TexasCHLforum.com

Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied

I wonder how Texas compares to FL. the article makes it sound so simple or is it justice for the weak. Does the law balance the books or is an escape for the guilty?

sorry I though it was posted

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... on/1233133" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you have any citations? There are no "shocking outcomes" in Texas.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Do you have any citations? There are no "shocking outcomes" in Texas.

Chas.

why do you say that; is texas law so much different then FL that we don't fall into the same situations or is it that we haven't had a big case like martin/zimmerman ?

barstoolguru wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Do you have any citations? There are no "shocking outcomes" in Texas.

Chas.

why do you say that; is texas law so much different then FL that we don't fall into the same situations or is it that we haven't had a big case like martin/zimmerman ?

I don't know of "shocking outcomes," that's why I say that. You've made a very broad and I believe unsubstantiated claim. Do you have any proof? Are you claiming that the Martin case is a "shocking outcome?"

Chas.

barstoolguru wrote:Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied

I wonder how Texas compares to FL. the article makes it sound so simple or is it justice for the weak. Does the law balance the books or is an escape for the guilty?

What article? Did you forget something? Or is that the title of an article?

EDIT: Answering my own question.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... 233133.ece

...I just Googled the words and got the same article...

barstoolguru wrote:Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied

I wonder how Texas compares to FL. the article makes it sound so simple or is it justice for the weak. Does the law balance the books or is an escape for the guilty?

Sorry, I didn't realize this was the title of an article. I thought you were stating that Florida law was causing "shocking outcomes."

I apologize,
Chas.

It would help if you would post the link when quoting articles so we can see what you are referencing

Keith B wrote:It would help if you would post the link when quoting articles so we can see what you are referencing

Yeah I was lost.

I corrected ... my goof

I will add it here too

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... on/1233133" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

philip964 wrote: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.

This is a newspaper analysis.....not the analysis of the FBI, or the Justice Department, or something like that. I'd not trust their methodology. OTH, I'm not sure I'd trust a Justice Department analysis in the current climate, with the current administration in power.

It seems, from what's in the article, that Florida has more trouble with it than Texas does. They cite a case ("The same holds true for killers who left a fight, only to arm themselves and return.") where I'm pretty sure in Texas the shooter did not get off.

But then, as always, the devil is in the details. They just give a one-liner to describe some incident and the reader really has no idea what the facts are. Was the drug dealer just standing on the corner when another opened fire? Well, yeah, no retreat applies. Bust him on other things but not that.

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.

Heartland Patriot wrote: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.