Quinnipiac University poll showing 53 percent support for “Stand your ground” (SYG) laws. White voters support them (57 percent). Republican and independent voters support them (75 percent and 57 percent, respectively). Democrats don’t (62 percent). Women don’t (47 percent). African Americans most certainly do not (57 percent). And these divisions will likely keep these insane laws in place.

Ok I see you on your front yard with your panties wet from an acid trip you did and you are loving it.

You do not like stand your ground laws so an army of escaped villans are walking onto your property to have fun with your body.

Jake your best friend next door who grew up with you puts his gun away and smiles for the laws you want to do away with.


Face it . you love rape.

One thing is very clear to me concerning "Stand your ground " laws-most people don't understand what the law really is. The laws and the limitations were never effectively communicated to the public.


Stand your ground has been used as an excuse for shooting an unarmed teenager playing his car stereo too loud in a 7-11 parking lot, it has been used in a defense of stalking an unarmed teenager, and it has been used as a defense in shooting a neighbor on the neighbor's property because the neighbor's party had gotten too loud, and it has been used as a defense in fatal shootings in bars to protect one's dignity. If people believe these shootings to be justifiable under stand your ground laws, then the law was horribly written and terribly defined. It has got to go. The carnage these laws has caused is reprehensible.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing is very clear to me concerning "Stand
> your ground " laws-most people don't understand
> what the law really is. The laws and the
> limitations were never effectively communicated to
> the public.
>
>
> Stand your ground has been used as an excuse for
> shooting an unarmed teenager playing his car
> stereo too loud in a 7-11 parking lot, it has been
> used in a defense of stalking an unarmed teenager,
> and it has been used as a defense in shooting a
> neighbor on the neighbor's property because the
> neighbor's party had gotten too loud, and it has
> been used as a defense in fatal shootings in bars
> to protect one's dignity. If people believe these
> shootings to be justifiable under stand your
> ground laws, then the law was horribly written and
> terribly defined. It has got to go. The carnage
> these laws has caused is reprehensible.

tennie weenie liberals.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing is very clear to me concerning "Stand
> your ground " laws-most people don't understand
> what the law really is. The laws and the
> limitations were never effectively communicated to
> the public.
>
>
> Stand your ground has been used as an excuse for
> shooting an unarmed teenager playing his car
> stereo too loud in a 7-11 parking lot, it has been
> used in a defense of stalking an unarmed teenager,
> and it has been used as a defense in shooting a
> neighbor on the neighbor's property because the
> neighbor's party had gotten too loud, and it has
> been used as a defense in fatal shootings in bars
> to protect one's dignity. If people believe these
> shootings to be justifiable under stand your
> ground laws, then the law was horribly written and
> terribly defined. It has got to go. The carnage
> these laws has caused is reprehensible.


You better never stop walking or running.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing is very clear to me concerning "Stand
> your ground " laws-most people don't understand
> what the law really is. The laws and the
> limitations were never effectively communicated to
> the public.
>
>
> Stand your ground has been used as an excuse for
> shooting an unarmed teenager playing his car
> stereo too loud in a 7-11 parking lot, it has been
> used in a defense of stalking an unarmed teenager,
> and it has been used as a defense in shooting a
> neighbor on the neighbor's property because the
> neighbor's party had gotten too loud, and it has
> been used as a defense in fatal shootings in bars
> to protect one's dignity. If people believe these
> shootings to be justifiable under stand your
> ground laws, then the law was horribly written and
> terribly defined. It has got to go. The carnage
> these laws has caused is reprehensible.

The only thing thats reprehensible is you clearly being allergic to facts and details with how you described those incidents. The fact that you still insist Trayvon was stalked despite all the evidence short of god himself telling you Trayvon doubled back just shows your bullshit progressive agenda.

Tell you want gun owners promise not to come to your rescue if you ever need them. Sounds like a fair compromise.

Concealed Carrier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You better never stop walking or running.

Are you implying that you support the idea of going onto another's person's property without invitation and killing them because you felt "threatened"?

Q 4 U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Concealed Carrier Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You better never stop walking or running.
>
> Are you implying that you support the idea of
> going onto another's person's property without
> invitation and killing them because you felt
> "threatened"?


Sorry, doesn't work that way.

It would help if you knuckleheads actually understood what stand your ground-type laws are, how they work, and why they were enacted versus just dealing entirely in hyperbole.

Liberal Logic 62 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
hi kids! I'm Registered Voter and I dont understand Facts states as plainly as day! I only deal in distortions! See Ya!

Stand your'e Ground Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 62 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> hi kids! I'm Registered Voter and I dont
> understand Facts states as plainly as day! I only
> deal in distortions! See Ya!


Awww poor baby need mommys bitty?

Youre so clever Ferfux.

Dont worry youll get a new blanky.

Continue on with your hissy fit, this is amazing

Stand your'e Ground Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 62 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> hi kids! I'm Registered Voter and I dont
> understand Facts states as plainly as day! I only
> deal in distortions! See Ya!
Attachments:

FUNdamental Wrote:

> Stand your ground has been used as an excuse for
> shooting an unarmed teenager playing his car
> stereo too loud in a 7-11 parking lot.

It remains to be seen if Michael David Dunn will be successful in using this law to help his case. The facts seem to be to be massively against him. The fact that he fled the scene and tried to hide after the shooting doesn't help him at all. Nor do all the eyewitness accounts.

A lot of people use all sorts of lame excuses to try get out of crimes. That shouldn't reflect up on the law they're trying to (ab)use.

I thought this law only said you do not have to make every effort to RETREAT when being threatened, even attacked in some cases?

I like it, here in VA you would no longer have to run away when some fucks start to threaten you. You could stay, NOT initiate contact< and defend yourself.

The way I read it is: If I am going to get a slurpee at 7-11, I can "stand my ground" while doing something simple. My path from the car to 7-11, get drink, pay and walk back to car is my right and if someone harasses me or threatens me, I can continue to do what I wanted in the first place, even if it pisses the aggressors off and they attack - then I can defend myself or fight back. If this leads to where I have to draw a firearm and kill them, so be it, should not attack innocent people as they go about their day (If you carry a gun).

Right now in VA, you would be required to not even enter the 7-11 (If they were threatening you out front), because YOU would have not retreated and "caused" the issue to escalate.

If someone just ays "I am going to kick your ass" and starts walking toward you, in VA, you are required to leave (run away), whereas with "stand your ground" you have a RIGHT to STAY if you decide.

I think the law takes away the advantage of thugs getting to ACT all tough with no consequences. You have to just take the shit and are required to retreat - with the law, you can go about your business and tell them to fuck off - if they attack, you can take them down (physically or with a weapon) legally, without being to blame since you did not run away.

I think the law just allows people to stand up for themselves and call out bitches when they see fit - other times, even with "stand your ground" in place, you would make a decision to retreat on YOUR OWN - not by requirement of the law.

I will give you an example:

If you are in public eating with a friend at an outdoor diner and you lay your $300 phone beside you, a person can walk up and just take it off the table and begin to walk away, YOU can not do anything but call the police. You can not touch them at all, or it will be assault on YOU, sure they will get the wrap for stealing, but you now have a criminal record. Wouldn't you rather be able to physically do something?

I am not concerned with the way the lawyers are perverting the law, just the rights it gives us on a daily basis.

kycTw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought this law only said you do not have to
> make every effort to RETREAT when being
> threatened, even attacked in some cases?


That is what the law is. Its takes the burden of retreat off of someone whose being attacked as opposed to making them retreat until theyre cornered with no escape before they can use deadly force.

The media and the progressives are just perverting the law out of their own ignorance to push their racial agendas and try and make something out of nothing as usual. Hell they cant even get someones race correct how can they be expected to get a law right

kycTw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought this law only said you do not have to
> make every effort to RETREAT when being
> threatened, even attacked in some cases?
>
> I like it, here in VA you would no longer have to
> run away when some fucks start to threaten you.
> You could stay, NOT initiate contact< and defend
> yourself.
>
> The way I read it is: If I am going to get a
> slurpee at 7-11, I can "stand my ground" while
> doing something simple. My path from the car to
> 7-11, get drink, pay and walk back to car is my
> right and if someone harasses me or threatens me,
> I can continue to do what I wanted in the first
> place, even if it pisses the aggressors off and
> they attack - then I can defend myself or fight
> back. If this leads to where I have to draw a
> firearm and kill them, so be it, should not attack
> innocent people as they go about their day (If you
> carry a gun).
>
> Right now in VA, you would be required to not even
> enter the 7-11 (If they were threatening you out
> front), because YOU would have not retreated and
> "caused" the issue to escalate.
>
> If someone just ays "I am going to kick your ass"
> and starts walking toward you, in VA, you are
> required to leave (run away), whereas with "stand
> your ground" you have a RIGHT to STAY if you
> decide.
>
> I think the law takes away the advantage of thugs
> getting to ACT all tough with no consequences. You
> have to just take the shit and are required to
> retreat - with the law, you can go about your
> business and tell them to fuck off - if they
> attack, you can take them down (physically or with
> a weapon) legally, without being to blame since
> you did not run away.
>
> I think the law just allows people to stand up for
> themselves and call out bitches when they see fit
> - other times, even with "stand your ground" in
> place, you would make a decision to retreat on
> YOUR OWN - not by requirement of the law.
>
> I will give you an example:
>
> If you are in public eating with a friend at an
> outdoor diner and you lay your $300 phone beside
> you, a person can walk up and just take it off the
> table and begin to walk away, YOU can not do
> anything but call the police. You can not touch
> them at all, or it will be assault on YOU, sure
> they will get the wrap for stealing, but you now
> have a criminal record. Wouldn't you rather be
> able to physically do something?
>
> I am not concerned with the way the lawyers are
> perverting the law, just the rights it gives us on
> a daily basis.


The right to defend person and property is one of the oldest established aspects of law all over the world. There has never, other than in limited instances/places in recent times mostly due to litigation, been a duty to retreat. That is the deviation here, not stand your ground.

A person always has the ability to defend themselves whether there are specific stand your ground laws or not. All SYG does is make that clear specifically in the law and limits the potential for legal manipulation and actions against victims to avoid dragging them through the legal system for defending themselves. Whether someone truly is a victim or not and whether the applied level of force in defending themselves is appropriate or not are separate issues which apply regardless whether self defense generally or related to some specific SYG provisions are claimed. You don't get to just say "Hey, SYG! I'm home free." regardless of circumstances.

SYG laws were enacted to eliminate cases were people were further made to go through a bunch of crap simply for defending themselves. Particularly, there were cases where victims were being abused through civil actions by criminals or their relatives filing suits because they were injured/killed during the course of a crime, police charging people inappropriately and having to incur legal expenses defending themselves because of the actions of a criminal, etc.

The details of specific laws may in some cases need to be more clear as far as application, but the basic principle is sound.

KbbmG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kycTw Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I thought this law only said you do not have to
> > make every effort to RETREAT when being
> > threatened, even attacked in some cases?
> >
> > I like it, here in VA you would no longer have
> to
> > run away when some fucks start to threaten you.
> > You could stay, NOT initiate contact< and
> defend
> > yourself.
> >
> > The way I read it is: If I am going to get a
> > slurpee at 7-11, I can "stand my ground" while
> > doing something simple. My path from the car to
> > 7-11, get drink, pay and walk back to car is my
> > right and if someone harasses me or threatens
> me,
> > I can continue to do what I wanted in the first
> > place, even if it pisses the aggressors off and
> > they attack - then I can defend myself or fight
> > back. If this leads to where I have to draw a
> > firearm and kill them, so be it, should not
> attack
> > innocent people as they go about their day (If
> you
> > carry a gun).
> >
> > Right now in VA, you would be required to not
> even
> > enter the 7-11 (If they were threatening you
> out
> > front), because YOU would have not retreated
> and
> > "caused" the issue to escalate.
> >
> > If someone just ays "I am going to kick your
> ass"
> > and starts walking toward you, in VA, you are
> > required to leave (run away), whereas with
> "stand
> > your ground" you have a RIGHT to STAY if you
> > decide.
> >
> > I think the law takes away the advantage of
> thugs
> > getting to ACT all tough with no consequences.
> You
> > have to just take the shit and are required to
> > retreat - with the law, you can go about your
> > business and tell them to fuck off - if they
> > attack, you can take them down (physically or
> with
> > a weapon) legally, without being to blame since
> > you did not run away.
> >
> > I think the law just allows people to stand up
> for
> > themselves and call out bitches when they see
> fit
> > - other times, even with "stand your ground" in
> > place, you would make a decision to retreat on
> > YOUR OWN - not by requirement of the law.
> >
> > I will give you an example:
> >
> > If you are in public eating with a friend at an
> > outdoor diner and you lay your $300 phone
> beside
> > you, a person can walk up and just take it off
> the
> > table and begin to walk away, YOU can not do
> > anything but call the police. You can not touch
> > them at all, or it will be assault on YOU, sure
> > they will get the wrap for stealing, but you
> now
> > have a criminal record. Wouldn't you rather be
> > able to physically do something?
> >
> > I am not concerned with the way the lawyers are
> > perverting the law, just the rights it gives us
> on
> > a daily basis.
>
>
> The right to defend person and property is one of
> the oldest established aspects of law all over the
> world. There has never, other than in limited
> instances/places in recent times mostly due to
> litigation, been a duty to retreat. That is the
> deviation here, not stand your ground.
>
> A person always has the ability to defend
> themselves whether there are specific stand your
> ground laws or not. All SYG does is make that
> clear specifically in the law and limits the
> potential for legal manipulation and actions
> against victims to avoid dragging them through the
> legal system for defending themselves. Whether
> someone truly is a victim or not and whether the
> applied level of force in defending themselves is
> appropriate or not are separate issues which apply
> regardless whether self defense generally or
> related to some specific SYG provisions are
> claimed. You don't get to just say "Hey, SYG!
> I'm home free." regardless of circumstances.
>
>
> SYG laws were enacted to eliminate cases were
> people were further made to go through a bunch of
> crap simply for defending themselves.
> Particularly, there were cases where victims were
> being abused through civil actions by criminals or
> their relatives filing suits because they were
> injured/killed during the course of a crime,
> police charging people inappropriately and having
> to incur legal expenses defending themselves
> because of the actions of a criminal, etc.
>
> The details of specific laws may in some cases
> need to be more clear as far as application, but
> the basic principle is sound.


Very well written answer.