House to vote on Trayvon amendment [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : House to vote on Trayvon amendment


Don H
05-08-2012, 15:28
House to vote on Trayvon amendment

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

JFrame
05-08-2012, 15:41
Oh, good grief...Trust leftists to never waste a "crisis" -- manufactured or otherwise... :upeyes:


.

G-19
05-08-2012, 15:45
Another reason to get the Dems. out of D.C.

Deployment Solu
05-08-2012, 15:48
The Zimmerman case has not even been heard yet. These people are ALL idiots and need to be removed from office, tarred and feathered, and barred from the USA forever.

Anything to make it easier for the Homeboys to rape, rob, and pillage. Maybe they need a Stand Your Ground Against Politicians Law??????

F350
05-08-2012, 15:54
"'Shoot-first' laws have already cost too many lives. In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted.

This needs to be read in it's true meaning

"Too many of our core voter base are getting killed off by by those nasty conservatives defending themselves from people just trying to earn a living"

oldman11
05-08-2012, 16:41
The biggest group of people against the "stand your ground rule" are the criminals. Does that tell you anything about the voting on this law? Another thing to remember is that most of the people voting on this employ armed guards/drivers for their own security.

frank4570
05-08-2012, 16:51
It's funny because "stand your ground" has noting to do with the Zimmerman case. But as a result of peoples *perception*, the law is now in danger. Once again, perception is reality.

Anybody who thinks image takes a backseat to reality, is mistaken.

madbaumer
05-08-2012, 17:02
This needs to be read in it's true meaning

"Too many of our core voter base are getting killed off by by those nasty conservatives defending themselves from people just trying to earn a living"

And yet...this is the only occurance that has gained National Attention.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/THEBAUM/100_0549.jpg

ScottieG59
05-08-2012, 17:06
I have briefly looked at the relation to the "Stand Your Ground" law as it relates to any shooting. It seems to move the onus of proof to the prosecutor to show that the accused was not reacting as the reasonably prudent person.

The presumption is that the person claiming self defense acted prudently and based on the preponderance of evidence, the defendant may not be prosecuted. The prosecutor must show that adequate evidence exists to be able to successfully pursue a trial.

Those who complain about the law tends to focus on the presumption of reasonableness on the part of the accused.

It is not simply an issue of run away vs. not to run away.

Prosecutors who have a tendency to pursue an agenda may not blindly charge ahead in the absence of evidence. A hunch will not be adequate.

Anyway, those who claim the Stand Your Ground issue does not apply in the Zimmerman case should first do a little more research outside the Internet forums. Ultimately, the law seems to apply most directly due to the presumption of reasonableness.


Out there in fly-over country...

madbaumer
05-08-2012, 17:24
I have briefly looked at the relation to the "Stand Your Ground" law as it relates to any shooting. It seems to move the onus of proof to the prosecutor to show that the accused was not reacting as the reasonably prudent person.

The presumption is that the person claiming self defense acted prudently and based on the preponderance of evidence, the defendant may not be prosecuted. The prosecutor must show that adequate evidence exists to be able to successfully pursue a trial.

Those who complain about the law tends to focus on the presumption of reasonableness on the part of the accused.

It is not simply an issue of run away vs. not to run away.

Prosecutors who have a tendency to pursue an agenda may not blindly charge ahead in the absence of evidence. A hunch will not be adequate.

Anyway, those who claim the Stand Your Ground issue does not apply in the Zimmerman case should first do a little more research outside the Internet forums. Ultimately, the law seems to apply most directly due to the presumption of reasonableness.


Out there in fly-over country...

Reading the Florida Statute would be a good place to start.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

NDCent
05-08-2012, 17:27
Trayvon amendment

Hogwash. :miff:

Snowman92D
05-08-2012, 17:33
I don't think it's going anywhere after seeing the bill's co-sponsors.

"Federal money shouldn't be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people," said Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the two Democrats who are offering the legislation.

Wake_jumper
05-08-2012, 17:36
Federal money shouldn't be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people," said Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the two Democrats who are offering the legislation. "This is no different than withholding transportation funds from states that don't enforce seat-belt laws."

And this, gentlemen, is just the beginning. A not so subtle way to get the states to do the bidding of the Federal Gov't. It isn't hard to image where this could end up.

gunowner1
05-08-2012, 17:41
It's amazing they actually think we should have to retreat from these scumbags before we can defend ourselves.

callihan_44
05-08-2012, 17:57
This needs to be read in it's true meaning

"Too many of our core voter base are getting killed off by by those nasty conservatives defending themselves from people just trying to earn a living"

i agree, dont resist when your confronted in a life threatening situation....PH_K DEMOCRATS:steamed:

QNman
05-08-2012, 18:24
Federal money shouldn't be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people," said Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the two Democrats who are offering the legislation. "This is no different than withholding transportation funds from states that don't enforce seat-belt laws."

And this, gentlemen, is just the beginning. A not so subtle way to get the states to do the bidding of the Federal Gov't. It isn't hard to image where this could end up.

Absolutely right.

G22Dude
05-08-2012, 18:56
It's amazing they actually think we should have to retreat from these scumbags before we can defend ourselves.

How anyone can stand behind a party that is more interested in a criminals rights than that of a law abiding citizen is beyond me. Do these nitwits and their moronic supporters realize that standing your ground doesn't mean you have to use a firearm to defend yourself.

Are you telling me that idiots who vote democrat would not want the right to defend themselves by any means accessible. If so they truely are sheep being led around by their noses

cowboywannabe
05-08-2012, 19:46
seat belts, drinking age.....speed limits....the federal gubmint has grown stronger than the states.

mj9mm
05-08-2012, 20:12
well, on the positive side, it promoted a lot of good posts here. trayvon, unfortunately, will do more harm in death than he could do while living.

DOC44
05-08-2012, 20:18
screw 'em

Doc44

janice6
05-08-2012, 20:20
Truly great politicians making their judgment prior to the court determination. They have "special" abilities that the legal system doesn't.

They are negating the necessity of the court system..


If this passes, I propose it be called " The Thugs law" in honor of the politicians supporting it.

Gunnut 45/454
05-08-2012, 20:23
ScottieG59
To which the FL Prosecutor totally disreguarded the facts and charged Zimmerman ! She had no evidence other than her wanting "Justice for Trayvon" ! Purposely lying on the papers to the court to get the arrest warrent.:steamed:

Just_plinking
05-08-2012, 20:30
Federal money shouldn't be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people," said Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the two Democrats who are offering the legislation. "This is no different than withholding transportation funds from states that don't enforce seat-belt laws."

And this, gentlemen, is just the beginning. A not so subtle way to get the states to do the bidding of the Federal Gov't. It isn't hard to image where this could end up.

You are exactly right. It's really an age old issue, and it's not going away anytime soon.

steveksux
05-08-2012, 20:37
GOP has majority in the House, correct?

What's the problem? A bill that would require Martian to be the official language of the United States would have a better chance of passing.

Randy

QNman
05-08-2012, 21:07
seat belts, drinking age.....speed limits....the federal gubmint has grown stronger than the states.

And all done without passing a single law... All done by sheer bribery. With our tax dollars paying the bribes.

G29Reload
05-08-2012, 21:10
This needs to be read in it's true meaning

"Too many of our core voter base are getting killed off by by those nasty conservatives defending themselves from people just trying to earn a living"


Same amount of people would have been killed. Just different people…the good ones. Who are now shooting back at scum, whether feigning innocence by holding skittles, or not.

Now its just the right people getting killed.

Fred Hansen
05-08-2012, 23:04
Congress hasn't passed a budget in well over 1,100 days.

Had enough hopey-changey yet folks?

juggy4711
05-08-2012, 23:23
Whats the over/under the Republicans sell us all out on this?

Kingarthurhk
05-08-2012, 23:29
It will never pass.

juggy4711
05-08-2012, 23:35
It will never pass.

I wouldn't say never. Best we can hope fore is that folks are too distracted by their smartphones fso that is the case.

snerd
05-09-2012, 00:16
Congress hasn't passed a budget in well over 1,100 days........
Why would they want to? No budget, no limits! Spend baby spend!!

holesinpaper
05-09-2012, 03:27
Pretty cool America lost the civil war, so we could be subject to extortion via the Fed and our taxes. Neat :)

Glocksanity
05-09-2012, 11:19
And yet...this is the only occurance that has gained National Attention.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/THEBAUM/100_0549.jpg

I love that billboard. That sends a message to the criminally inclined to mind their own business or else face potential death. What a great deterrent.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 12:12
This a good thing. I hope it gets voted on before November.

It will let everyone know to vote against anyone that votes for it.

oldman11
05-09-2012, 12:20
I love that billboard. That sends a message to the criminally inclined to mind their own business or else face potential death. What a great deterrent.
Great Sign.

cowboywannabe
05-09-2012, 12:24
It will never pass.

the same house that passed obamacare huh?

VinnieD
05-09-2012, 12:56
You could just change the URL on that board to NRA.org and nothing else would need to be done.

user
05-09-2012, 13:36
In Virginia, there are actually two versions of the self-defense rule, the "perfect defense", where the defender is an innocent victim who, when attacked, becomes the aggressor, and the "imperfect defense", where the defender had a part in starting the ruckus. In the first case, the defender has the right to rely on "the true man doctrine" (i.e., "stand your ground"), and in the latter, a person who started the fight or who is otherwise "not innocent" must retreat as much as he can before he is entitled to defend himself with deadly force.

What I wonder is whether the Florida statute will be interpreted to cover both situations? For example, Abner knocks Billy Ray upside the head with a beer bottle in the bar, as Billy Ray has been paying undue attention to Abner's woman. Billy Ray pulls out a fourteen inch Bowie knife and announces his intention to retaliate. Abner then pulls out his Desert Eagle .50 and stating his belief that "only a fool brings a knife to a gunfight", blows a hole through Billy Ray's noggin with predictable results. Did Abner have the right to "stand his ground" when Billy Ray pulled the knife? (Answer in Virginia is, no way; he started the ruckus not only by whacking Billy Ray with the bottle, but by making comments that could be taken as having elicited a breach of the peace. It doesn't matter how trivial one's lack of "innocence" in starting the ruckus might have been.)

marchboom
05-10-2012, 11:35
I'm sure they would also want this amendment to apply to cops too.

How about this; Make this law applicable to the Secret Service. When there is a threat against the president the Secret Service MUST retreat before taking action to defend the president.

Sounds fair to me.

eracer
05-10-2012, 11:50
Deaths have gone up since Florida's SYG law was enacted? Whose deaths? Criminals attacking innocent citizens?

You want to cut funds to states whose laws put their own people at risk?

Awesome! Cut funding to Illinois, California, Massachusetts, and all the other nanny states who make it so difficult for their people to defend themselves against worthless scum (sorry, 'wayward individuals who only need a helping hand to straighten out their lives.')