Florida ' SYG law out comes

[VMI77]

Well this is kind of shocking.

"In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free. "

I have a feeling not all three things happened in the same shooting. At least I hope not.

Let's not forget, the MSM is "shocked" whenever criminals are shot and whenever ordinary people defend themselves. The only way they're not going to be shocked is for the US to become like the UK, where self-defense is not allowed, and criminals get away with claims, like, the shopkeeper impaled himself on my knife while I was robbing him. Self-defense can't be "shocking" when it's not allowed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lling.html

[Heartland Patriot]

I was going to read the article, then early on I got to this little bit of spin:

• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

It is NOT my wish to create any sort of racial dialogue on this whatsoever and I will not go into any sort of discussion about those numbers written above except to say the following: that it is clearly among the intended points of that article to bring race into the mix. Just like the disgusting tactics of individuals such as Sharpton. Always remember, it is NOT about the merits of any individual situation, but about the "social justice" aspects that can be bandied about and used to further the ideological causes of people such as those who wrote this fine journalistic tour de force (propaganda hit piece). Just my dogmatic, knuckle-dragging teabilly perspective, of course.

Something that struck me in highlighted statement quoted: Who is the victim, the defendant or the person killed? Seems like another biased article and the perpetrator is being called the "victim" after the person who is defending themselves (the victim of the crime) uses deadly force.

Indeed, and it reminds me of the tactic of lumping 25 year old gang-bangers shot during drive-bys into the same category as "accidental shootings of children" using the "logic" that 25 years old is young, so they are youths and youths are children...and it was "accidental" because the firearm wasn't aimed DIRECTLY at anyone in particular, so that any one individual that gets hit was hit "accidentally". And yes, they really do use this sort of thing to "cook the books" for their Brady Bunch and other anti-2A, anti-self-defense statistics.