Stand Your Ground Law

[Hernandez]

JAMA March 6, 2013
"A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicide and homicides individually... Further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association".

I think we owe the Obama administration big kudos for lifting the INCREDIBLY HEINOUS, CYNICAL, NRA DRIVEN ban on CDC research into gun violence. More than 30,000 gun deaths a year and our politicians don't have the balls to stand up to the NRA to look into how to reduce unnecessary death. This is g*****n embarrassing.

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/he..._deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[etudiante04]

Come on, don't be ridiculous.

All Martin had to do was say "Hey, what do you want? [...] Dude, I live here, leave me alone" ... and none of this would have happened.

 

[pgg]

JAMA March 6, 2013
"A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicide and homicides individually... Further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association".

I think we owe the Obama administration big kudos for lifting the INCREDIBLY HEINOUS, CYNICAL, NRA DRIVEN ban on CDC research into gun violence. More than 30,000 gun deaths a year and our politicians don't have the balls to stand up to the NRA to look into how to reduce unnecessary death. This is g*****n embarrassing.

Ha, what a coincidence. In the last year I have both cancelled my AMA membership (because the organization is a bunch of incompetents actively working against my interests both within and without medicine) and upgraded my NRA membership to life with an extra $1000 donation.

The NRA isn't some cynical arms industry appendage out to preserve profits while chuckling callously at people killed by guns. It's a civil rights organization. It's not big business. It's me and millions of other people who are sick of deliberate misrepresentation of data that conflates homicide vs suicide, cares nothing for violent crime unless it's gun crime, ignores social and cultural factors, downplays defensive use, and desperately eternally searches for ways to reinterpret or end-run Constitutional protections.

 

[periopdoc]

I think we owe the Obama administration big kudos for lifting the INCREDIBLY HEINOUS, CYNICAL, NRA DRIVEN ban on CDC research into gun violence. More than 30,000 gun deaths a year and our politicians don't have the balls to stand up to the NRA to look into how to reduce unnecessary death. This is g*****n embarrassing.

When one side of an argument repeatedly has to rely on an exaggerated number (30,000) to make a point, I have to wonder why.

Lets be honest and exclude suicides and justified killings (by cops etc).

That gets us somewhere in the vicinity of 12,000-13,000 deaths. Is that not enough to make the point? (Chosen deity forbid we also eliminate gang banger deaths to get a really accurate metric of the average American citizens's risk.

Yeah, we need to reinstitute funding for policy driven "medical" research from an organization who's stated goal is

…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”

That will be good unbiased research.

The tripe they turned out before the "ban" (actually a reduction in funding) should be good enough evidence that reinstating funding is bad public policy.

- pod

 

[Pooh & Annie]

When one side of an argument repeatedly has to rely on an exaggerated number (30,000) to make a point, I have to wonder why.

Lets be honest and exclude suicides and justified killings (by cops etc).

That gets us somewhere in the vicinity of 12,000-13,000 deaths. Is that not enough to make the point? (Chosen deity forbid we also eliminate gang banger deaths to get a really accurate metric of the average American citizens's risk.

Yeah, we need to reinstitute funding for policy driven "medical" research from an organization who's stated goal is



That will be good unbiased research.

The tripe they turned out before the "ban" (actually a reduction in funding) should be good enough evidence that reinstating funding is bad public policy.

- pod

I would personally include suicide in those numbers, but to each his own. When other crimes involving guns (armed robbery, non-fatal gunshot wounds, agravated assault...), are included, the totals are closer to 200,000.

You think it's drivel because you love your guns and don't want to see data that might indicate that gun rights should be curbed. I can understand that. Apparently the AMA is under the impression that gun violence could be better addressed, and would like some objective data and research. I agree with that.

Guns make killing efficient and easy, and in my book, need to be better controlled. It still astonishes me that gun rights advocates refuse to see the result of current gun availability. However, if the data shows that more armed citizens, including teachers, makes us safer, I'll accept that. Currently I think that's a ridiculous postulation by the NRA and other gun advocates, and I'm sure that as you suggest the rigged data by the leftist CDC and AMA will support my point.

 

[pgg]

I would personally include suicide in those numbers, but to each his own.

Why on earth does it matter what tool a person uses to commit suicide? Do you really think that tool regulation can prevent people from killing themselves?

Why aren''t we hearing about the AMA's leadership role in curtailing rx-drug suicides instead of zeroing in on gun suicides? Why isn't the AMA taking a leadership role in discussing how individuals with mental health problems could be better identified, treated, and kept away from guns, sharp objects, and bridges? Are actual medical problems boring to the AMA leaders?

You think it's drivel because you love your guns and don't want to see data that might indicate that gun rights should be curbed. I can understand that.

No, you don't understand it.

If you did, you wouldn't keep dismissing and trivializing our defense of the right as nothing but love or fetishism of guns. What it's really about is an inalienable human civil right to armed self defense. This human right is clearly protected by a Constitutional Amendment which was very recently affirmed (twice) by the Supreme Court to mean that individuals have the right to own guns for the purpose of self defense.

This right can be removed from individuals after appropriate judicial due process, but it must not be removed in advance, which is what all blanket gun bans, feature restrictions, transport and carry limits seek to do.

Beyond every human's civil right to self defense, the Constitution also throws in 'security of a free state' and extends that right to defense and preservation of the republic itself.

These things are important and have nothing to do with "love of guns" as you so breezily dismiss our arguments.

Apparently the AMA is under the impression that gun violence could be better addressed, and would like some objective data and research. I agree with that.

Apparently the AANA is under the impression that CRNAs deliver equivalent care at lower cost. Are you interested in their objective data and research?

Guns make killing efficient and easy, and in my book, need to be better controlled.

Controlled, how? Please be specific and precise.

 

[altap]

IMHO, this law (stand your ground law) is just one of the tools of the gun industry to make more money, in the guise of protecting every citizen's right to life and the right to bear arms. FYI I don't have any problem with guns, but this law is stupid.

 

[jwk]

IMHO, this law (stand your ground law) is just one of the tools of the gun industry to make more money, in the guise of protecting every citizen's right to life and the right to bear arms. FYI I don't have any problem with guns, but this law is stupid.

Nah, that's not what I'm thinking is stupid...

 

[altap]

To all the gunslingers here, I hope you don't get into a firefight.

 

[Hernandez]

To all the gunslingers here, I hope you don't get into a firefight.

I don't know anyone who carries who wants to get into one.

 

[Hernandez]

IMHO, this law (stand your ground law) is just one of the tools of the gun industry to make more money, in the guise of protecting every citizen's right to life and the right to bear arms. FYI I don't have any problem with guns, but this law is stupid.

Which part do you find stupid?

Would you prefer we be like the UK where homeowners who are attacked in their homes and fight back and win are charged with crimes?

 

[BLADEMDA]

To all the gunslingers here, I hope you don't get into a firefight.

1. Avoid confrontation
2. De-escalate whenever possible
3. Never brandish your gun or show it off
4. If you pull it out be prepared to use it
5. All human life is sacred. That said, defend your life

 

[periopdoc]

When other crimes involving guns (armed robbery, non-fatal gunshot wounds, agravated assault...), are included, the totals are closer to 200,000.

You are more than welcome to discuss these other crimes, but include them in gun death totals??? "Sir, that's ******ed."

You think it's drivel because you love your guns and don't want to see data that might indicate that gun rights should be curbed.

To be fair, I said it was "tripe," not "drivel."

You might be surprised what I would like to see. I absolutely would love to see some objective data and research. I am confident that, if fair, it will support my position.

Unfortunately, objective data was not forthcoming from the CDC before congress defunded the policy driven research that the CDC was doing. A couple of quotes about some of the key research that was being funded...

(the public health literature on guns is) "advocacy based on political beliefs rather than scientific fact... assumptions are presented as fact. Stating as fact associations which may be demonstrably false is not just unscientific, it is unprincipled" David Cowan (Sociologist, University of Illinois)

"a particularly egregious example" of "an abuse of scholarship, inventing, selecting, or misinterpreting data in order to validate a priori conclusions." - Gary Mauser PhD (Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia Canada)

The latter in reference to the CDC's primary gun violence researcher Kellerman. His work included articles in NEJM and JAMA which were strongly pro gun control (both the articles and the journals). Unfortunately, Kellerman refused to release his raw data for many of his studies, stymiing efforts to replicate his findings positively or negatively. Further, in studies where his data sets could be reproduced through alternative means, it was accused that he biased his results through the use of exclusion criteria to come up with subgroups where he could make a pro gun control argument that he subsequently applied to the entire population.

In response to the perceived biased, agenda driven research that was coming out of the CDC, congress instituted a 0.1% reduction in CDC funding (which was ultimately reinstated for head injury research).

Hopefully the CDC got the message and will bring us good unbiased data that we can use in policy making. I am hopeful as they included Gary Kleck on the ad hoc committee which determined research priorities for the CDC.

Kleck, a lifelong Democrat, and member of the ACLU and Amnesty International, started his research from the "self-evident, anti-gun" position that "gun availability increases the frequency and/ or seriousness of violent attacks." Over the years his research convinced him first that there was not a strong case for this position, and subsequently, in 1990, took the position that gun availability has "no measurable net positive effect" on the rates or severity of violent crime and any increase in one type of violent crime is cancelled out by a concurrent decrease in other types of violent crimes.

Marvin Wolfgang 11/14/24-4/12/98 had this to say about Kleck's work.

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. ...

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. ...

Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. ...

Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ...

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
--- Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

Prior to the funding reduction, the CDC discounted Kleck's work and this was a significant factor in congress's decision to reduce the funding. His inclusion on the committee is, hopefully, a sign that the CDC will give us some good research that is not tailored to a pre-approved agenda.

Of course the bulk of the committee is made up of public health officials and experts which gives me pause.

It still astonishes me that gun rights advocates refuse to see the result of current gun availability.

It still astonishes me that gun control advocates refuse to believe the significant amount of good quality data that exists to show that, at worst, gun availability has no measurable effect on the frequency or severity of violent crime.


- pod

 

[yappy]

Come on, don't be ridiculous.

All Martin had to do was say "Hey, what do you want? [...] Dude, I live here, leave me alone" ... and none of this would have happened.

Oh, okay. Is that what would have happened?

All of his actions prior their meeting was confrontational. He most likely tried to physically detain Martin and he defended himself - at that point he was in a fight - kill or be killed. That's the take home message. If someone puts their hand on you and you defend yourself both parties now have grounds to use lethal force and the victor may say that they were not the aggressor, felt their life was in danger, and killed the other in self defense.

 

[Hernandez]

He most likely tried to physically detain Martin

......... well obviously it must have happened this way, I mean, it's not as if Zimmerman's account had any credibility.

 

[periopdoc]

All of his actions prior their meeting was confrontational. He most likely tried to physically detain Martin and he defended himself .

Interesting. And you know these things to be true how?

-pod

 

[jwk]

Oh, okay. Is that what would have happened?

All of his actions prior their meeting was confrontational. He most likely tried to physically detain Martin and he defended himself - at that point he was in a fight - kill or be killed. That's the take home message. If someone puts their hand on you and you defend yourself both parties now have grounds to use lethal force and the victor may say that they were not the aggressor, felt their life was in danger, and killed the other in self defense.

WTF dude? Where do you get this? Have you been paying attention at all or do you take what Rev. Al and Jesse spew forth as gospel? According to Zimmerman, he was walking back to his truck and Trayvon attacked him. THAT was the only confrontation that occurred. There is no testimony or evidence to the contrary. According to the ONLY eyewitness, Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating him up - again, no testimony or evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence that Zimmerman had his gun out while he was looking for Trayvon. If there is evidence that something else happened, it should have been brought out in court. There wasn't any. What am I missing? What evidence do YOU have that you think would have been admissible? "Stalked" Trayvon? No evidence. Attacked Trayvon? No evidence. Profiled Trayvon? No evidence. He saw someone in a hoodie that he thought acted suspicious, followed him, lost sight of him, was trying to leave, was attacked, and shot and killed Trayvon in self defense. THAT is the evidence - please let me know if you have inside info that something else happened that night besides pure conjecture and supposition on your part.

EVIDENCE is all that matters in court. The jury heard every bit of it. There is NO WAY this jury could come up with any other verdict. Perhaps if Trayvon had called 911 and told the police some crazy ass cracker was following him, things might have turned out differently. Perhaps if he hadn't attacked George Zimmerman and continued walking home, things might have turned out differently.

Several people lost their jobs because they did things the right way. This case never should have gone to trial. The police and original prosecutor knew there was no probably cause.

Nobody won anything in all this. Trayvon's parents lost their son. What a waste. Zimmerman's life is forever altered, and he will be looking over his shoulder probably for the rest of his life. Thankfully a jury followed the rule of law, because the State Attorney and prosecutors sure as hell didn't bother - they wanted a conviction, whatever the cost, and to hell with "the rule of law".

 

[TexasDoc2388]

Do you guys who feel like the jury is always right feel the same way about the Casey Anthony case and the OJ case?

 

[periopdoc]

There is a legal theory that we still appreciate and abide by in this great country, innocent until proven guilty. If we follow that presumption, some individuals will necessarily and unfortunately get away with murder for lack of evidence. This is not one of those cases. The evidence is clear and compelling (if you will look at it with an open mind). So much so that Omara reasonably asked not for a judgement of not guilty, but a judgement of innocent. Unlike OJ, this was not a case that squeaked by on reasonable doubt. I didn't pay any attention to that other trial so I can't comment, a tack that I wish the Martin supporters would take.

-pod

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

It is exactly this kind of machismo and 'man club' posturing that leads to fights in the first place.

I agree and if only Zimmerman was up for a fight we would not have a case. If he can't handle a 17 year old in physical combat, why the hell is he a "neighbourhood watchman" and the captain for that matter? Even worse why the hell is he walking around with a gun? If zimmerman had just kicked the boys ass as most normal grown men would have done, again we will have no case. I am a proud gun owner but please don't put me in the same category as GZ. I will use it if I have to, but if I don't, I also offer bare knuckles.

 

[TexasDoc2388]

There is a legal theory that we still appreciate and abide by in this great country, innocent until proven guilty. If we follow that presumption, some individuals will necessarily and unfortunately get away with murder for lack of evidence. This is not one of those cases. The evidence is clear and compelling (if you will look at it with an open mind). So much so that Omara reasonably asked not for a judgement of not guilty, but a judgement of innocent. Unlike OJ, this was not a case that squeaked by on reasonable doubt. I didn't pay any attention to that other trial so I can't comment, a tack that I wish the Martin supporters would take.

-pod

But the jury didn't give Zimmerman that ruling they only gave him not guilty. Actually the jury for that trial came back a lot shorter than this one, so it wasn't an easy case. I'm fine with the ruling, it's just hypocritical to say that the jury has spoken so its final when in terms of the OJ case or Anthony case you don't have that same opinion.

At the end of the day, the verdict is in and I just know to stay away from lower and middle class Florida neighborhoods, or at least wear a bulletproof vest when I go into them.

 

[Hernandez]

But the jury didn't give Zimmerman that ruling they only gave him not guilty. Actually the jury for that trial came back a lot shorter than this one, so it wasn't an easy case. I'm fine with the ruling, it's just hypocritical to say that the jury has spoken so its final when in terms of the OJ case or Anthony case you don't have that same opinion.

At the end of the day, the verdict is in and I just know to stay away from lower and middle class Florida neighborhoods, or at least wear a bulletproof vest when I go into them.

You do know Texas' laws on self defense and property protection are much looser than Florida, right?

Hell, you walk outside and see someone stealing from you after dark, it's legal to shoot them in Texas without them making any threat of violence......

 

[IJL]

WTF dude? Where do you get this? Have you been paying attention at all or do you take what Rev. Al and Jesse spew forth as gospel? According to Zimmerman, he was walking back to his truck and Trayvon attacked him. THAT was the only confrontation that occurred. There is no testimony or evidence to the contrary. According to the ONLY eyewitness, Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating him up - again, no testimony or evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence that Zimmerman had his gun out while he was looking for Trayvon. If there is evidence that something else happened, it should have been brought out in court. There wasn't any. What am I missing? What evidence do YOU have that you think would have been admissible? "Stalked" Trayvon? No evidence. Attacked Trayvon? No evidence. Profiled Trayvon? No evidence. He saw someone in a hoodie that he thought acted suspicious, followed him, lost sight of him, was trying to leave, was attacked, and shot and killed Trayvon in self defense. THAT is the evidence - please let me know if you have inside info that something else happened that night besides pure conjecture and supposition on your part.

EVIDENCE is all that matters in court. The jury heard every bit of it. There is NO WAY this jury could come up with any other verdict. Perhaps if Trayvon had called 911 and told the police some crazy ass cracker was following him, things might have turned out differently. Perhaps if he hadn't attacked George Zimmerman and continued walking home, things might have turned out differently.

Several people lost their jobs because they did things the right way. This case never should have gone to trial. The police and original prosecutor knew there was no probably cause.

Nobody won anything in all this. Trayvon's parents lost their son. What a waste. Zimmerman's life is forever altered, and he will be looking over his shoulder probably for the rest of his life. Thankfully a jury followed the rule of law, because the State Attorney and prosecutors sure as hell didn't bother - they wanted a conviction, whatever the cost, and to hell with "the rule of law".

Golf clap

 

[loveoforganic2]

I agree and if only Zimmerman was up for a fight we would not have a case. If he can't handle a 17 year old in physical combat, why the hell is he a "neighbourhood watchman" and the captain for that matter? Even worse why the hell is he walking around with a gun? If zimmerman had just kicked the boys ass as most normal grown men would have done, again we will have no case. I am a proud gun owner but please don't put me in the same category as GZ. I will use it if I have to, but if I don't, I also offer bare knuckles.

I agree. We should definitely implement a mandatory 3 round MMA fight with a randomly selected 17 year old from the local community as

A) a qualification event to become neighborhood watchman.

B) a prerequisite to being allowed to carry a firearm.

Brilliant logic.

In all seriousness, you probably wouldn't even need to bust out those bad*** bare knuckles against me - I'm reeling right now simply from the stupidity of that logic

 

[pgg]

Do you guys who feel like the jury is always right feel the same way about the Casey Anthony case and the OJ case?

I was totally disinterested in the Casey Anthony case and didn't follow it at all, so I don't have an opinion there.

OJ's acquittal was the correct verdict. I think he was probably guilty, but the prosecution didn't prove it.

Zimmerman's case was even more cut and dried. They didn't even need the Chewbacca defense.

Some of us are reassured and grateful to see a system that makes prosecution and conviction difficult. A high threshold for a guilty verdict forces prosecutors to be diligent and thorough and reduces the odds that someone falsely accused will be punished. I really would rather see some guilty people go free than have an accused be punished on circumstantial evidence.

I also don't recall anyone in this thread ever stating that they felt "the jury is always right" so I'm not sure where you're getting that.

I agree and if only Zimmerman was up for a fight we would not have a case. If he can't handle a 17 year old in physical combat, why the hell is he a "neighbourhood watchman" and the captain for that matter?

Wait, so kung fu skillz are now a prerequisite for being part of a neighborhood watch?

Is there a test on the application? Is street fighting experience necessary? What if the volunteer's last fistfight was in 4th grade? Is there a bench press minimum?

Even worse why the hell is he walking around with a gun?

By that logic, women shouldn't ever carry guns because they can't handle fistfights. The entire point of owning and carrying a gun for self-defense is that it makes disadvantages like physical strength, fighting experience, and being outnumbered less relevant.

If zimmerman had just kicked the boys ass as most normal grown men would have done, again we will have no case.

Are you serious? Am I ... being trolled?

I am a proud gun owner but please don't put me in the same category as GZ. I will use it if I have to, but if I don't, I also offer bare knuckles.

Most of us normal grown men grew up and grew out of offering bare knuckles. Fights are serious business (cue the cat jpg) and fighting for the sake of man card validation is what children in adult bodies do. There is always a bigger fish. Someone who's faster, stronger, better trained, or simply more violent and ruthless than you are. Avoid, de-escalate, disengage.

It is exactly this kind of machismo and 'man club' posturing that leads to fights in the first place.

 

[TexasDoc2388]

You do know Texas' laws on self defense and property protection are much looser than Florida, right?

Hell, you walk outside and see someone stealing from you after dark, it's legal to shoot them in Texas without them making any threat of violence......

I feel like you should be shot of you're stealing from me or are on my property. I'm all for that. I'm just not for shooting someone for walking home minding their business. That's not legal in Texas.

 

[Hernandez]

I feel like you should be shot of you're stealing from me or are on my property. I'm all for that. I'm just not for shooting someone for walking home minding their business. That's not legal in Texas.

Despite how you reword it, beating the **** out of someone does not equate to minding their own buisness.....

 

[BLADEMDA]

I feel like you should be shot of you're stealing from me or are on my property. I'm all for that. I'm just not for shooting someone for walking home minding their business. That's not legal in Texas.

A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglars while he was talking to a 911 dispatcher won't be going to trial. A grand jury on Monday declined to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in Pasadena, Texas, just outside Houston.



Vote: How Far Would You Go to Protect Property?



Before making its decision, the grand jury listened to the dramatic 911 tapes from Nov. 14, 2007, when Horn called to say two burglars were robbing his neighbor's home. Horn ignored the dispatcher's pleas not to open fire.



Joe Horn: "I've got a shotgun; you want me to stop him?"

Dispatcher: "Nope. Don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Joe Horn: "Hurry up, man, catch these guys, will you? Because I ain't gonna let them go. I'm gonna kill him."

Dispatcher: "OK, stay in the house."

Joe Horn: "They're getting away!"

Dispatcher: "That's alright."

Joe Horn: (Shouts to suspects) "Move, you're dead."

Three gunshots can be heard on the tape. Both suspects were shot in the back and were pronounced dead at the scene.

Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson stood by the grand jury's decision.

"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson told reporters at the courthouse. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances. ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."



Joe Horn


Some think Joe Horn when too far when he shot and killed two men he believed were buglarizing his neighbor's home.

The dead men, Diego Ortiz and Miguel de Jesus, were two illegal immigrants from Colombia. Family and friends wanted to see Horn prosecuted.

"This man took the law into his own hands," Stephanie Storey, De Jesus' fiancée, told ABC News just after the shootings. "He shot two individuals in the back after having been told over and over to stay inside. It was his choice to go outside and his choice to take two lives."

Monday's decision ignited a firestorm in Houston on both sides of the issue. Debate raged on local talk radio, on street corners and on blogs. One resident, Keith Sabharwal, said, "That's what I want my neighbor to do; I really don't think he should have gotten into trouble for it."

But another resident, Ronald Elkins, disagreed. "His actions were rash and he did not take into account [what] the consequences of his actions were going to be".

The same debate raged on Timberline Drive, where Horn still lives.

"I think it's a good thing," Diana Null, who lives nearby, said. "I mean, people come in and try to rob us. I mean, we're just protecting our homes."

But Josie Karaze disagrees. "He had no right, and he had been told not to do it."

And law enforcement officials and law experts have been debating the merits of Castle Law since it was passed.

"There's too many imponderables in this law, whereas the previous law was working just fine," said Warren Diepraam, the Harris County Assistant District Attorney, told ABC a few months ago. "Frankly, life is precious."

The critical legal question hinged on whether Horn acted in a reasonable way to defend his neighbor's property.

"You cannot take another person's life in defense of their property unless you're somehow given permission by the other person to protect their property," Diepraam said.

On that 911 call, the dispatcher asked Horn directly about the owners of the house that was being burglarized and whether he knew them.

"I really don't know these neighbors," Horn said. "I know the neighbors on the other side really well … I can assure you if it had been their house, I'd already have done something."

Still, Lambright, Horn attorney told ABC News that his client "absolutely" had his neighbors' permission.

"There's no question about it," he said. "They'd tell you today that they are very happy that he was there and that he was watching out. Every neighbor in the state of Texas watches out for one another."

 

[Silent Cool]

http://globalgrind.com/entertainment/knock-knock-jokes-better-george-zimmermans-lawyers-list


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/george-zimmerman-trial_n_3491036.html

My fav:


Knock, Knock.

Who's there?

Wire.

Wire who?

Why are you asking?

 

[BLADEMDA]

(CNN) -- Saying he had no discretion under state law, a judge sentenced a Jacksonville, Florida, woman to 20 years in prison Friday for firing a warning shot in an effort to scare off her abusive husband.
Marissa Alexander unsuccessfully tried to use Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law to derail the prosecution, but a jury in March convicted her of aggravated assault after just 12 minutes of deliberation.
The case, which was prosecuted by the same state attorney who is handling the Trayvon Martin case, has gained the attention of civil rights leaders who say the African-American woman was persecuted because of her race.
After the sentencing, Rep. Corrine Brown confronted State Attorney Angela Corey in the hallway, accusing her of being overzealous, according to video from CNN affiliate WJXT.
"There is no justification for 20 years," Brown told Corey during an exchange frequently interrupted by onlookers. "All the community was asking for was mercy and justice," she said.
Corey said she had offered Alexander a plea bargain that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence, but Alexander chose to take the case to a jury trial, where a conviction would carry a mandatory sentence under a Florida law known as "10-20-life."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing

 

[BLADEMDA]

In Florida Joe Horn would have gotten at least a ten year prison term maybe even 20 years. Prosecutors and Judges won't allow civilians to kill suspected burglars on their neighbor's property. Under Florida law only the homeowner is protected under the Castle doctrine.

If I arrive home to a burglary in progress next door I wouldn't grab my AR-15 with night vision scope and take out the suspects at 1500 feet. Instead, I would call the police. I doubt I would even fire a warning shot into the air (from my own property) as that may be illegal. Finally, I definitely wouldn't ask my brother, friend or JPP to grab several of my weapons in order to kill the burglars at close range.

Florida takes the use of a firearm seriously. The African American Woman Marissa Alexander got 20 years for fire a warning shot in her home. The laws are strict here about using or brandishing a firearm.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Black woman's failed ‘Stand Your Ground' claim raises allegations of racial double standard
Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville, Fla., fired what she called warning shots for her husband, receiving 20 years in prison despite hurting no one. Critics of the George Zimmerman verdict are zeroing in on her case.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...uble-standard-article-1.1399073#ixzz2ZJQkA06M

 

[countingdays]

Joe Horn should get a medal.

Now you (probably) don't want your daughter's boyfriend to get shot by a neighbor if he's sneaking around your yard, but burglars should get shot. Nice work Joe.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Joe Horn should get a medal.

Now you (probably) don't want your daughter's boyfriend to get shot by a neighbor if he's sneaking around your yard, but burglars should get shot. Nice work Joe.

Great post. But, if you do that in Florida you may get jail time. If the suspected burglars are black you get media time with Al Sharpton as well.

 

[BLADEMDA]

A California man is facing possible charges after he fired shots at three burglary suspects who appeared to be casing his neighborhood.
Fox 5 reports 57-year-old James Monroe says he was in his San Diego home when he saw the suspects steal from his neighbor's house. Then, he says, they returned less than an hour later in a car.
Monroe allegedly told his wife to call police, and headed outside armed with a gun. The car began speeding away, so Monroe allegedly fired two shots at it.
A male in the car was hospitalized. The two other passengers, 18-year old Tronicqua Yvonne Henderson and 19-year old Javonna Renae Percy-Simpson, were arrested.
"The female driver she had a felony warrant for auto theft. She was arrested. The female passenger in the back had a warrant too and was also arrested," Lt. Kevin Mayer of the San Diego Police Department told Fox 5.
However Monroe was also arrested.
"As with any level of force, especially deadly force your level of actions are going to be critiqued," Mayer told Fox 5. "We're doing a very thorough investigation as with any force."
Monroe made bail Wednesday, and is waiting to hear from the district attorney if he will face charges.
The neighbor who was allegedly robbed, however, says he should be commended for his actions.
"It's not right. He's a really good person," Alice Lazo told Fox 5.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/3...shots-at-suspected-burglars-in/#ixzz2ZLXYZfBl

 

[Direct Laryngoscopy]

Black woman’s failed ‘Stand Your Ground’ claim raises allegations of racial double standard
Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville, Fla., fired what she called warning shots for her husband, receiving 20 years in prison despite hurting no one. Critics of the George Zimmerman verdict are zeroing in on her case.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...uble-standard-article-1.1399073#ixzz2ZJQkA06M

So You believe the verdict and sentencing were correct and appropriate in this case?

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

I was totally disinterested in the Casey Anthony case and didn't follow it at all, so I don't have an opinion there.





Wait, so kung fu skillz are now a prerequisite for being part of a neighborhood watch?

Is there a test on the application? Is street fighting experience necessary? What if the volunteer's last fistfight was in 4th grade? Is there a bench press minimum?



By that logic, women shouldn't ever carry guns because they can't handle fistfights. The entire point of owning and carrying a gun for self-defense is that it makes disadvantages like physical strength, fighting experience, and being outnumbered less relevant.



Are you serious? Am I ... being trolled?



Most of us normal grown men grew up and grew out of offering bare knuckles. Fights are serious business (cue the cat jpg) and fighting for the sake of man card validation is what children in adult bodies do. There is always a bigger fish. Someone who's faster, stronger, better trained, or simply more violent and ruthless than you are. Avoid, de-escalate, disengage.

Ofcourse I am serious. If GZ needs a gun to handle an unarmed 17 year old kid who by the way was not a burglar, what the hell is he going to need when the real bad guys roll in. You think the folks in the neighbourhood he is watching have a lot of confidence in their 1 man squad after he got his head pounded into concrete by a 17 year old kid?

This case was not about race (unless you ask Al Sharpton), nor was it about gun rights. It was a simple case of man vs boy, boy kicks man's ass, man shoots boy to stay alive. Now what kind of man is that?

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

I



By that logic, women shouldn't ever carry guns because they can't handle fistfights. The entire point of owning and carrying a gun for self-defense is that it makes disadvantages like physical strength, fighting experience, and being outnumbered less relevant.

What!!!?? The point of carrying a gun is not to compensate for lack of physical strength or fighting experience. It is for self defence period!! By your logic we should recruit police officers with one leg and and just give them a bigger gun to compensate. If GZ wants to assume a law enforcement role, he needs to understand the concept of minimal force.

Now If he bought a gun to compensate for a lack of physical strength then he should have stayed his confused weak ass at home and used the gun for self defence, not walk around like some tough guy knowing his only ability was pulling a trigger.

 

[IJL]

Ofcourse I am serious. If GZ needs a gun to handle an unarmed 17 year old kid who by the way was not a burglar, what the hell is he going to need when the real bad guys roll in. You think the folks in the neighbourhood he is watching have a lot of confidence in their 1 man squad after he got his head pounded into concrete by a 17 year old kid?

This case was not about race (unless you ask Al Sharpton), nor was it about gun rights. It was a simple case of man vs boy, boy kicks man's ass, man shoots boy to stay alive. Now what kind of man is that?

Again, this "child" was 17 years old and 6'3".

 

[pgg]

Wow, you've got quite the toughguy complex. You seem to be stuck on some notion that fights are some consequence-free recreation, display of manliness, or an opportunity to prove something. That's disturbing.

A fight - any fight - that you voluntarily participate in carries risk. Risk is not just a word, it means something. Serious debilitating injury is an instant away. There's always a bigger fish, and it's just not possible to know in advance how strong, fast, trained, ruthless, armed, able or willing to produce or improvise a weapon, or backed-up-by-unseen-friends some aggressor is.

Consequently, the only correct answer for a intelligent, mature adult is to diligently avoid fights, make genuine attempts to de-escalate brewing fights, disengage from fights that can't be avoided, and failing that, END a fight as quickly as possible by stopping the attacker via the most effective means available.


Note that I'm not suggesting that Zimmerman was an intelligent, mature adult. I think he's an idiot who should've stayed in his car.

 

[jwk]

IMHO, this law (stand your ground law) is just one of the tools of the gun industry to make more money, in the guise of protecting every citizen's right to life and the right to bear arms. FYI I don't have any problem with guns, but this law is stupid.

A couple more points - "I don't have any problems with guns" and "just one of the tools of the gun industry to make more money". You can believe one or the other of those statements, but not both.

And - if you were paying attention to the trial (clearly you weren't) the "stand your ground" law was never offered up by the defense as a reason Zimmerman should be acquitted. The defense went with a straight self-defense argument. You're attacked - you have the right to defend yourself, period. But that's OK - clearly Eric Holder, the NAACP, Stevie Wonder, and MLK-3 don't understand the concept either.

 

[BLADEMDA]

So You believe the verdict and sentencing were correct and appropriate in this case?

No. She should have gotten 1 year. She was offered a 3 year plea deal. Instead, she rolled the dice and the jury convicted her in less than 20 minutes. Florida law has minimum sentence guidelines so she got a lot of hard time.

I bet the Governor intervenes and commutes her sentence.

 

[pgg]

No. She should have gotten 1 year. She was offered a 3 year plea deal. Instead, she rolled the dice and the jury convicted her in less than 20 minutes. Florida law has minimum sentence guidelines so she got a lot of hard time.

I bet the Governor intervenes and commutes her sentence.

That was an odd case. It's hard to argue self defense when there's that much crap going on. She has a restraining order against him. Goes to the house anyway, eats a meal with him and his kids. Argues, leaves, gets a gun, goes back, fires some 'warning shots' ... toward the guy and his two kids? He's the one who calls 911, she doesn't? There's a more than a touch of crazy involved here.

20 years seems excessive. Maybe Florida ought to rethink that 10-20-life law.

 

[periopdoc]

Yeah this is a problem with 10-20-life , not with SYG. Unintended consequences eh?

For a state with, otherwise, quite sensible firearms legislation, the 10-20-life law seems quite out of place, and puzzling. Why is it worse to kill someone with a gun vs using a knife?

Perhaps Blade can fill us in.

-pod

 

[BADMD]

So You believe the verdict and sentencing were correct and appropriate in this case?

The sentence is probably a bit long, but there may be some rationale for that too. There is a bit more involved here that her being a black woman who fired a warning shot.

This has the prosecutors response to her Stand Your Ground petition: http://www.mrcolionnoir.com/news/so-this-is-why-marissa-alexander-received-20-years/

 

[BLADEMDA]

Since Florida has tied firearms to minimum sentencing laws, the real reason Marissa Alexander will sit in a jail cell for the next 20 years is because of gun control legislation, whether the media wants to admit it or not.


http://ace.mu.nu/archives/341684.php

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

The Liberals in Florida have the 10-20-Life Rule because the Conservatives went overboard in proving to them Florida isn't the Wild West.
I don't like the law but if you get convicted of illegal use of a firearm you will do hard time.

 

[pgg]

The Liberals in Florida have the 10-20-Life Rule because the Conservatives went overboard in proving to them Florida isn't the Wild West.
I don't like the law but if you get convicted of illegal use of a firearm you will do hard time.

10-20-life was good ol' boy Jeb's idea, wasn't it?

 

[Arch Guillotti]

10-20-life was good ol' boy Jeb's idea, wasn't it?

It is according to wiki.