Florida man ambushed rivals at barbecue killing 2

[aberrant85]

Ha! The Bush Doctrine. The guy is obviously crazy.

But he's also exploiting a crazy law.

From what I understand about the Florida law, it basically legalizes murder between gang members. All other things being equal, when two gang members confront each other and one kills the other, they can stand behind the law. The mere fact that they killed the other guy gives them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Black Dog]

If you are interested:
Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied | Tampa Bay Times

and index

The article is a joke. This right here should fill people in on how much...

• 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.

That is nothing but race baiting liberal trash. They neglect to mention that 93% of that 73% were black shooters.

The Florida SYG laws are fine. Just because someone makes a claim or defence does not make it true. It's like saying an insanity plea is dangerous because someone who is not insane may use it as a defence.

 

[Black Dog]

Ha! The Bush Doctrine. The guy is obviously crazy.

But he's also exploiting a crazy law.

From what I understand about the Florida law, it basically legalizes murder between gang members. All other things being equal, when two gang members confront each other and one kills the other, they can stand behind the law. The mere fact that they killed the other guy gives them the benefit of the doubt.

This can be applied to any SYG law anywhere. It does not legalize murder between gang members. A gang member however does indeed have the right to self defence either way.

 

[aberrant85]

This can be applied to any SYG law anywhere. It does not legalize murder between gang members. A gang member however does indeed have the right to self defence either way.

That's effectively the same as legalizing gang-on-gang murders. Racists should probably support the law if they want that to keep going.

 

[Black Dog]

That's effectively the same as legalizing gang-on-gang murders. Racists should probably support the law if they want that to keep going.

No it's not. It is legalizing a right to self defence. Like anything else some will abuse it. You do not take away someones right because a few abuse it.

Has nothing to do with "racism" nice fallacy argument there.

 

[opendebate]

The article is a joke. This right here should fill people in on how much...

• 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.

That is nothing but race baiting liberal trash. They neglect to mention that 93% of that 73% were black shooters.

The Florida SYG laws are fine. Just because someone makes a claim or defence does not make it true. It's like saying an insanity plea is dangerous because someone who is not insane may use it as a defence.

You can pluck that out of the article if you like BM but I don't really see that as the point. It is a sidebar at best. The point is that, in Florida at least, people are tracking down their victims, often after the fact, and then using SYG as their defense.

 

[TurtleDude]

You can pluck that out of the article if you like BM but I don't really see that as the point. It is a sidebar at best. The point is that, in Florida at least, people are tracking down their victims, often after the fact, and then using SYG as their defense.

well then the courts need to do a better job then. If you affirmatively look for someone to shoot them that is not standing your ground

SYG by definition means you aren't retreating but not retreating is not the same as advancing.

 

[Black Dog]

You can pluck that out of the article if you like BM but I don't really see that as the point. It is a sidebar at best. The point is that, in Florida at least, people are tracking down their victims, often after the fact, and then using SYG as their defense.

It goes to the credibility of the article. In this case it has little. There is no proof people are "tracking down their victims" here or anyplace else. All it shows is that when people are caught they immediately scream SYG to try and get off. This is not that same thing.

 

[opendebate]

It goes to the credibility of the article. In this case it has little. There is no proof people are "tracking down their victims" here or anyplace else. All it shows is that when people are caught they immediately scream SYG to try and get off. This is not that same thing.

I hear you, but there are multiple sources that support these claims though. You may not like the article I attached but look around a little, you will find others.

 

[Black Dog]

I hear you, but there are multiple sources that support these claims though. You may not like the article I attached but look around a little, you will find others.

It is not my responsibility to support your argument. I have seen nothing that supports it yet, and have no interest in doing the legwork for you. If you want to prove your case about Florida's SYG laws, you need to post evidence from reputable sources. I know there are plenty of places that have an agenda that try and say what you have said, none of them reputable.

So post links and I will follow! Otherwise it is just opinion without necessary supporting evidence.

 

[TurtleDude]

I hear you, but there are multiple sources that support these claims though. You may not like the article I attached but look around a little, you will find others.

Lets assume SYG means just that-if you are attacked and you have done nothing ILLEGAL to promote the attack (wearing a Rolex watch or being a cute chick in a miniskirt does not justify an attack upon your person), do you think the intended victim has a duty to retreat?

I do not

I believe that if someone engages in a felonious (or violent misdemeanor) attack upon you and you have done nothing that would legally excuse the attack, you should not be held answerable in either criminal or civil court for whatever you do to the attacker within the period of the attack (ie if someone robs you you can shoot him during the robbery-even if he is running away but if he gets away and you see him a week later you cannot climb up the nearest roof, uncase your sniper rifle and blow his brains out nor can you throw a Mark III fragmentation grenade in his truck if you see him stopped at a light a couple days later)

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

What the hell is wrong with people in Florida !!!!

Florida man who ambushed rivals at barbecue, killing 2, seeks to evade murder charges under

That's a pretty dumb comment.

 

[SMTA]

Holy nutjobs batman!! WTF is wrong with people?! The SYG laws are so dangerous. The problem with them is that while they may work for reasonable people, it also gives the same power to the many that are not reasonable. To let a citizen decide for themselves when someone is enough of a threat to kill them...seriously!! There is far too much prejudice and paranoia out there for that. This law has been applied and has been successful in similar scenarios in the past yet unsuccessful in others where the threat appeared more imminent and immediate, ether the law as to be revised or get rid of it.

SYG laws are not dangerous, stupid people are.

As a gun carrying citizen, my state has decided that I do have the right and ability to kill someone in order for me to protect myself.

My religion also accords me the same privilege to make the decision to take a life in self defense.

These rights are absolutely correct.

 

[Surtr]

What the hell is wrong with people in Florida !!!!

Bath salts.

 

[aberrant85]

SYG laws are not dangerous, stupid people are.

As a gun carrying citizen, my state has decided that I do have the right and ability to kill someone in order for me to protect myself.

My religion also accords me the same privilege to make the decision to take a life in self defense.

These rights are absolutely correct.

As far as I can tell, no court would convict someone of murder/manslaughter if it could be demonstrated that they had acted in self defense and that they had no other option.

So since that's already the case, what is the point of Stand Your Ground?

I think it was passed more as an activist statement of glorifying the victims' right to not be pushed around, rather than a legal protection to them after the fact. So while the message was that people don't have to put up with being hassled and can defend their honor, the real-world effect is a whole mess of suspects hiding behind the law under dubious circumstances, while the same people who could justifiably use the defense don't really need it.

 

[opendebate]

Lets assume SYG means just that-if you are attacked and you have done nothing ILLEGAL to promote the attack (wearing a Rolex watch or being a cute chick in a miniskirt does not justify an attack upon your person), do you think the intended victim has a duty to retreat?

If you read any of my earlier posts, no... I do not think that the duty to retreat is wise either.

f he gets away and you see him a week later you cannot climb up the nearest roof, uncase your sniper rifle and blow his brains out nor can you throw a Mark III fragmentation grenade in his truck if you see him stopped at a light a couple days later)

The SYG is written in a way, in Florida at least, that allows it to be applied in just this way and they have gotten off! They have other instances where the threat is more obvious or clear and they don't get off. I see that as a problem.

 

[opendebate]

SYG laws are not dangerous, stupid people are.
As a gun carrying citizen, my state has decided that I do have the right and ability to kill someone in order for me to protect myself.
My religion also accords me the same privilege to make the decision to take a life in self defense.
These rights are absolutely correct.

Not so wise for a wise old owl. The SYG laws in Florida are flawed and frankly I could care less what your religion allows you to do. The citizens of this country are not obligated to follow your religion we are obligated to follow the law so those laws better make sense and be clear enough that they can be applied with some consistency.

 

[Black Dog]

The SYG is written in a way, in Florida at least, that allows it to be applied in just this way and they have gotten off! They have other instances where the threat is more obvious or clear and they don't get off. I see that as a problem.

No it's not.

The Law

Please point out how this law allows someone to hunt someone down a week later? That is unsubstantiated hyperbole.

 

[Black Dog]

Not so wise for a wise old owl. The SYG laws in Florida are flawed and frankly I could care less what your religion allows you to do. The citizens of this country are not obligated to follow your religion we are obligated to follow the law so those laws better make sense and be clear enough that they can be applied with some consistency.

So far you have offered no evidence other than telling us to go look it up for ourselves. Please show reputable evidence that "The SYG laws in Florida are flawed." Offering opinion is one thing, but don't state it as fact with no evidence.

 

[Black Dog]

As far as I can tell, no court would convict someone of murder/manslaughter if it could be demonstrated that they had acted in self defense and that they had no other option.

So since that's already the case, what is the point of Stand Your Ground?

Here...Learn a little about the SYG law before making such statements...

The Law

I think it was passed more as an activist statement of glorifying the victims' right to not be pushed around, rather than a legal protection to them after the fact. So while the message was that people don't have to put up with being hassled and can defend their honor, the real-world effect is a whole mess of suspects hiding behind the law under dubious circumstances, while the same people who could justifiably use the defense don't really need it.

Wow, total nonsense. Read the law again.

 

[SMTA]

Not so wise for a wise old owl. The SYG laws in Florida are flawed and frankly I could care less what your religion allows you to do. The citizens of this country are not obligated to follow your religion we are obligated to follow the law so those laws better make sense and be clear enough that they can be applied with some consistency.

Bull****

I don't care what you follow

You offer nothing but nasty opinions with no facts

You lose

 

[opendebate]

Bull****

I don't care what you follow

You offer nothing but nasty opinions with no facts

You lose

You seem to think you have some kind of authority. Like you can just swoop in, make emphatic statements about your opinions and beliefs and for some reason.....I'm suppose to care. I don't. Neither do I care if "think" I lose. So fly away and have a rat for lunch.

 

[aberrant85]

Here...Learn a little about the SYG law before making such statements...

The Law

Wow, total nonsense. Read the law again.

I concede that my point about people defending themselves if they have no other choice is irrelevant, since the Law goes beyond that.

I read the Law. It seems to go to great lengths to avoid misuse. Except this:

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity...

Under our system of innocent until proven guilty, you must give the defender the benefit of the doubt. So, for instance, even if you had a gang member standing over the body of his rival, he could use the Law to his defense until he had been proven of having committed a separate crime. That seems like quite a burden to a murder investigation.

And this:

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

(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

This little tidbit seems to allow that an aggressor, as long as he is not committing another crime, is guaranteed to be able to use the Law to his defense if the fight goes against him.

Imagine that: you're minding your own business when a bully comes up and starts hassling you. You've had enough and so you start to fight back, kicking his ass like Ralphie in "A Christmas Story." You're kicking his ass so badly that now he's scared, pulls out a gun, and drops you. The whole situation is his fault, and now he gets to claim Stand Your Ground over your dead body.

This is how this law can be perverted to work against the people it's meant to empower.

 

[reinoe]

I concede that my point about people defending themselves if they have no other choice is irrelevant, since the Law goes beyond that.

I read the Law. It seems to go to great lengths to avoid misuse. Except this:

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity...

Under our system of innocent until proven guilty, you must give the defender the benefit of the doubt. So, for instance, even if you had a gang member standing over the body of his rival, he could use the Law to his defense until he had been proven of having committed a separate crime. That seems like quite a burden to a murder investigation.

And this:

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

(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

This little tidbit seems to allow that an aggressor, as long as he is not committing another crime, is guaranteed to be able to use the Law to his defense if the fight goes against him.

Imagine that: you're minding your own business when a bully comes up and starts hassling you. You've had enough and so you start to fight back, kicking his ass like Ralphie in "A Christmas Story." You're kicking his ass so badly that now he's scared, pulls out a gun, and drops you. The whole situation is his fault, and now he gets to claim Stand Your Ground over your dead body.

This is how this law can be perverted to work against the people it's meant to empower.

That's exactly what the gun nuts wan. If you don't down the aggressor right then and there then he might do it to you. The gun nuts want a world where everyone is wielding a gun, not for self defense, but simply in order to survive.

 

[aberrant85]

That's exactly what the gun nuts wan. If you don't down the aggressor right then and there then he might do it to you. The gun nuts want a world where everyone is wielding a gun, not for self defense, but simply in order to survive.

In a war that would be called "escalation."