[backwoods-engineer]

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?

[samtheman]

Ah ha!

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

[qaz123]

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.

[Pollster1]

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.

[Carriage Hill]

“Civil rights activist Markel Hutchins...”

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

[Jacquerie]

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.

[BCR #226]

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.

[Timber Rattler]

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

[Standing Wolf]

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.

[DaveyB]

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.

[BCR #226]

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.

[Georgia Girl 2]

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.

[An American!]

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.