Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Georgia ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law Challenged as Vague
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 04/10/12 | Sam Favate

Posted on 04/10/2012 2:44:07 PM PDT by AtlasStalled

Civil rights activist Markel Hutchins is challenging Georgia’s similar self-defense law in federal court, claiming that it leads to the “unnecessary use of lethal force” that could endanger people, and that the law should be struck down because it is vague and could result in a disproportionate number of minorities being shot, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. * * * The suit also says that some courts accept race as evidence to “establish the reasonableness of an individual’s fear in cases of justifiable homicide,” and Hutchins claims that in those circumstances the law doesn’t equally protect him and other African Americans, AJC noted.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist

1 posted on 04/10/2012 2:44:13 PM PDT by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
Georgia ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law Challenged as Vague\

Yeah. It doesn't prohibit white people armed self-defense against a black attacker. That's the real complaint, right?

2 posted on 04/10/2012 2:51:40 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer (I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Ah ha!

Now we get the REAL reason for the orchestrated lynch-mob hysteria.


3 posted on 04/10/2012 2:52:20 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

Send an email and ask him.

This is one topic where talking amongst ourselves does nothing.


4 posted on 04/10/2012 3:00:05 PM PDT by tickedoffnow (No more...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

When dirty cops, murdered Kathryn Johnson, Hutchins took it upon himself to become the mouthpiece of the family, for JUSTICE. The same ones that left her in the house, like she was being housed.

Well the cops went to prison, as they should have.

The family sued. They got millions. Hutchins sued the family saying some of that money was his, because without him they wouldn’t have gotten a dime.

Wannbe Sharpton/Jackson.


5 posted on 04/10/2012 3:01:33 PM PDT by qaz123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
The suit also says that some courts accept race as evidence to “establish the reasonableness of an individual’s fear in cases of justifiable homicide,” and Hutchins claims that in those circumstances the law doesn’t equally protect him and other African Americans, AJC noted.

That is a completely stupid statement, one that can't be true. When Zimmerman shot Trayvon, assuming Zimmerman's version of events is true, it was because Trayvon was pounding on him, not because Trayvon had darker skin. There is no situation in which race justifies the use of deadly force in self-defense, but there is also no situation in which a person should be tried for self-defense when perceiving the situation as threatening was logical and the force used was reasonably necessary to stop the threat.

6 posted on 04/10/2012 3:17:19 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Can we afford as much government as welfare-addicted voters demand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

“Civil rights activist Markel Hutchins...”

THAT’s all you need to know about the POS.


7 posted on 04/10/2012 3:18:45 PM PDT by carriage_hill (I'd vote for a "orange juice can", before 0bummer&HisRegimeFromHell, gets another 4yrs. Can-> later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
"could result in a disproportionate number of minorities being shot"

What a dildo!

You mean that minorities are more likely to be shot while committing crimes, which, although hidden, is because they commit MORE crimes than whites? (as a percentage of the population, the criminals are disproportiantely non-white).

Yeah; we should let them roam freely to take whitey's property, etc.

8 posted on 04/10/2012 3:19:13 PM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
Recall during the Obamacare oral arguments, Kagan reminded her fellow justices that when challenged, federal laws are presumed to be Constitutional.

State laws are presumed racist.

9 posted on 04/10/2012 3:20:47 PM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Let’s apply the same standard of standing as was applied in Heller and McDonald. He has no standing to sue since he cannot show any harm done to himself.


10 posted on 04/10/2012 3:23:09 PM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

So how does Hutchins have standing in the case? Has he been personally injured by the law?


11 posted on 04/10/2012 3:26:50 PM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
Civil rights activist Markel Hutchins is challenging Georgia’s similar self-defense law in federal court, claiming that it leads to the “unnecessary use of lethal force” that could endanger people, and that the law should be struck down because it is vague and could result in a disproportionate number of minorities being shot...

He can call himself a "civil rights activist," but he's actually an anti-Second Amendment bigot.

12 posted on 04/10/2012 3:38:20 PM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
Yet many find the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause to be vague and nobody is saying strike them down. How vague is the second amendment? ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
13 posted on 04/10/2012 3:49:15 PM PDT by DaveyB (Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. -John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

“You mean that minorities are more likely to be shot while committing crimes, which, although hidden, is because they commit MORE crimes than whites? (as a percentage of the population, the criminals are disproportiantely non-white).”

__________________________________

I see it as being a cultural problem. Someone dressed and acting like a gang-banging homie is going to be perceived as more threatening than someone who looks “clean”cut (to borrow what Joe Biden was trying to say).

That is true even when the homie is in the same ethnic group as the more mainstream person.

“Beauty is as beauty does” is the same concept as “Thug is as thug does”. IMHO


14 posted on 04/10/2012 3:54:26 PM PDT by John Galt's cousin (Principled Conservatism NOW! * * * * * * * * * * Repeal the 17th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Let’s apply the same standard of standing as was applied in Heller and McDonald. He has no standing to sue since he cannot show any harm done to himself.


15 posted on 04/10/2012 4:10:36 PM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

As I said before, the Left is in a panic because these laws allow whitey to fight back!


16 posted on 04/10/2012 4:10:49 PM PDT by Maverick68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Indeed we do. this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the fact that Leftist don’t like people being capable of defending themselves. They think only criminals and the people who work for them should be armed. The rest of us are part of the “pray class” and must remain helpless before them.

Stand your ground on Stand your ground!


17 posted on 04/10/2012 6:46:57 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

I think it also has something to do with race. The left wants a race war AND they want to take away our guns. Both things are high on their agenda. Of course, if you’re a leftist, you can’t hope to win the race war without first taking away all our guns.


18 posted on 04/10/2012 6:49:23 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

“You mean that minorities are more likely to be shot while committing crimes, which, although hidden, is because they commit MORE crimes than whites? (as a percentage of the population, the criminals are disproportiantely non-white).

Yeah; we should let them roam freely to take whitey’s property, etc.”

A statistical fact that should be pointed out has nothing to do with the color of their skin and everything to do with the sentimental and social victim mentality they are being taught by leftist.

No man made product on Earth can exist, that was not in fact “man made”. I know that sounds like nonsense but its a point lost upon leftist who seem to think people can get something for nothing without taking something from the person who made it. They demonize the producers, and engineers who make & provide their previous Good & services without a thought to fairness.

Instead the left has their mind filled with irrelevant history and outright ideological lies designed to convinced them that they are already owed whatever they want. The Democratic party sold theses lies for the propose of getting their base to support thief by government. A mainstay of Democratic politics. But invariably a secondary effect of this ideology is thief by individual & group.

I must admit I respect the individual thief a lot more than the one who does their stealing by way of the ballot box. At least the individual thief bares the individual risk of getting caught & shot. Thus in some minor way earn part of their keep.


19 posted on 04/10/2012 6:58:07 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
"At least the individual thief bares the individual risk of getting caught & shot."

In that vein, because of the pain and suffering of taxpayers, caused by vote fraud and corruption, it's far more serious than "petty theft" at the ballot box.

Perhaps armed poll watchers would be in order?

20 posted on 04/10/2012 7:08:29 PM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Markel is going to have a real uphill slog in Georgia. We have a near GOP supermajority in both state houses. Every other month they are passing some new and wonderful gun rights bill. Even as we speak they are considering constitutional carry. Sorry Markel, sell it somewhere else.


21 posted on 04/10/2012 9:01:02 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

We have a cultural problem wherein a large portion of the black community not only excuses a high level of criminality, many even venerate it.

Until we are willing as a country to face this problem, we will be plagued with race hustlers like this knucklehead.


22 posted on 04/10/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Here is a link to the Georgia Bill: http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_06/sum/sb396.htm
And here is the full text
06 SB396/AP
Senate Bill 396
By: Senators Goggans of the 7th, Johnson of the 1st, Williams of the 19th, Whitehead, Sr. of the 24th, Unterman of the 45th and others
AS PASSED
AN ACT

To amend Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to justification and excuse as a defense to certain crimes, so as to provide that a person who is attacked has no duty to retreat; to provide that such person has a right to meet force with force, including deadly force; to provide for civil immunity; to amend Article 1 of Chapter 11 of Title 51 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions relative to defense to tort actions, so as to provide for civil immunity; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.
Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to justification and excuse as a defense to certain crimes, is amended by inserting immediately following Code Section 16-3-23 a new Code section to read as follows:
“16-3-23.1.
A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force.”

SECTION 2.
Said article is further amended by striking in its entirety Code Section 16-3-24.2, relating to immunity from prosecution and exception, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
“16-3-24.2.
A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-23.1, or 16-3-24 shall be immune from criminal prosecution therefor unless in the use of deadly force, such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 or 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title.”
SECTION 3.
Article 1 of Chapter 11 of Title 51 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions relative to defense to tort actions, is amended by striking in its entirety Code Section 51-11-9, relating to immunity from civil liability for threat or use of force in defense of a habitation, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
“51-11-9.
A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force.”

SECTION 4.
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.


23 posted on 04/11/2012 7:12:03 AM PDT by An American! (Proud To Be An American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

Having a gun does you little good if you know not whom to shoot. Voter ID at the polls and verification of State citizenship in registration are indispensable pre-requensits to an honest election.

For now we will have to focus upon demonstrating to the rest of the population just how easily their & other people’s votes can and will be stolen & diluted. People must be aware of the system venerability and questioning its legitimacy for government actors to feel compelled to correct them.

The latest feasko of someone basically stealing Eric holder’s vote is a good example of what we should be doing in every state & localities that has such a problem.

Do this for 2 reasons:

1: To argue against abolishing the electoral cottage which isolates the population of responsible states from the fraudulently inflated voting rolls of irresponsible states.

2: To make people of all States feel less secure in the honesty of their election outcomes as to motivate them to demand strong reform.


24 posted on 04/11/2012 3:35:24 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson