Skip to comments.Florida lawmakers vote to expand ‘stand your ground’ law
Posted on 02/22/2014 12:59:00 AM PST by kingattax
Less than a week after Michael Dunn was not convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of an unarmed teenager, a bipartisan group of Florida lawmakers passed a bill out of committee on Thursday that would expand the states controversial stand your ground law.
Dunn, 47, was charged with murdering 17-year-old Jordan Davis outside a convenience store last year. Dunn said he feared for his life after he asked Davis and three other teenagers to turn down the music in their car. He claimed he saw a shotgun in their car and then fired 10 shots, three of which hit and killed Davis. No gun was found in the car.
A Jacksonville jury deadlocked on Saturday on a first-degree murder charge against Dunn, convicting him for firing shots at the car while it was fleeing the scene but not for Davis murder. Dunn could face 75 years in prison on the lesser charges. The state announced this week that it will retry Dunn for murder.
The verdict handed down seven months after neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering 17-year-old Trayvon Martin is again angering civil rights activists, who argue that Floridas self-defense laws contribute to a legal system that fails to secure justice for African-Americans.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Ironically, the outrage over the Alexander case may now lead to an even broader stand your ground law. Florida is one of 23 states with laws that say people do not have a duty to try to retreat before using deadly force when threatened in public places. Zimmerman and Dunns juries were both told about the law when they deliberated, though neither of the men explicitly invoked it in their defenses.The LORD rebuke them for this.
This law should be renamed “Stand your ground against thugs be they black or white or anything else”. Blacks take it personally that some of their thugs will be stopped by responsible gun owners. Must be part of the no snitching ethos that has the black areas ruled by thugs.
He wasn’t convicted of the murder, even though it was a dreadlocked jury?
Yep - loud music at gas stations and cell phones pre-movie are not reasons to escalate something to shooting. Too many prefer to call anything where someone who has a legal gun a 'good shoot" and they aren't welcome armed in my areas of control - they just prove that handicapped can also be a state of mind.
“Yep - loud music at gas stations and cell phones pre-movie are not reasons to escalate something to shooting.”
Kind of idiotic to think a gang of thugs are going to tone it down at the request of anyone....You mentioned state of mind and this guy’s mind is/was a dangerous place to occupy armed and in public....Media loves these stories in which the licensed carrier is wacko too.....
How about this, "...shall be executed for allegedly committing a crime against xxxx and xxxx shall never be prosecuted for committing a crime..."
Is that what they are trying to say?
In your face Al Sharpton and Miami media FLORIDA PING
a bipartisan group of Florida lawmakers passed a bill out of committee on Thursday that would expand the states controversial stand your ground law.
Notice that second word???
I’m actually of mixed mind about this new “threatened use of force” law, because it somewhat muddles the situation.
Guns have three modes. Holstered, or the equivalent; brandished; and firing, in this case, both effectively and intentionally ineffectively, that is, warning shots.
Police have discovered the paradox of these three modes, that they often need more options other than to shoot or don’t shoot. That is why so many of them adore Tasers.
The biggest problem most gun users face is that a gun gives them control over a situation and other people. And this is often a deadly misconception.
If you fire a warning shot, outside of a criminal circumstance, you have committed aggravated assault. You have just threatened their life, with immediate capability to injure or kill them. Unless they *are* committing or are about to commit a serious crime, *you* have become the aggressor, and all that implies.
While I don’t have a clear argument here against it, it is plain to see that there are some serious potential issues at play.
Controversial = Liberals disagree with it
SYG wasn’t an issue in the Dunn trial, nor was it an issue in the Zimmerman trial.
The DIMS hate SYG because it costs them votes from one of their most reliable constituencies; so it will be invoked, regardless of the facts, until it is weakened or repealed.
The car was fleeing the scene. Hmm... I hadn’t read that before. It adds some credibility to his assertion that they had a shotgun and disposed of it. I was under the impression that the car had not moved and no shotgun was an established fact. Clearly that was mistaken.
They still put it in the first line of the article.
The bit about the law not even being invoked by either Zimmerman or Dunn in spite of the false association they are trying to create between it and them is what is intellectually dishonest on their part. There should therefore be no mention of either case in articles about the law in question.
Whitey’s supposed to just take the whoopin. Stand your ground takes all the fun out of terrorizing whites.
White girls get preyed on and called racist in high school if they won’t go out on a date (have sex) with the arrogant black guy. You are armed I think. If I was female-white I would be for sure against all stripes of chumps and predators. White women are the best looking so have the most hassles :-<
Black women think they are the best. Its all perception. I have read that blacks have the best self esteem of all races so it is all relative like I said, but you (white gal) have to deal with the relativity you (white gal) are dealt
He fired his weapon at a fleeing vehicle?
I hadn’t heard that either. Based on all accounts I’ve read I would have voted guilty.
But you never know what a jury actually gets to hear. I’ve voted not guilty just because the information I was allowed to hear left way too many questions. I’d bet money the guy was guilty, but they sure didn’t give us enough pertinent information.
Buried in the article is the rationale for the proposed law:
“Thats because stand your ground laws only explicitly protect the successful use of force, not the threat of force, in self-defense. A person who threatens to shoot someone in self-defense is also more at fault than a person who actually shoots and kills an attacker, thanks to the laws.”
“But you never know what a jury actually gets to hear.”
And you never know what the MSM isn’t telling us either. The lawyers in the know are saying that the DA overcharged and would have gotten a murder 2 conviction, but that appears to not have been a choice for these jurors.