|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
'Stand your ground' laws encourage racially charged violence
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Stand your ground" laws generally give individuals a license to use deadly force in response to a threat or physical force without the fear of serving a prison sentence. While on the surface the laws give individuals the right to protect themselves, they can provide a literal get-out-of-jail pass for those who use them as legal justification for racially charged acts of violence.
In 2005, Florida was the first state to enact a "stand your ground" law, which allows people to fatally shoot others in public without attempting to escape if they feel threatened, all without fear of criminal prosecution. States across the country have passed their own versions of this law, but Florida's arguably goes the furthest to protect the shooter. |
| Comment by:
jac
(8/5/2018)
|
This writer is either ignorant or doesn't care that he blatantly distorts the facts to promote his agenda.
Zimmerman never invoked a "stand your ground" defense.
Michael Drejka was on the ground after being violently attacked and could not retreat if he had wanted to.
If blacks are being disproportionally targeted under stand your ground it is more than likely that they are disproportionally involved in aggressive behavior. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
