NRA statement on Florida shooting.

[safeinOhio]

crickets.


One issue organization stays quite on it's one issue.

[geckosfeet]

1. They know when to keep their mouths shut.

And when to flap their gums.

Anything they are saying is being said privately, and you know they are not saying Zimmerman should have his license revoked.

[Callisto32]

82. Really, you KNOW this?

you KNOW it?

Ah, priori!

[geckosfeet]

90. I know nothing. Nothing.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Gee, what a surprise.

not.

[Remmah2]

3. NFL statement on Florida shooting.

nt

[Pholus]

6. Didn't see the NFL wanting "stand your ground" laws though.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/20/149014228/a-history-of-stand-your-ground-law-in-florida

I think the best part of this is that it proves that those of us who said it would simply become a way to commit homicide and be able to get away with it were pretty much correct. They're talking like Zimmerman is going to get away scott free.

Cue the south park:

"That deer. It looks like it is threatening us. BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM!!!!"

[Remmah2]

15. I'll bet the NRA is backing up Zimmerman 100%

That may be your wet dream, not mine. Clearly from the start many people could see Zimmerman was wrong as well as was the response by the local authorities. The NRA is about as responsible for this case as the East Indian Boy Scouts. The association is not there.

[Pholus]

19. No they're not backing him. They're staying silent.

They know a loser when they see it. Stay quiet and hope it blows over quick.

And as far as "the association is not there" if this shooting had happened where I live (explicitly, a place with NO stand your ground law) Zimmerman would be in jail right now.

A travesty being protected by the travesty of a law.

[Remmah2]

23. It's obvious, the NRA isn't responding to your post for the same reason. nt

nt

[Pholus]

67. Heheheh. I dunno, I kinda feel like I am talking with the NRA here.

Or at least one of their pamphlets. About as much depth when I think about it...

[Callisto32]

83. IRONY

learn it, love it.

[Pholus]

85. ...don't misuse it.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=3383

[Starboard Tack]

36. Clearly!

[gejohnston]

38. the guy who wrote and introduced the law isn't

supporting Zimmerman (in fact, he is accusing Zimmerman of murder and Sanford PD of poor reading skills)

[Pholus]

65. That's great!

Can you link this for me? I haven't seen it yet. That would greatly change the situation as far as I'm concerned....

[X_Digger]

70. Here ya go..

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/

[Pholus]

75. Thank you for this! I appreciate what was said in it. nt

[gejohnston]

71. here it is

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/fl-stand-your-ground-law-on-trial-20120320,0,5559053.story

I may have put a few words in his mouth, but that is what I got reading between the lines. Most of us are not big fans of the NRA. Some of us are members of http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

I ditched the NRA when the traditionalists/environmentalists were deposed by the crazy reactionary assholes. I'm old enough to remember when this guy was in the NRA mainstream.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/19/428335/conservation-hawks-founder-climate-change-beretta/

http://conservationhawks.org/

[Pholus]

74. Thanks for that!

And for the rest! Very interesting stuff! This summer I'm training my son -- I think I'll be asking for a few pointers from you!

[AtheistCrusader]

29. That's not how florida's law works, but apparently people can't be bothered to read it.

Zimmerman committed several actions that have exposed him to prosecution without the resort of any self-defense claim.

[spin]

33. We wouldn't be arguing about the law if the authorities had arrested Zimmerman ...

and I agree that it appears that they had good reason to do so.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. I think that police department is going to burn when the FBI gets through with them.

Unfortunate for the cops who didn't have anything to do with it, because it's going to be rectal probes for everyone, but them's the breaks. If even half the allegations are true... bad times.

[spin]

44. I agree (with the information that I currently have). (n/t)

[frylock]

49. there are no innocents at sanford PD..

whether anyone was directly involved or not, the corrupttion in evidence at this precinct is in full effect, and any "good cop" that hasn't blown the whistle is every bit as culpable as these other shitbirds. the dept needs to be purged from the top down.

[gejohnston]

60. Andy and Barney they are not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Police_Department_(Florida)
At least, not Andy anyway.

[baldguy]

9. The NFL promotes the use of firearms to solve any & all of life's problems, like the NRA does?

[shadowrider]

10. Can you quote, from the NRA homepage (not some blog)

Where they advocate firearms as a way to solve any and all of lifes problems?

Didn't think so.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Don't be silly, it's one of those "higher truths" beloved of would-be social cleansers.

[shadowrider]

42. Ahhhhhhhhh. One of those concepts where you must be

morally superior, enlightened and such to see the real story.

Gotcha..

[oneshooter]

61. Or just be willing to lie about it.

[Remmah2]

13. Yup

I'll bet the NRA says that.

[Logical]

72. Wow, that was a stupid comment. I hope you can tell the difference.

[Remmah2]

4. USAF statement on Florida shooting.

nt

[Pholus]

7. Did the USAF sponsor "stand your ground laws?"

Man, when my dog poops in the house at least it looks ashamed when it gets caught.

[Remmah2]

11. Clearly some people are trying to make a link that is not there.

The Zimmerman-Martin murder is about an overzealous block watch captain (read: wanna be cop). Is there any difference between this case and when some police officer opens up and empties his magazine into an unarmed suspect? The castle law concept is far from blame here. The case reeks of bigotry on the part of the shooter and bigotry on the response of the police.


When your dog poops in the house, do you step in it? They say a dog is a lot like it's owner.

[shadowrider]

14. The difference is, cops are trusted and stuff

[Remmah2]

21. My weekend hobby jobs takes me to different cities.

I've met some really great cops, sheriffs, troopers. I've also met some dicks. It's funny, you'll meet cops that don't trust other cops!

[shadowrider]

24. Agreed. Cops are human and subject to daily stresses we all are.

They aren't all good, although I believe, by a large majority, they are.

[baldguy]

16. When your dog poops in the house, do you leave it there & let it stink up the place?

That's the NRA's solution. They'd bring more dogs in, and let them poop everywhere.

But in the real world, a rational person will clean it up & discipline the dog so that it doesn't happen again.

[Oneka]

34. So in your "real world"

The NRA should be punishing, alleged abusers of firearms?

Interesting concept.

[baldguy]

41. Not surprisingly, you've missed the point.

[Oneka]

51. I believe it is you

Who is point challenged.
The NRA is a rights advocate organization ,
Not an enforcement agency. The fact that you were attempting to compare it to one,
makes your point very clear, and also quite wrong.

[Pholus]

17. Add CCW holder to your list of Zimmerman's qualifications.

I've been told many times on DU their training is so good they make the cops look like the amateurs.

And the difference between recent events and your attempt to divert the issue is that one of these wouldn't have happened without a highly paid army of NRA lobbyists trying to change the law. That's right. Not the USAF, not the NFL, the NRA and it's highly paid army
of lobbyists. It was a bad law when it was written, and it is a bad law in this situation.

I got no problem with guns or the castle law. But any extension of it where all you have to do is shoot the only witness and then claim you felt threatened for the walk is crap law. Crap law written by the NRA -- thanks guys!

And as far as your last sentence. Hehehehe. I used that one too. But it was during PE in 8th grade. Nice to see you catch up.

[shadowrider]

18. If you can show me where someone said CCW holders NEVER make

mistakes, I'll grant your point. But you can't, so I won't.

[Pholus]

20. Oh, this wasn't a "mistake" mind you.

I've had the "CCW is such a high bar" shoved in my face before so when it isn't great (like now) you can just wear it for a while.

[Remmah2]

22. So if a CDL hit a school bus, would you lobby to ban all 18 wheelers?

While there is no doubt Zimmerman did murder the young man possibly based on bigotry, how can you justify a biggoted response to those of us who see the second amendment differently than you? We all live in different neighborhoods with different conditions and situations. We all have different lives and our jobs and travels take us to different places. Your shoes do not fit me and mine do not fit you.

[Pholus]

68. No. 18 wheelers actually do something worth the risk.

I honestly don't carewhat you do with your personal life nor do I care about your religion. The law is crap based on the fact that some jerkoff can blow somebody away and not be arrested. Stupid laws allow that to happen.

[eqfan592]

77. So do CCW permit holders. Not that you are able/willing to see that. (nt)

[Pholus]

84. A few other little known facts about CCW holders....

CCW holders don't call wrong numbers, you answered the wrong phone.

CCW holders have already been to Mars; that's why there are no signs of life.

Ghosts sit around the campfire and tell CCW holder stories.

CCW holders have grizzly bear carpets in their rooms. The bears are not dead, just afraid to move.

CCW holders are the reason Waldo is hiding.

Death once had a near-CCW holder experience.

or to summarize......

CCW holders are legends....in their own minds.

[Remmah2]

89. An 18 wheeler is driven by a driver with a CDL.

An 18 wheeler is an inantimate object, only as safe/dangerous as the operator.

Stupid laws also prevent people from protecting themselves.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. There are about 11 millions CCW holders.

Out of that many a few are going to be bad apples. Nobody here has claimed that we are all angels.

Numerous states have the stand-your-ground law. All it does is remove the duty to retreat, and that is a good thing. Nothing else about self-defense changes. It is likely that the evidence will not support Zimmerman and he will be charged.

[ellisonz]

40. "Numerous states have the stand-your-ground law. All it does is remove the duty to retreat..."

Would you care to explain why that is a good thing. Seems to me all it's saying is rather than safely, and dutifully not engage in the violent act, stand your ground, and growl:

go ahead make my day, punk.

Am I wrong?

P.S. Some regulars in this forum are maintaining it doesn't change "self-defense" within the law at all.

[GreenStormCloud]

45. You are indeed wrong.

Retreat is still the wisest choice since the idea is to come out of the encounter alive. But it does stop overzealous prosecutors from after-the-fact searching for a way that the defender could have retreated.

The requirements for self-defense still haven't changed. The defender can not be the person who initiated conflict as it appears that Zimmerman did. Since the teen was unarmed and Zimmerman is a healthy male there does not appear to be a disparity of force against Zimmerman which further weakens his case for it being self-defense.

I shall explain the disparity of force. If I am being attacked by an unarmed person, for me to use deadly force against him, he has to be bringing much greater force to bear than I can muster without armament. Since I am 65, mildly disabled, and with a heart condition, I would quickly lose a fist fight if I were to be attacked by a healthy young male so I could use a gun. The reverse would not hold as the young man could easily deal with a fist attack from me without needing any armament. He could quickly knock me on my ass with just his fists.

BTW - While Clint Eastwood's line is great theater it is extremely stupid in real life. To say such a line would be strong evidence in court of intent to kill.

[ellisonz]

47. Won't Zimmerman's lawyers...

...just argue that he had a right to be there

It may not have redefined the term, but it change the way the game is played. You can see it right now, one of your buddies is trying to argue that this could have been self-defense.

The defender can not be the person who initiated conflict as it appears that Zimmerman did.

Nowhere is that in the Florida Statute...

Disparity of force has nothing to do with the law either. For you to be right that this law isn't at the heart of the problem requires a lot of smart people to be wrong.

[X_Digger]

53. Here, let me help.. it is in the statutes..

[div class='excerpt']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://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html

[ellisonz]

55. He's going to claim he was being beaten...

...and could not escape except without the use of deadly force.

[X_Digger]

58. That may be what he claims, but I suspect the overwhelming evidence..

will convict him.

[GreenStormCloud]

79. He will need to show the bruises.

The kind of beating that justifies deadly force usually leaves marks on the victim.

[ellisonz]

80. We don't know what type of investigation was done...

...and they don't appear to have investigated it as a homicide, so...

[GreenStormCloud]

81. Investigations aren't over. The FBI is getting involved.

He was on his cell phone to his girl friend at the time. She heard what happened and his cell phone record will prove that he was on the phone. Hard to attack someone and talk on the phone at the same time.

[Remmah2]

48. I tell my son often (he's 20).

The best way to win a fight is to avoid it.

Mental camoflauge involves shutting your mouth and retreating. Don't escalate by opening your mouth. People say/do stupid things under the influence of drugs/alcohol, "beer muscles" as they're called. Minimize engagement until you can move on.


However if cornered, there are no rules.

[Hoyt]

66. And it allows those who invested in a bunch of guns and "training," to use their prized possessions

with little chance of being prosecuted if they say the right things to police, turn off their cell phones as you guys advised on another thread, etc.

[eqfan592]

78. Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation yet again, Hoyt.

Appears to be your specialty.

[Remmah2]

46. I'm pretty sure the general concept of the castle doctrine applies to your home/adobe.

It may also apply if you are in your car or at your legal place of business. In it's simplist form, if you are in your home, business, car; no matter if you own or rent you are not obligated to retreat if assaulted or threatened. So if someone broke in my front door, I would not be obligated to run out the back door (for simplicity, I'm the only one home.) If someone attempted to car jack my car (again by myself) I would not have to as an option hand over my keys. The perp could be threatening and not armed (their weapon might be concealed).

Now if I was in a public park, picnic shelter and some scary people approached, this not being my home/adobe/business; I would have to make a reasonable effort to "leave" and avoid conflict.

If you get out of your car to pursue a perp (not a car jacking), or if you rush to your neighbor's house (say the neighbor is not home). Then the castle law would not protect you. As I understand, Zimmerman got out of his car to confront Martin. Zimmerman had zero authority. He was supposed to be eyes/ears of the police and his obligation was to call them and wait. If anything he may have provoked the attack on himself.

[frylock]

50. 300% increase in "justifiable" homicides since the law took effect..

this goes far beyond martin/zimmerman.

[shadowrider]

52. And your source for this information is???

[frylock]

54. the interwebs..

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/

Five years after Florida's Stand Your Ground law was enacted, a 2010 review by the St. Petersburg Times found that reports of justifiable homicides had tripled, and a majority of cases were excused by prosecutors or the courts.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/19/10766858-justice-department-fbi-to-probe-shooting-death-of-florida-teen-trayvon-martin

In light of the shift in the law, it's not surprising that since the law went into effect, reports of justifiable homicides have tripled, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/opinion/toobin-trayvon-martin/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[shadowrider]

56. Thanks. Not that I doubted you

just like to see some sort of source when a claim is made.

No harm, no foul.

[frylock]

62. no prob

[gejohnston]

57. in those other 23

what were the facts of their cases, if those cases existed? Were there 23 legitimate cases of self defense but (whatever reason including racism) a jury was not buy it?
Was it simply because of Florida's population increase? Did it have anything to do with SYG? If it did, what were the details?
I would like to see a deeper analysis.

[frylock]

63. i think this incident will be the impetus for such studies..

if they haven't already been made.

[Remmah2]

5. ASME statement on Florida shooting.

nt

[Pholus]

8. Is ASME still trying to pass "stand your ground" laws in 26 other states?

[Logical]

73. You look like a fool when you keep doing this.

[Remmah2]

87. I won't argue.

Laugh at me or laugh with me. Good for stress relief.

Life is too short to be serious.

[zipplewrath]

12. FWIW

Q&A about the law

Also:

column critical of the law with some defense of it by the authors (well the guys that got it passed, not the NRA).

Also, a story indicating the law might be on its way to some change.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/fl-stand-your-ground-law-on-trial-20120320,0,5559053.story

[baldguy]

25. The people who got the law passed are the NRA.

Primarily by one Marion Hammer:

http://www.meetthenra.org/nra-member/Marion%20P.%20Hammer

[zipplewrath]

31. They can't vote

They can't vote, and all legislation has to be introduced and voted upon by both chambers and through committees. Ultimately, the folks that get this stuff passed are the idiots voting for this NRA written crap.

[gejohnston]

26. I like what the guy who wrote it said

TALLAHASSEE –- Tallahassee lawmakers are poised to take a closer look at Florida's "stand your ground" law in light of the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, but the law's architect said Tuesday that the man who shot Martin should be prosecuted and that law enforcement was misinterpreting the law.

"The intent was to protect women and children," said former state Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, who sponsored the 2005 law. "They're using it to protect someone who ought to be in jail. The state attorney ought to do this job."

Does anyone disagree with him?

[zipplewrath]

30. Nope

When this law was passed, domestic violence advocates were pointing out what a problem it would be for prosecuting domestice violence killings. There was no reason to believe that this was going to "protect women and children". This is an after the fact attempt to dress this up as something it wasn't.

[gejohnston]

59. that may have been his intent

and just because some advocates had a problem with it does not make it so. If domestic violence advocates really thought about it, they would see a lot of flaws in duty to retreat.

[zipplewrath]

64. They live it

They already live it everyday. Adding deadly force isn't a good idea, on either side of the equation. Escalating the violence isn't the best plan. The WORST thing you can do in a domestic violence situation is elevate the level of conflict. In part because the usual result is that the courts will then classify the situation as "mutual violence". They will rarely classify it as "self defense".

Avoid, escape, reduce, in that order. You are generally talking about two people who have been making bad decisions repeatedly over a period of time. Inserting deadly violence into this equation isn't a really good idea.

[gejohnston]

69. they are not the only ones who live it

and there is no catch all for any situation. Yes, escape before it gets bad is always the best way to go. Are those resources available and commonly known? If not, that is something we need to work on together. That is certainly a problem in rural areas.

They already live it everyday. Adding deadly force isn't a good idea, on either side of the equation. Escalating the violence isn't the best plan.

stopping a violent attack is not escalating, it is simply stopping it. Using deadly force is not the best, but sometimes it is the only solution. The important thing is giving the victim the help and support before it gets that bad.

In part because the usual result is that the courts will then classify the situation as "mutual violence". They will rarely classify it as "self defense".

The courts are wrong, that is unfortunate.

Avoid, escape, reduce, in that order. You are generally talking about two people who have been making bad decisions repeatedly over a period of time. Inserting deadly violence into this equation isn't a really good idea.

Escape is not always possible and attempting to flee can sometimes put you in more danger. Like I said above, the important thing is to get the victim and kids out before it gets that bad.

You are generally talking about two people who have been making bad decisions repeatedly over a period of time. Inserting deadly violence into this equation isn't a really good idea.

Maybe so. I do know if it were not if a gun were not available, I might have lost a school classmate, and he certainly would have lost his mother. Long story short, step-dad was in a drunken rage and beating his mom to death. Kid got a rifle and stopped the violence very abruptly. That was the only killing in my county that year, so that was a big deal. If the kid went to the neighbors and called the cops, mom would have been dead. I don't know Wyoming's laws at the time (late 1960s, early 1970s), but the family court judge (he was a minor) ruled it justifiable. He was in therapy for a long time, but he and his mom lived. Given the time period and being in a rural area, those resources were simply not available to her. That is still a problem in rural areas and probably in some urban areas as well.

[PavePusher]

76. Self-defense is NOT "escalating the violence".

The violence already existed, brought by the attacker.

"Avoid, escape, reduce, in that order." So, if you can't get away, just take the licking...

"You are generally talking about two people who have been making bad decisions repeatedly over a period of time." ...because you deserve it?!

Holy. Shit.

"Inserting deadly violence into this equation isn't a really good idea." Wrong. Doing whatever it takes to STOP the violence is a great fucking idea. Period. End. Dot.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. nit pick here... I think you mean "quiet"

but, I am not "quite" sure as I don't care if the NRA releases a statement or not.

[gejohnston]

28. What do you expect them to say?

I would say that it seems like Sanford PD is doing a half assed job of investigating what, based on the media reports, is a shooting not protected by the law.
I'm not a fan of trial by media fan, so maybe they are being adults.

Here is a statement by the guy who wrote the law.

TALLAHASSEE –- Tallahassee lawmakers are poised to take a closer look at Florida's "stand your ground" law in light of the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, but the law's architect said Tuesday that the man who shot Martin should be prosecuted and that law enforcement was misinterpreting the law.

"The intent was to protect women and children," said former state Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, who sponsored the 2005 law. "They're using it to protect someone who ought to be in jail. The state attorney ought to do this job."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/fl-stand-your-ground-law-on-trial-20120320,0,5559053.story

[Atypical Liberal]

32. There is not enough information to make a statement.

There simply is not enough information about the Zimmerman case yet to make a statement, or to form an opinion.

There is one witness who claims to have seen Trayvon on top of Zimmerman on the ground beating him.

We also have Trayvon's girlfriend saying she was on the phone with Trayvon just prior to the shooting and Trayvon noticed he was being followed.

At this point it seems to me that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and confronted Trayvon and some kind of physical altercation ensued.

It is possible that Zimmerman was getting his butt beat up by Trayvon and then he defended himself with a gun.

It's also possible that Zimmerman wasn't threatened at all and simply blew Trayvon away for no reason.

We don't know.

[belcffub]

43. I agree with Jon Stewart and Charlton Heston on this one

Extremist Makeover Homeland edition

the whole clip is great... the part I'm talking about starts @ 7:20

[jpak]

86. Silence of the Douchebags

yup

[Remmah2]

88. Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Mark Twain.