Apparently the mothers of two kids killed ostensibly in self-defense.... one of which is Trayvon Martin.... are going to testify in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee. This one in particular is disturbing: "Also testifying at the hearing are Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, a strong supporter of stand your ground laws, and Lucia Holman McBath, the mother of Jordan Russell Davis. Davis, 17, was killed nearly a year ago when Michael David Dunn, 46, allegedly fired bullets on a Dodge Durango with four teenagers inside after complaining about their loud music and claiming he saw a gun. Authorities never found a gun inside. "That man was empowered by the 'stand your ground' statute," McBath will say, according to prepared testimony. "I am here to tell you there was no ground to stand. There was no threat. No one was trying to invade his home, his vehicle, nor threatened him or his family." So this guy fires a gun on a vehicle indiscriminately because maybe of something they said? Or what? If all 4 had exited the vehicle with an expressed desire to possibly bludgeon the guy then I can see his response as being appropriate but the above statement of "thinking he saw a gun".... ranks right up there with the asshole hunter saying "I thought I saw antlers so I blew his head off with my 30-30 rifle".....
I'm not sure what you want us to say? I would hope that if this senate hearing is about Stand Your Ground Laws that it would be an honest discussion about what those laws are and what they are intended to do, and what flaws they might have. Using the Davis case (and Travon Martin's case also) as an argument against them strikes me as being dishonest, because Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with either case, IMO.
What Stu said X 2!! If the courts allowed Stand your Ground laws to be used as defense in a case where it obviously didn't apply... that's not a failure of the law itself. It's a failure of the court for not making it clear how the law works... :roll:
So the mother of Trayvon Martin is testifying about something that had nothing to do with the case involving her son's shooting. Pretty pathetic that they could come up with only 1 witness who was actually involved in a stand your ground case. Then again why is the Senate involving itself in state statutes? Oh yeah, the liberal anti-gun assholes are at it again.
I have wondered before why you keep saying that Gipper: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html I hope you're not forming that opinion by what that asshole in Jacksonville, Florida is saying on the radio.... :roll:
I spent 4 years studying law. I took a class in criminal law. I know what the concept of self-defense is. It's always been permissable force used to protect yourself if you feel you are in peril. At the time Zimmerman used deadly force he was lying on the ground being beaten. There was no option to retreat. How is Stand Your Ground applicable? The defense chose not to have a hearing on that defense. My opinion is based on my education as opposed to those that mine specific sites looking for writers who don't know squat.
Well, reading your article convinces me that Stand Your Ground, indeed, had nothing to do with either case. Just because the jury discussed it doesn't mean that it applied. If they were confused about it then they were not adequately instructed.
I am surprised the Jury had no instruction that this was not Stand Your Ground. Did they just decide on their own that it was? Seems pretty screwy.
While I sympathize with any mother who has lost their child, that doesn't mean that the agenda they have will automatically be correct. So Sen. Feinstein is holding hearings, does that mean she will take an honest approach. Given her rabid anti gun background I wouldn't expect so. I also agree with Stu's analysis.