Posted on 04/01/2012 8:02:41 AM PDT by dewawi
Despite liberal protesters’ claims that Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” gun law demonstrates that Republican policymakers are responsible for the February death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an analysis of its legislative history shows that it was a bipartisan effort — and that no Florida Democratic state senator voted against it.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I think it offends the sensibilities of the Democrats, for somebody to go back and check the votes on this bill when it passed the legislature. It will conflict with the narrative that Republicans passed racist legislation.
Hard to believe these days that there are issues in which real Americans can agree on. Contrary to popular belief not everything is political.
You can go back in the tapes....Zimmerman says that “he’s coming towards me”...ZIMMERMAN WAS NOT PURSUING AT THIS POINT....he was returning to his car.
These issues should be addressed by the experts in Washington and not a bunch of politically illiterate hicks in the out country.
Sincerely,
Chuck E. Schumer
P.S. I haven't forgot about your layaway concerns with WalMart either!
There is a strong RACIST history to “gun control” — and not just by Hitler and Communist tyrants.
Blacks were often challenged, on their right to self defense, sadly, even in America.
Women, too, NEED an equalizer, when confronted by aggressive men.
There is a strong RACIST history to “gun control” — and not just by Hitler and Communist tyrants.
Blacks were often challenged, on their right to self defense, sadly, even in America.
Women, too, NEED an equalizer, when confronted by aggressive men.
There is a strong RACIST history to “gun control” — and not just by Hitler and Communist tyrants.
Blacks were often challenged, on their right to self defense, sadly, even in America.
Women, too, NEED an equalizer, when confronted by aggressive men.
There is a strong RACIST history to “gun control” — and not just by Hitler and Communist tyrants.
Blacks were often challenged, on their right to self defense, sadly, even in America.
Women, too, NEED an equalizer, when confronted by aggressive men.
There is a strong RACIST history to “gun control” — and not just by Hitler and Communist tyrants.
Blacks were often challenged, on their right to self defense, sadly, even in America.
Women, too, NEED an equalizer, when confronted by aggressive men.
There is a strong RACIST history to “gun control” — and not just by Hitler and Communist tyrants.
Blacks were often challenged, on their right to self defense, sadly, even in America.
Women, too, NEED an equalizer, when confronted by aggressive men.
And, he was not standing his ground either. He was flat on his back getting his ass kicked with no way to retreat even if he tried.
Sorry for the multiple posts, I think the spell check feature on FR has something to do with it, when it happens.
”Women, too, NEED an equalizer, when confronted by aggressive men.”
Many conservatve women have an equalizer. It’s called Smith and Wesson.
Liberals taught theirl women how to blow a whistle and use pepper spray. Conservatves taught their women double tap center mass.
I still have no idea what the stand your ground laws have to do with this case. If George Zimmerman followed Martin and shot him because he was Black that would be murder in Florida or any place else. If Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was pounding his head into the concrete, that is self defense with, or without a stand your ground law.
The practical difference is that without a stand your ground law Zimmerman would be imprisoned, about two weeks from bankruptcy, and at the mercy of a court-appointed attorney, who would be looking for a plea bargain.
With stand your ground, he is free, even if he has to go into hiding, and can be much more effective in furthering his own cause.
IMHO, the only reason they let him go is that the stand your ground law make it explicitly clear that the government is liable if they arrest him and there is no good cause for that. While legal eagles will argue that this is the same situation as in a state without stand your ground, the practicality shows there is an extreme difference.
The DA looks at a concise law that puts the onus squarely on the state and and makes the right decision. In another state, Zimmerman would be in custody until they decided what to charge him with, and there would be no hope of ever recovering damages for that state's bad faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.