigate-stand-your-ground-laws-for-racial-bias/

[kestrel91316]

2. Long overdue.

[rhett o rick]

3. Yes. nm

[goclark]

10. Finally ~ why the delay on fighting

this monumental issue?


The clock is ticking on Stand Your Ground and Voter Suppress.

Wake Up America!

The clock is ticking on these MAJOR ISSUES!

[JDPriestly]

4. These Stand Your Groundlaws place the responsibility and privilege of making certain decisions about

whether a self-defense defense applies in a case too heavily on police officers and politically appointed DAs.

The old laws were just fine. A defendant should be able to plead the defense of self-defense, but should bear a burden of proving that the self-defense was reasonable. And deciding whether an act was reasonable should usually be a jury's job.

These SYG laws are going to increase the amount of brutal killing in our country. We already have too much of it.

These laws encourage a lone ranger, lynching mentality.

[Hoyt]

5. Exactly. n/t

[chknltl]

7. Absolutely agree. nt

[gejohnston]

13. you think duty to retreat was just?

Actually Duty to retreat is fundamentally unjust. It requires a defendant to prove their innocence. Justifiable homicide is not a crime. The burden of proof should always be on the State.

The old laws were just fine. A defendant should be able to plead the defense of self-defense, but should bear a burden of proving that the self-defense was reasonable. And deciding whether an act was reasonable should usually be a jury's job.

and if you have a racist jury? How many innocent people are in prison because they could not plead their case? Or the jury was tainted because of racism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

These SYG laws are going to increase the amount of brutal killing in our country. We already have too much of it.

How so? I fail to see the logic. The laws are hardly new and did not begin in Florida.

[JDPriestly]

18. The presumption is that you should not kill anyone, that murder is never justified.

That is a fundamental moral law in our society.

That is the starting point.

Self-defense is by its very name, a defense.

As I understand it, in general, and I am not talking about any specific situation, self-defense generally and most often applies to a defendant who killed another in the reasonable belief that he was facing an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to himself or others.

If you place the burden of proof on the prosecutor to show that a murder was self-defense, you cause several problems.

First, the prosecutor, in some if not all cases will face a conflict -- a sort of conflict of interest. Why? Let's say that, based on the facts, the prosecutor is presenting a case that the murder was second degree. Let's also say that, in order to do that in the state in question, the prosecutor has to present the evidence so as to prove the elements of second degree murder. Let's say that one of the primary elements is intent. The prosecutor would, in order to prove second-degree murder, have to show evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that defendant intended the murder, and on the other, show evidence that the victim really the victim caused the murder. If the victim caused the murder, why isn't the charge less than second-degree murder in the first place?

I think that a lot of defendants would be poorly served by having the prosecutor present the case against the defendant and then turn around and have the task of proving that the defendant intended to kill but had to do it. If the prosecutor really believes that the murder was second degree and not manslaughter or maybe no charge at all, it just would not work.

Think of the worst case scenario. A defendant is facing a first degree murder charge and the prosecutor is alleging not just intent but also, let's say malice aforethought. Depends on the state law. How in the world is the jury going to trust a prosecutor who argues first degree murder and presents a case with evidence supporting the charge and then turns around and contradicts that case for first-degree murder with a case for self-defense.

In my opinion, that would utterly confuse the jury.

If somebody is dead, we presume that unless the evidence is very clear to the contrary, the killer committed a crime. It's better to require the prosecutor to first prove that the accused actually committed the crime, and only then allow the defendant to show that the crime was self-defense. This is time-tested. We don't want a lot of murderers running around loose who got off on self-defense arguments or because the prosecutor's case was confused.

Yes, the Stand Your Ground laws will increase the numbers of murders because, in my opinion, the kinds of people who commit malicious, intentional murders, the types of personalities that do that sort of thing, will soon figure out how to manipulate these laws. Criminals are very often manipulative. Sorry to have to disillusion you about that, but many (note I am not saying all) of them are.

Oh, and "Duty to Retreat"? That is not what I learned to call it. It is called kill only in self-defense or when justified for some legally recognized reason. "Duty to Retreat" is a misleading moniker. If someone decided to shoot your son or daughter, wouldn't you want them to have to prove that it was done in self-defense? Most people would.

[gejohnston]

27. might want to take a second look

hat is a fundamental moral law in our society.

That is the starting point.

Self-defense is by its very name, a defense.

As I understand it, in general, and I am not talking about any specific situation, self-defense generally and most often applies to a defendant who killed another in the reasonable belief that he was facing an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to himself or others.

If you place the burden of proof on the prosecutor to show that a murder was self-defense, you cause several problems.

No, the DA has to prove it was murder and not self defense. Murder is a crime. Self defense is justifiable homicide, not murder.

First, the prosecutor, in some if not all cases will face a conflict -- a sort of conflict of interest. Why? Let's say that, based on the facts, the prosecutor is presenting a case that the murder was second degree. Let's also say that, in order to do that in the state in question, the prosecutor has to present the evidence so as to prove the elements of second degree murder. Let's say that one of the primary elements is intent. The prosecutor would, in order to prove second-degree murder, have to show evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that defendant intended the murder, and on the other, show evidence that the victim really the victim caused the murder. If the victim caused the murder, why isn't the charge less than second-degree murder in the first place?

I think that a lot of defendants would be poorly served by having the prosecutor present the case against the defendant and then turn around and have the task of proving that the defendant intended to kill but had to do it. If the prosecutor really believes that the murder was second degree and not manslaughter or maybe no charge at all, it just would not work.

Think of the worst case scenario. A defendant is facing a first degree murder charge and the prosecutor is alleging not just intent but also, let's say malice aforethought. Depends on the state law. How in the world is the jury going to trust a prosecutor who argues first degree murder and presents a case with evidence supporting the charge and then turns around and contradicts that case for first-degree murder with a case for self-defense.

In my opinion, that would utterly confuse the jury.

What? Not how it works at all. The DA is saying murder. The defense is saying justifiable. Might want to take a second look at what you are saying.

If somebody is dead, we presume that unless the evidence is very clear to the contrary, the killer committed a crime. It's better to require the prosecutor to first prove that the accused actually committed the crime, and only then allow the defendant to show that the crime was self-defense. This is time-tested. We don't want a lot of murderers running around loose who got off on self-defense arguments or because the prosecutor's case was confused.

In self defense cases, the killer usually calls the cops and admits to it. There is no need to prove who who the killer is.

Yes, the Stand Your Ground laws will increase the numbers of murders because, in my opinion, the kinds of people who commit malicious, intentional murders, the types of personalities that do that sort of thing, will soon figure out how to manipulate these laws. Criminals are very often manipulative. Sorry to have to disillusion you about that, but many (note I am not saying all) of them are.

Oh, and "Duty to Retreat"? That is not what I learned to call it. It is called kill only in self-defense or when justified for some legally recognized reason. "Duty to Retreat" is a misleading moniker. If someone decided to shoot your son or daughter, wouldn't you want them to have to prove that it was done in self-defense? Most people would.

There is no evidence that it has. Don't believe everything you read in Think Progress. That has not been a problem in the SYG states before Florida like Washington, Utah, California, and Illinois. There is still a criminal investigation. If the if the evidence points to murder, the DA files charges.
That is what the lawyers and Wiki call it. I don't understand the rest of your point. SYG and DTR are separate legal views of self defense.

[JDPriestly]

28. The prosecutor only files charges if there is a question as to whether the murder was justified.

The difference is that with the Stand Your Ground laws, the prosecutor is under pressure to decide against a murder charge because the defendant who successfully defends with a Stand Your Ground defense has certain remedies if he is charged and it is later determined that he was killing in self-defense.

I think we are agreeing on the fundamentals. Prosecutors are not required to bring charges. They can choose not to if they think that the self-defense is a no-brainer. But usually they are cautious about that.

But, prosecutors can't argue the defense of self-defense in the courtroom.

I object to the language "Duty to Retreat." We have a duty not to kill. Then we have a duty to defend. But the first duty is not to kill. Goes back to the Ten Commandments and maybe further than that. The duty to protect life is ancillary to the duty not to kill.

But I take it that you agree with me that the self-defense evidence and arguments have to presented by the defendant. The prosecutor may decide not to bring charges but can't argue against the charges he or she decided to bring.

Maybe I misunderstood your original question and I do disagree with the expression "duty to retreat." It is a duty to avoid a fight if you can, a duty to protect life if you can. Self-defense is justified only rarely.

Remember, many people are completely defenseless. We don't want to encourage people to carry deadly weapons, whether knives or guns just in case -- and then out of unwarranted fear kill some innocent person.

The language duty to retreat makes it sound like the duty to protect the lives of others is some subversive idea. It isn't.

[gejohnston]

30. I didn't coin the term.

The prosecutor only files charges if there is a question as to whether the murder was justified.

Depends on the state. All murders are homicides, not all homicides are murder. You meant to say that the DA files charges if there is evidence of murder instead of self defense.

The difference is that with the Stand Your Ground laws, the prosecutor is under pressure to decide against a murder charge because the defendant who successfully defends with a Stand Your Ground defense has certain remedies if he is charged and it is later determined that he was killing in self-defense.

huh?

I think we are agreeing on the fundamentals. Prosecutors are not required to bring charges. They can choose not to if they think that the self-defense is a no-brainer. But usually they are cautious about that.

True, but there are asshole DAs that will.

But, prosecutors can't argue the defense of self-defense in the courtroom.

They don't.

I object to the language "Duty to Retreat." We have a duty not to kill. Then we have a duty to defend. But the first duty is not to kill. Goes back to the Ten Commandments and maybe further than that. The duty to protect life is ancillary to the duty not to kill.

That is the commonly accepted term, I did not coin it. The ten commandments says "do not murder" not "do not kill". Those English translations are incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_murder

But I take it that you agree with me that the self-defense evidence and arguments have to presented by the defendant. The prosecutor may decide not to bring charges but can't argue against the charges he or she decided to bring.

That is how it works.

Maybe I misunderstood your original question and I do disagree with the expression "duty to retreat." It is a duty to avoid a fight if you can, a duty to protect life if you can. Self-defense is justified only rarely.

I didn't coin the term. Most of the time that is the better option tactically as well as ethically. At the same time, I agree with Oliver Wendall Holmes on the issue.

Remember, many people are completely defenseless. We don't want to encourage people to carry deadly weapons, whether knives or guns just in case -- and then out of unwarranted fear kill some innocent person.

I don't see it happening.

The language duty to retreat makes it sound like the duty to protect the lives of others is some subversive idea. It isn't.

again, I didn't coin the term. Read the Wiki articles on the two.

[spin]

33. The correct translation from the Old Testament is "Thou Shalt not murder" ...

Is the Sixth Commandment
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" or
"Thou Shalt Not Murder"?

***snip***

There are several strong arguments for the case that the sixth commandment should be translated as "Thou shalt not murder." First, the verb used in the Torah commandment is "ratsah," which generally is translated as murder and refers only to criminal acts of killing a human being. The word "kill" generally refers to the taking of life for all classes of victims and for all reasons. This generalization is expressed through a different Hebrew verb "harag."

Another compelling argument against the "Thou shalt not kill" translation is that there are many places in the Hebrew scriptures that command or condone warfare, the sacrifice of animals, and several methods of capital punishment. While there is much in the Jewish tradition that attempts to limit war and capital punishment, and the biblical prophets indicated that God prefers justice and mercy to animal sacrifices, it can’t be denied that some forms of killing are acceptable according to Judaism.

If "Thou shalt not kill" were the proper translation, no person who took the Ten Commandments seriously could kill in self defense, even if it meant loss of the threatened person’s life, or could kill in warfare, even if his or her country were attacked. There could be no capital punishment no matter how horrible a person’s crimes were. Clearly there are cases where the Torah permits the taking of a human life. And, if it is sometimes permissible to kill another person, most people would agree that there are circumstances when it is also permissible to kill an animal. Judaism does not consider that the sixth commandment refers to animals.
http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/killormurder.html

It's my opinion that I have a duty to break off any confrontation that could lead to violence before it does so. However if I find myself under attack from a person who has the ability and the intention to put me in the hospital or six feet under, I have the right to use self defense including lethal force depending on the situation.

That in no way means that because I fear that my life or health is threatened that I can simply blow the other individual away. If he has a weapon such as a knife or a firearm or there is a significant disparity in force because he is much larger or in far better physical condition than I and is in the process of attacking me, then retreating might be foolish. I have some experience in the martial arts and none of the techniques that I learned for how to fight or disarm an attacker involved turning my back to run. (That is always an alternative but a predator will often chase running prey and catch them.) I also have some experience in shooting and I have found it is easier to shoot accurately while standing still or advancing. It's far more difficult to hit your target if you are backing up or have turned your back.

I don't ever want to use my legally concealed handgun to kill anyone, but in certain circumstances I will use it to attempt to stop his attack. Handguns are not particularly deadly weapons and often you can shoot a person multiple times and he still will survive if he gets medical attention in the golden hour. It is also necessary to realize that you can empty your firearm into your attacker and he still may be able to severely hurt or kill you.

The best way to survive any fight is not to be in one. It's wise to practice "situational awareness".

If the evidence shows beyond any doubt that I used self defense in an appropriate manner why should I be charged and face losing all my life savings paying for an attorney? Why should I face a civil lawsuit? If there are serious questions and evidence to prove that I acted foolishly, I should have my day in court.

From reading your post, I think we basically agree on the issue. My disagreement is with the King James interpretation of the Sixth Commandment.

[JDPriestly]

37. Yes. I understand the Commandment in those terms and agree with you.

I also understand a totally pacifist point of view.

I don't want to have a handgun. I would be more vulnerable with one than without it. I am physically very small, and a gun could easily be wrested from me and used against me.

Highly unlikely that I would attack anyone because such an act would be foolish on my part as almost any adult could overpower me.

What is more, I am philosophically committed to non-violence and Non-Violent communication. I live in a large city in an area known for gangs. Non-Violence is still the right and smartest way.

[spin]

42. That is your view ...

and I will not criticize it although I differ.

I would suggest that since you live in a possibly dangerous area that you practice situational awareness. You probably already do. Simply being aware of your surroundings and not walking around with a cell phone glued to your ear is probably the best form of self defense. The best way to survive a violent attack to to avoid being in one.

There are also non-lethal alternatives available such as pepper spray. If you have any interest in such devices and they would not violate your principles of nonviolence you can check out the one I recommend out on this video.

Tornado Defense System w/ Clip

The device is sold on Amazon.com for $25.15
http://www.amazon.com/Tornado-Defense-System-w-Clip/dp/B00407I0TW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1339455282&sr=8-2&keywords=tornado+5+in+1+pepper+spray

[Major Nikon]

21. Hogwash

Nobody has to prove their innocence in this country unless they have already been convicted. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard in all 50 states. These laws were written by the wingnut organization ALEC for the bullshit reason of pandering to gun nuts to try to 'solve' a problem that never existed in the first place.

If you want to talk "justifiable homicide" I can give you multiple instances in Florida alone where people who were the aggressor shot and killed or seriously wounded unarmed people and got away with it as a direct result of these laws. Zimmerman would have gotten away with it too had it not been for an overwealming public outcry of injustice and still may.

Stand-your-ground is a marketing term devised by ALEC to convince those who didn't take the time to actually read the law that it actually serves a useful purpose. It doesn't and never did. These laws and the one in Florida in particular are more accurately described as 'shoot first'.

[gejohnston]

24. hogwash

Nobody has to prove their innocence in this country unless they have already been convicted. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard in all 50 states. These laws were written by the wingnut organization ALEC for the bullshit reason of pandering to gun nuts to try to 'solve' a problem that never existed in the first place.

You didn't read the link? Justifiable homicide is not a crime. Under DTR, you are charged with murder, but you use self defense as an affirmative defense. Justifiable homicide includes self defense. Therefore, you have to prove that you are innocent of murder or manslaughter.

If you want to talk "justifiable homicide" I can give you multiple instances in Florida alone where people who were the aggressor shot and killed or seriously wounded unarmed people and got away with it as a direct result of these laws. Zimmerman would have gotten away with it too had it not been for an overwealming public outcry of injustice and still may.

Name one. The public outcry was the MSM doing a trial by media, AKA electronic lynching. Much of the MSM's reports were wrong and incomplete. I'll wait for the real trial to decide Zimmerman.

Stand-your-ground is a marketing term devised by ALEC to convince those who didn't take the time to actually read the law that it actually serves a useful purpose. It doesn't and never did. These laws and the one in Florida in particular are more accurately described as 'shoot first'.

Shoot first was a marketing term used by propagandists over Colorado's Castle doctrine. SYG is the accepted term. It is older than ALEC. California has been SYG 110 years before Florida.

[Major Nikon]

31. Feel free to list when "presumption of innocence" was suspended in the US, because I can't find it

You didn't read the link? Justifiable homicide is not a crime. Under DTR, you are charged with murder, but you use self defense as an affirmative defense. Justifiable homicide includes self defense. Therefore, you have to prove that you are innocent of murder or manslaughter.

You aren't charged with murder unless there is evidence of murder. It's a pretty simple concept really which existed well before the recent laws were enacted. You're simply repeating the same hogwash that was used to justify these fucked up laws in the first place. Where's all the cases where innocent people were being charged with murder? Most, if not all states, had already rejected the "duty to retreat" in all but the most egregious circumstances well before all these ALEC/NRA nutbag written bullshit shoot-first laws were enacted. You also make it sound as if "duty to retreat" is a bad thing. It isn't. A guy in Florida shot an unarmed drunk man who happened to ring the wrong doorbell in the middle of the night. "Duty to retreat" would have required him at the very least to do the sensible thing and go back inside his home. Instead he shot the man AFTER he put his hands up, then got away free thanks to the fucked up law.

Name one. The public outcry was the MSM doing a trial by media, AKA electronic lynching. Much of the MSM's reports were wrong and incomplete. I'll wait for the real trial to decide Zimmerman.

I'll name several.

* Two men argue whether a teenager should be allowed to skateboard in a Tampa park. The fight ends with one man shooting the other dead in front of his 8-year-old daughter.
* A 15-year-old died after two gangs brawled in Tallahassee, leaving no one accountable for his death.
* A man shot and killed two people during an altercation aboard a 35-foot sailboat anchored near Riviera Beach.
* A driver attacked and killed another with an ice pick during a road rage incident.
* The owner of a towing company killed a man he claimed tried to run him over while retrieving his car from an impound lot.
* A car salesman shot another man in a barroom argument over cigarettes.
* A decorated Army veteran and father of two was killed outside his elderly mother’s Cape Coral home after a neighbor mistook him for a thief.
* A drunken Land ‘O Lakes man was shot, but not killed, after he mistakenly tried the door at the wrong house in his neighborhood.
* A man chased and killed a burglar in Miami and successfully claimed self-defense, though he shot the man in the back.
http://floridavoices.com/columns/susan-clary/too-many-deaths-name-self-defense

Care to name any of these cases where innocent people are being convicted of murder? The NRA and ALEC couldn't, so I don't expect you'll have much luck either.

Shoot first was a marketing term used by propagandists over Colorado's Castle doctrine. SYG is the accepted term. It is older than ALEC. California has been SYG 110 years before Florida.

The bullshit call is a pretty easy one to make here. First of all, when a law allows an aggressor to use deadly force, it can no longer legitimately be called "stand your ground", that's why "shoot first" is what the actual law is. Evidently you consider groups like Dailykos, Media Matters, Thinkprogress, Democracynow, and CSGV as "propagandists" while the fruits and nuts like LaPierre and ALEC have it right. Kinda makes you go, hmmmmm.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/23/1077185/-Why-Stand-Your-Ground-Is-Actually-Shoot-First-
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/shoot-first-laws
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/20/floridas_shoot_first_law_critiqued_by
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203230014
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Shoot-First-Backgrounder-Short-Form.doc

Furthermore the Castle Doctrine laws that were on the books prior to 2005 are nothing at all like the Florida law and the virtual carbon copies that were furnished and promoted by ALEC and the NRA. In almost all instances, they referenced the right of self defense inside the home. Most of the fucked up ALEC/NRA bullshit laws that came about after 2005 extend that premise to virtually anywhere and in some cases even protect the aggressor. So if you think these new laws are like the old laws, you probably haven't read or at least understood the differences.

[gejohnston]

32. why not look up the law?

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter0776/All

You aren't charged with murder unless there is evidence of murder. It's a pretty simple concept really which existed well before the recent laws were enacted. You're simply repeating the same hogwash that was used to justify these fucked up laws in the first place. Where's all the cases where innocent people were being charged with murder? Most, if not all states, had already rejected the "duty to retreat" in all but the most egregious circumstances well before all these ALEC/NRA nutbag written bullshit shoot-first laws were enacted. You also make it sound as if "duty to retreat" is a bad thing. It isn't. A guy in Florida shot an unarmed drunk man who happened to ring the wrong doorbell in the middle of the night. "Duty to retreat" would have required him at the very least to do the sensible thing and go back inside his home. Instead he shot the man AFTER he put his hands up, then got away free thanks to the fucked up law.

Sometimes it is manslaughter. Sometimes the DA does nothing. Don't think for a second DTR would not have the same racial or social biases. Do you have links to actual newspaper reports or police reports? Sorry, my bullshit meter is pegged. Depends on the cops and the DA. In DTR, it is up to the cops and the DA. it has happened in Florida before the law was passed. I did not say I think the Florida law is good, or not vague. I am simply defending the concept. Where are those people? How would I know, there is no statistic for "claimed self defense but went to jail anyway" although when I was in Kansas, there was such a trial. The Sedgewick County DA tried it as murder or manslaughter even though the evidence was overwhelmingly against it.

The list was from an opinion piece. Most of them are in jail. The two drunks in a bar certainly are. I live here. I know some of those cases. I doubt any of them were ruled as justifiable in the immunity hearing.

The bullshit call is a pretty easy one to make here. First of all, when a law allows an aggressor to use deadly force, it can no longer legitimately be called "stand your ground", that's why "shoot first" is what the actual law is. Evidently you consider groups like Dailykos, Media Matters, Thinkprogress, Democracynow, and CSGV as "propagandists" while the fruits and nuts like LaPierre and ALEC have it right. Kinda makes you go, hmmmmm.

Read the law. The aggressor is not allowed to use deadly force. Read the law for yourself.

Yes they are propaganda, just like ALEC and the NRA puts out propaganda. If you are selling something like an ideology or even soap, you are putting out propaganda. CSGV matches ALEC as being the most dishonest. When it comes to guns and self defense, MM and Think Progress are often lazy if not dishonest. Our side has its warts. That is how the real world works. There is no we are 100 percent right and they are 100 wrong.

[Major Nikon]

35. You should have read it yourself before you commented

Yes they are propaganda, just like ALEC and the NRA puts out propaganda. If you are selling something like an ideology or even soap, you are putting out propaganda. CSGV matches ALEC as being the most dishonest. When it comes to guns and self defense, MM and Think Progress are often lazy if not dishonest. Our side has its warts. That is how the real world works. There is no we are 100 percent right and they are 100 wrong.

Really? The NRA is never 100% wrong? I can't agree with you there. ALEC and NRA don't just put out propaganda, they put out lies and misinformation.

Sometimes it is manslaughter. Sometimes the DA does nothing. Don't think for a second DTR would not have the same racial or social biases. Do you have links to actual newspaper reports or police reports? Sorry, my bullshit meter is pegged. Depends on the cops and the DA. In DTR, it is up to the cops and the DA. it has happened in Florida before the law was passed. I did not say I think the Florida law is good, or not vague. I am simply defending the concept. Where are those people? How would I know, there is no statistic for "claimed self defense but went to jail anyway" although when I was in Kansas, there was such a trial. The Sedgewick County DA tried it as murder or manslaughter even though the evidence was overwhelmingly against it.

The list was from an opinion piece. Most of them are in jail. The two drunks in a bar certainly are. I live here. I know some of those cases. I doubt any of them were ruled as justifiable in the immunity hearing.

Here's the way I roll. Those who demand cites but don't provide their own when asked are just shit out of luck. I don't play those games. You were asked for examples that justify these bullshit laws and you failed to provide them. If the law was needed, it should be a simple matter to provide them, yes? Putting the burden on those to prove the law is shit when the law was never justified in the first place is just bullshit. If you don't understand that, you're probably not very objective on this matter. And no, these people aren't "in jail" at least for the offenses described. All are walked free after committing deadly assaults they should have been held accountable. That's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. I've seen the news stories on all of these cases. If you don't believe it, you should better educate yourself.

Read the law. The aggressor is not allowed to use deadly force. Read the law for yourself.

I did read the law. Either you didn't or you don't understand it. The law specifically provides an exemption for an aggressor. Oddly enough, it's in the section entitled: 776.041 Use of force by aggressor., and is kinda hard for most who actually have read it to miss. If you can't understand it, there's plenty of legal opinions you can reference.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/21/do-stand-your-ground-laws-encourage-vigilantes/what-the-florida-stand-your-ground-law-says

Since you may not click on this or at least make it to the end, I'll post the last sentence which pretty much sums up why this law is bullshit.

"Under no circumstances should people be able to confront others in a hostile manner, end up using deadly force, and escape punishment."

The Florida law specifically allows those who confront others to use deadly force. That's not stand your ground, it's shoot first bullshit. It specifically allows people who pack guns to let their alligator mouths outrun their canary asses and when they inevitably get into the confrontation they initiated to shoot their way out of it. And while this may not be indicative of all people who conceal weapons, there's no shortage of people like Zimmerman. The facts regarding people who have already gotten away with this speak for themselves whether you choose to turn a blind eye to them or not.

ALEC no longer supports this law. The wingnut sponsor of the law no longer supports it. If you want to try to defend it, be my guest, but I don't think you're going to find much support outside of gunnut circles. Perhaps this kind of stuff goes over well in the gungeon, I don't go there, but if you want to post misinformation here, it's going to be challenged. I'm satisfied that has been done. I'm not going to go ad nauseum on this as it's already been done too many times. If you want to, be my guest, but you're going to have to do it without me.

[hack89]

38. Did you actually read the two situations where the aggressor

can claim self defense?

One is where the aggressor walks away from the fight and he is pursued. The other is where he has a reasonable fear that his life is in danger. But the police, DA, judge or jury get to decide what.is reasonable.

[Major Nikon]

41. Did you actually read this thread?

Here is the claim made by the previous poster:

The aggressor is not allowed to use deadly force.

That claim is simply untrue which can be verified by anyone who cares to read the law.

[hack89]

43. I was just pointing out that the exceptions are very limited. That's all. nt

[Major Nikon]

44. The exception is big enough to drive a Mack truck through

What the exception means is that I can initiate a confrontation with someone, and if I start getting my ass kicked or I even think I might get my ass kicked, I can legally pull out my gun and shoot my way out of the situation I just got myself into. That's exactly what is happening in Florida time and time again. Most people who don't worship at the altar of the gun find that situation unacceptable, hence the outrage at the law.

[hack89]

46. No - it says the other guy can't kill you for starting a fist fight or verbal confrontation.

and it is the legal system that decides whether the fear of death is reasonable. Every defendant says they are innocent and has a good story - yet many of them still are convicted.


On edit: The aggressor law has been on the books since at least 1998 - and Florida has seen a big drop in gun deaths since then like the rest of country so I don't think this particular law is the menace to public safety that you think.

The 1998 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
Justifiable Use Of Force

View Entire Chapter

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=CH0776/sec041.htm#0776.041

[Major Nikon]

47. That's not what it says

If you start a fight, in most cases you have committed assault which is an unlawful activity and means you aren't protected by this law.

The legal system is not determining if the fear of death is reasonable. They are determining if the person who used deadly force believed it was reasonable. That's a big difference.

What changed in 2005 was the person is granted complete immunity from arrest, prosecution and civil penalties so long as they meet the conditions of the law. Again, big difference.

If you want examples of where the law is failing (as if the Zimmerman case isn't enough), just follow the thread upstream where I listed several.

[hack89]

50. No - there is still the reasonable man standard

would a reasonable person fear for his life. You can honestly feel that your life was threatened and still be charged and convicted if the jury doesn't accept that your fear was reasonable.

Zimmerman was arrested, charged with murder and is in jail. Just how did the law fail?

[Major Nikon]

52. So how do you account for the fact that the law doesn't say what you're claiming?

Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger

I'm quite familiar with the reasonable person standard. This is not the reasonable person standard.

Zimmerman was only arrested AFTER intense public pressure, and stands a very good chance of never doing more than a few days in jail. That's why the law failed. If the law worked he would have been arrested on the spot never to see the light of day for many years with little to no question regarding his guilt.

[hack89]

53. That has been the standard for self defense for at least 15 years

here is the verbiage from 1997:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

SYG did not change the standard for reasonable fear of imminent danger.

SYG added this:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The standard for self defense has not changed - all that has changed is that it has been explicitly extended beyond one's home.

[hack89]

51. Did you read the actual law ?

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

If I assault you, it does not give you carte blanche to kill me - I have a legal right of self defense if I try to escape.

[Major Nikon]

54. OK, I've had enough

As I said to a previous poster, I'm not going to go ad nauseum on a subject which has already gone ad nauseum too many times here. So if your objective is simply to wear me down with post after post reposting the text of the law, you most certainly can claim victory on that basis. I have better things to do.

Chow.

[hack89]

56. No problem - interpreting statutes can get complicated

and what one thinks is a common sense approach may in fact have no relationship with legal reality in a court room. That's why the entire Zimmerman case has the potential to leave many disappointed - I would not be surprised if he walks.

Time will tell what the actual interpretation really is.

Ciao

[gejohnston]

45. I did read it.

Really? The NRA is never 100% wrong? I can't agree with you there. ALEC and NRA don't just put out propaganda, they put out lies and misinformation.

No one is 100 percent wrong. I can't think of anything ALEC actually does other than write bills.

Here's the way I roll. Those who demand cites but don't provide their own when asked are just shit out of luck. I don't play those games. You were asked for examples that justify these bullshit laws and you failed to provide them. If the law was needed, it should be a simple matter to provide them, yes? Putting the burden on those to prove the law is shit when the law was never justified in the first place is just bullshit. If you don't understand that, you're probably not very objective on this matter. And no, these people aren't "in jail" at least for the offenses described. All are walked free after committing deadly assaults they should have been held accountable. That's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. I've seen the news stories on all of these cases. If you don't believe it, you should better educate yourself.

You are the one claiming first, and your evidence is poor. The one in Miami did get off, but it had nothing to do with SYG, since IIRC, a SYG hearing was not convened. The two guys in a bar, are not walking away. Odds are, he does not have a CCW, drinking while armed, are just two of the felony charges.

The Florida law specifically allows those who confront others to use deadly force. That's not stand your ground, it's shoot first bullshit. It specifically allows people who pack guns to let their alligator mouths outrun their canary asses and when they inevitably get into the confrontation they initiated to shoot their way out of it. And while this may not be indicative of all people who conceal weapons, there's no shortage of people like Zimmerman. The facts regarding people who have already gotten away with this speak for themselves whether you choose to turn a blind eye to them or not.

No it does not. It allows those being confronted. Zimmerman is irrelevant. Even Alan Dershowitz explains it. He is not a big fan the the Florida law.

ALEC no longer supports this law. The wingnut sponsor of the law no longer supports it. If you want to try to defend it, be my guest, but I don't think you're going to find much support outside of gunnut circles. Perhaps this kind of stuff goes over well in the gungeon, I don't go there, but if you want to post misinformation here, it's going to be challenged. I'm satisfied that has been done. I'm not going to go ad nauseum on this as it's already been done too many times. If you want to, be my guest, but you're going to have to do it without me.

ALEC only does what the money bags told them to. I am not posting misinformation. I posted the actual law. I'm guessing you did not read it. The bill's sponsor said that Zimmerman would not and should not be protected by the law. That was based on the initial MSM electronic lynching. I am not saying I think Zimmerman is innocent. I am saying the initial accounts by the MSM were less than complete and honest. Most of the progressive media are sticking the the racist vigilante meme, and right wing is sticking to their meme. Truth is, both are likely to be wrong. Whenever the media electronically lynchs people, they almost always get it wrong. Casey Anthony and Richard Jewell come to mind. I found no evidence that he retracted the law.
For the injustice example.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article1225164.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_media

the relevant Florida law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter0776/All
In other words, if the aggressor withdraws and the other person counter attacks, the initial aggressor becomes the defender. I have no idea who this guy is. Is he a lawyer?

[JDPriestly]

40. Right. For example, in the Zimmerman case, if the case went to trial,

the DA might be able to prove that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin but not be able to persuade a jury on intent. Zimmerman would go free on the 2nd degree murder charge at the least. So, it is absurd to hold the special hearing on self-defense first. Some here on DU are claiming that the DA has to prove that it wasn't self-defense. I seriously doubt that. Seems to me that if this issue is framed as a defense motion then the defense has to bear the burden of proving it. Where as if it were a matter of proving the intent element of the charge, the prosecutor would have the burden.

I may be wrong about this. I am not familiar with this kind of law although California apparently has one, but it seems to shift the burden of proof in a crazy way.

[csziggy]

22. So rather than trust in the jury system, you'd rather leave it up to police

Or a politically oriented DA to make the determination that a killing was justified? In many parts of this country it is more likely that those officials will be racist than an entire jury would be.

The biggest problem I have with the SYG laws - other than that they were not needed - is that too often the decision whether or not to believe the killer's story is left up to local cops or to the local prosecutors with no oversight from anyone else.

For the first few weeks the Zimmerman case is a perfect example of this problem. With little or no investigation before the dead man was even identified, George Zimmerman was allowed to walk free. He was allowed to move out of his home and go into hiding. He could easily have left the state and the country and been out of the reach of law enforcement.

It was only when Trayvon Martin's parents hired attorneys and those attorneys used their influence to bring the story to national attention that a real examination of the events of the night of Trayvon's death was begun. The Sanford Police Department, already notorious for their racism and laxity in handling cases involving perpetrators with connections to the department, was perfectly willing to consider the case closed forever, even when at least one of their detectives did not think it should have been closed as a SYG case.

Local police departments should not have the power to ignore cases just because the survivor of a confrontation claims they were 'standing their ground'. Local prosecutors should at least have the evidence from a complete investigation before they can apply SYG to a killing.

I trust juries MUCH more than I do police and prosecutors to make a fair decision.

[gejohnston]

23. actually not true

Or a politically oriented DA to make the determination that a killing was justified? In many parts of this country it is more likely that those officials will be racist than an entire jury would be.

The opposite is also true. Depends on the state. In Florida there is a SYG hearing, the judge decides if the evidence is compelling or sends it to trial.

The biggest problem I have with the SYG laws - other than that they were not needed - is that too often the decision whether or not to believe the killer's story is left up to local cops or to the local prosecutors with no oversight from anyone else.

Not true either. It varies by state. If the evidence points to murder, the DA files the charges. I can use the same argument against DTR, but where the innocent person goes to prison. If the attacker was Mr. Clean cut, and the shooter had green hair.....

For the first few weeks the Zimmerman case is a perfect example of this problem. With little or no investigation before the dead man was even identified, George Zimmerman was allowed to walk free. He was allowed to move out of his home and go into hiding. He could easily have left the state and the country and been out of the reach of law enforcement.

He was arrested. Most of what has been in the MSM was less than honest. Trial by media is the polite term.

It was only when Trayvon Martin's parents hired attorneys and those attorneys used their influence to bring the story to national attention that a real examination of the events of the night of Trayvon's death was begun. The Sanford Police Department, already notorious for their racism and laxity in handling cases involving perpetrators with connections to the department, was perfectly willing to consider the case closed forever, even when at least one of their detectives did not think it should have been closed as a SYG case.

Has nothing to do with SYG.

Local police departments should not have the power to ignore cases just because the survivor of a confrontation claims they were 'standing their ground'. Local prosecutors should at least have the evidence from a complete investigation before they can apply SYG to a killing.

Has nothing to do with SYG. Already covered above.

I trust juries MUCH more than I do police and prosecutors to make a fair decision.

I trust juries too. That does not change the fact that anyone should have to prove their innocence, and if they win, many DTR states allow the attacker's family to sue. Wyoming has one of the saner DTR law. If you prove your case in criminal court, you are immune from civil suits on the issue.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. No they don't.

"These laws encourage a lone ranger, lynching mentality."

That is complete crap. The investigating officer recommended Zimmerman be charged. He was overruled.
Simple fix: Remove the DA from the equation at that point, and send any case where the police suggest a charge, to a grand jury. The DA can enforce the results of the grand jury and proceed to trial.

SYG didn't encourage Zimmerman to appoint himself some kind of mall cop and start accosting people.

Most states have some sort of SYG law, and even with the justifiable homicide numbers added in, total homicides are down, year over year. So 'going to increase' hasn't happened at all. Some of these SYG laws have been on the books for decades.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. You are quite incorrect as to the nature of SYG laws

And you argument is upside down. The prior laws relied too heavily on police officers and politically appointed DAs. The current SYG laws do not give them than unaccountable power.

The crux of SYG is if it a legitimate use of deadely force in self defense, the location is irrelevant.

Learn what the laws really mean and say, not what some want you to believe.

[JDPriestly]

39. They never had unaccountable power. The DA, for one, is usually an elected official, not

politically appointed.

And the police answer to the city government -- made up of elected officials.

As for the SYG laws, it is upside down to consider defenses before the primary charge has been decided. I don't think it is even a good idea for defendants.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. FL is unique in that regards

Its there to stop prosecutors from financially penalizing someone by forcing them through a trial when its not justified. It is effectively a 2 step preliminary hearing.

The key issue is and remains, was it a legitimate use of deadly force in self defense.

[JDPriestly]

49. As for example, when someone is robbing a convenience store at gunpoint.

And the whole thing is on tape.

Or when there is an armed robbery in a home and the robber had no reason to be there or to have a gun other than to commit a crime, possibly murder.

But the Zimmerman facts are significantly murkier.

If your 17-year-old son is robbing a store at gunpoint and is shot by the store clerk's assistant, you, the parent, know why your son died.

But in the Zimmerman case, no one really knows. People have opinions, but we aren't really sure what happened. Maybe we never will be, but because the case is about the death of someone who was not armed and was, as far as is known at this time, where he was supposed to be, a lot of facts need to be presented in a court of law, and some decisions have to be made about just what the truth is or at least what the best guess at the truth and the whole truth is. Society owes that to Trayvon Martin's parents.

[etherealtruth]

6. A possibility for something good to come from Trayvan Martin's ...

... tragic murder

[Journeyman]

11. From the beginning, it's the only positive outcome I've seen coming from this tragedy. . .

[chknltl]

8. The way racism affects SYG, they MUST look at this case:

Racism is getting worse, not better in America. Stand Your Ground is enabling the racists! Here is one example:

In this case a black man uses SYG to protect his home and his family from a deranged armed white man attacking his family. The white man is dead and guess who is in jail for life. Go ahead read the story...see if you are not outraged by this blatant example of racism my fellow DUer.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when_stand_your_ground_fails/singleton/?mobile.html

[asjr]

9. From what I have read and heard about it

SYG has become a license to kill. On anyone's ground!

[gejohnston]

14. because you have been ill informed

each state varies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

[spin]

34. Yup. Exactly what the media wants you to believe ...

They also would like you to believe that Floridian's with concealed weapons permits are running around looking for any chance to kill someone and are playing vigilantes. They will convince you that Florida has turned into the "Wild West" despite that fact that violent crime has decrease since the "Stand Your Ground" law passed. If you visit the Florida Department of Law Enforcement homepage you will see a graphic that says that the crime rate in Florida is at its lowest level in 41 years. http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/home.aspx How could this be true if Floridians were running around blowing each other away.

There has only been roughly 200 incidents of "Stand Your Ground" law being claimed as justification in an incident involving self defense since the law passed seven years ago.

Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied.By Kris Hundley, Susan Taylor Martin and Connie Humburg, Times Staff Writers
In Print: Sunday, June 3, 2012

***snip***

In the most comprehensive effort of its kind, the Tampa Bay Times has identified nearly 200 "stand your ground'' cases and their outcomes. The Times identified cases through media reports, court records and dozens of interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys across the state.

Among the findings:

• Those who invoke "stand your ground" to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.

• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

The report emphases that 70% of those who have claimed a stand your ground defense have walked but largely ignores the fact that they might have actually be entirely justified. Is it possible that the media is ant-victim and would prefer that totally innocent people end up in a hospital or in an funeral home rather than fairly look at the "Stand Your Ground" law? I'm beginning to suspect that this is unfortunately true.

Over 800,000 Floridians currently have such licenses and yet there have been very few instances where a shooting involved the "Stand Your Ground" law.

What honestly scares me is that a few Floridians who lack the capacity to question what the media says will actually believe that they can get away with murder. Of course the media will be able to publicize every questionable incident in order to increase their profits and to further their anti-victim agenda.

I understand there has been several other incidents involving stand your ground since the Trayvon Martin shooting, none of which were publicized. I suspect that this is probably because the evidence showed that the shooter used his firearm in an appropriate manner to save his life or health. National reporting on such incidents would only be fair but would undercut the media's agenda.

I do feel the Florida law will be rewritten to eliminate existing ambiguities and confusion. If there is a problem with the law it is that local police and prosecutors can overlook evidence and allow a shooter to walk when there are reasonable questions about his actions. Unfortunately racism can be involved in their decision. The statue of Lady Justice wears a blindfold for that reason.

Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality. The earliest Roman coins depicted Justitia with the sword in one hand and the scale in the other, but with her eyes uncovered.[3] Justitia was only commonly represented as "blind" since about the end of the 15th century. The first known representation of blind Justice is Hans Gieng's 1543 statue on the Gerechtigkeitsbrunnen (Fountain of Justice) in Berne.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice

[jwirr]

12. Finally.

[L0oniX]

15. Maybe they should focus on Texas too ...ya think?

[patrice]

16. Thank Goodness!

[Overseas]

19. K&R. Long overdue. Remember Marissa Alexander.

Marissa Alexander got 20 years for firing a warning shot

http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/30/where-was-stand-your-ground-for-marissa-alexander/

[hack89]

55. No - she got 20 years for leaving the situation and then coming back with a gun. nt

[Ford_Prefect]

20. They need to look at WHO is advancing the passage of SYG.

ALEC in particular deserves close examination. In the not so distant past the KKK was pursued for promoting just this kind of racist dogma.

Through ALEC and other forums the Ultra-Right has gone to extremes of language to make their sordid beliefs appear in model legislation as if they represent simply one more view of the issues. Similar linguistic coding has described 10 years of war in Vietnam as a "police action".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Wonder if they are ever going to look into the ongoing capricious use of hate crime enhancements

[crunch60]

29. The Unholy Trinity: Koch Brothers, ALEC, and the NRA

The Koch brother's Father, Fred Koch , one of the founding fathers of the Racist John Birch Society once said in a statement:snip:
Fred Koch once wrote that the “colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America” and claimed welfare was designed to create a “vicious race war.”

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/david-koch-no-stopping-union-power-if


snip:
The John Birch Society was founded in opposition to the civil rights movement, and promoted numerous conspiracy theories of a UN-led “one world” government.

Much has been written about the shameful killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida. This article is not about his accused killer, George Zimmerman. Much has been written about him also. This article is about the unholy alliance that helped to create the ‘Stand Your Ground’ (or Castle Doctrine) laws that enabled George Zimmerman to get away with murder in Florida: The Koch Brothers, ALEC, and the NRA.

http://kaystreet.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/the-unholy-trinity-koch-brothers-alec-and-the-nra/

Connecting the dots.

[LanternWaste]

36. No bad thing in reviewing and reassessing any piece of legislation...

No bad thing in reviewing and reassessing any piece of legislation out there. I'm particularly glad this specific piece is getting more eyeballs on it.