- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 26,629
- Reaction score
- 6,661
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This will backfire the first time a black stands his ground.
In Florida, the statistics have been tallied by the Tampa Bay Times and, in 8 years, the defense has been invoked 133 times, resulting in 40 convictions (35%) and 73 acquittals (65%) with 20 cases still pending. Of those defendants who invoked the law, 40 have been listed as "Black" by the Tampa Bay Times. That represents 35% of all Stand Your Ground cases, even though African Americans only make up 16% of Florida's population. Of those cases, 25 were acquitted (78%) and 7 were convicted (22%). What this means is that African American defendants in Florida have disproportionately invoked the Stand Your Ground law in their defense and have been more successful than white defendants at getting acquittals with this defense. Wow, does that run contrary to what we've been hearing!
5 Myths about Stand Your Ground Debunked
Regardless of "Who" uses this law....it is a bad one in my opinion. Our society is more than violent enough, without making it legal to shoot someone.
Regardless of "Who" uses this law....it is a bad one in my opinion. Our society is more than violent enough, without making it legal to shoot someone.
Regardless of "Who" uses this law....it is a bad one in my opinion. Our society is more than violent enough, without making it legal to shoot someone.
Regardless of "Who" uses this law....it is a bad
one in my opinion. Our society is more than violent enough, without making it legal to shoot someone.
This will backfire the first time a black stands his ground.
Florida law says people who are not involved in illegal activity have the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if they reasonably believe it's necessary to avoid death or great bodily harm.
A 90-year-old man who shot a robbery suspect is now being sued by the accused burglar.
Back in January, Sam Cutrufelli allegedly entered the Greenbrae, Ca., home of 90-year-old Jay Leone and began robbing the senior citizen at gunpoint. At one point, police say, Leone convinced the suspect to let him use the bathroom, where he hid his own guns, and the two then exchanged gunfire.
Leone shot Cutrufelli three times before the two men began to wrestle each other. Eventually, Cutrufelli allegedly attempted to shoot Leone in the head, only to realize he was out of bullets.
The invader then ran from the home, and he was eventually charged with attempted murder, burglary, robbery and firearms offenses by a felon.
Now, Cutrufelli, 31, is suing Leone for causing him "great bodily injury, and other financial damage, including loss of Mr. Cutrufelli's home, and also the dissolution of Mr. Cutrufelli's marriage," according to SourceNewspapers.com.
Rev. Al Sharpton leads Stand Your Ground rally in Tallahassee
So al sharp is gearing up to attack stand your ground. Lovely. I don't mind the emphasis on "provocation" as mentioned in the article. After all...if you provoke a fight...you can't complain when you got one. But this is yet another example of some ridiculous left wing ass trying to capitalize on the death of someone for publicity. Can we just condemn sharpton to obscurity yet?
What is the problem with this:
The Zimmerman case had nothing to do with stand your ground. I think this law is one of the most misunderstood on the planet. And, by the way, there's really no such thing as a stand-your-ground law. It's a stand-your-ground interpretation of events is all.
Why do we need that interpretation? Because if a state doesn't have such wording in their law, then a righteous shooter can always be second-guessed. Before that wording was added, homeowners shooting intruders were being sued civilly by the robber who broke into their home and was paralyzed from a gunshot wound inflicted by the homeowner. "You didn't have to shoot him! You could have run out the back door." It takes away a person's duty to retreat. That's all it does. Being found Not Guilty under the stand-your-ground doctrine means you are immune from civil suit. That's very important. Or we'll continue to have stories like this:
This is happening in California. It's one of the few states that hasn't adopted stand-your-ground wording...wording that would codify that one doesn't have the need to retreat. Immunity to civil suit. California's statutes still provide for civil remedies for the use of self-help. How fair is that lawsuit? You want to be sued and spend tens of thousands of dollars protecting yourself from a home invader?
Al Sharpton is a sick ****.
Not sure why this was aimed at me, but I have to disagree with at least one statement. Looking at Congress, the US Constitution is the most misunderstood law on the planet.
This will backfire the first time a black stands his ground.
This is a very stupid thing for Sharpton to make a Blacks vs Whites issue. The impression given is that blacks don't want anyone to be able to legally neutralize criminals. This is very much Akin to Holder demanding that blacks not be disciplined so much in schools.
Regardless of "Who" uses this law....it is a bad one in my opinion. Our society is more than violent enough, without making it legal to shoot someone.
He just mad that a 90 year old handed him his ass.What is the problem with this:
The Zimmerman case had nothing to do with stand your ground. I think this law is one of the most misunderstood on the planet. And, by the way, there's really no such thing as a stand-your-ground law. It's a stand-your-ground interpretation of events is all.
Why do we need that interpretation? Because if a state doesn't have such wording in their law, then a righteous shooter can always be second-guessed. Before that wording was added, homeowners shooting intruders were being sued civilly by the robber who broke into their home and was paralyzed from a gunshot wound inflicted by the homeowner. "You didn't have to shoot him! You could have run out the back door." It takes away a person's duty to retreat. That's all it does. Being found Not Guilty under the stand-your-ground doctrine means you are immune from civil suit. That's very important. Or we'll continue to have stories like this:
This is happening in California. It's one of the few states that hasn't adopted stand-your-ground wording...wording that would codify that one doesn't have the need to retreat. Immunity to civil suit. California's statutes still provide for civil remedies for the use of self-help. How fair is that lawsuit? You want to be sued and spend tens of thousands of dollars protecting yourself from a home invader?
Al Sharpton is a sick ****.
Actually, no. It hasn't and blacks have actually used the defense more than whites so far.
This is a very stupid thing for Sharpton to make a Blacks vs Whites issue. The impression given is that blacks don't want anyone to be able to legally neutralize criminals. This is very much Akin to Holder demanding that blacks not be disciplined so much in schools.
All the more reason for a Stand your Ground Law.
You think taking it away will make criminals less violent ??
Al Sharpton is a sick ****.
Actually, no. It hasn't and blacks have actually used the defense more than whites so far.
This is Sharpton's real job, it's how he's made a livelihood for himself for decades. Sure he's got a nice cushy pulpit on MSNBC to spew his hate and opinions, but like any good performer he yearns for the stage and spotlight.
Not in the real world, but in loopy utopian world, yes some people do.
And he's got lots of supporters that back him and believe in that sick ****.
Is there more info on this? I'm curious as to where demographically and in which states this has occurred.
Blacks make up 16.6 percent of Florida's population but account for 31 percent of the defendants invoking the stand your ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute are actually acquitted 8 percentage points more frequently than whites who use this very same defense.
In the act of self defense, its already legal. Or would you rather all of us just be victims?
LOL, I live in Tallahassee. There was a rally? Must have been huge!
Regardless of "Who" uses this law....it is a bad one in my opinion. Our society is more than violent enough, without making it legal to shoot someone.
If true, get out of NJ.Well, in some states it is. I've used this example on DP many times but it's worth repeating. In NJ, someone breaks into your home at 2 am, armed, with intent to rob. I wake up, grab my gun, confront them and shoot them - I will charged with a crime and potentially prosecuted. In NJ many (and yes it depends on which county this happens in and the politics of that county) DA's will levy charges because I have to PROVE that my life was in imminent danger, that the imminent danger was real, and that I had no other alternative - in other words that I could not have jumped out a window, ran out the door, or otherwise escaped or hid. It would also matter what gun I used - and what ammo. If I shot the guy using a registered weapon, but with hollow points or frangible bullets, I will probably be charged and prosecuted. LEO's both State and Local use either 9mmm or .40 cal FMJ. I've been told more than once using JHP or other more deadly ammo can be shown that I wanted to kill an intruder (which I would no matter what) but apparently it would be twisted in court, not in my favor. A shotgun with low brass #8 which is a Dove and Quail load was also recommended if I use a registered shotgun for home defense. 0 buck or 000 buck is again, a no no.
The TLDR version is, the act of self defense varies by state as to what is legal or potentially illegal.
fdle.there more info on this? I'm curious as to where demographically and in which states this has occurred.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?