Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Sentinel)   Prosecutors set up mock "Hunger Games" trial with first graders to highlight the issues with Stand Your Ground laws   (sun-sentinel.com ) divider line
    More: Florida, The Hunger Games, stand your ground, witness stand, prosecutors, Broward County Courthouse  
•       •       •

6317 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Apr 2012 at 5:48 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-04-27 01:20:50 AM  
so they managed to combine opposition "stand your ground" laws with Seneca Crane somehow getting off with only 2-5 years? Democrats: soft on crime. Romulus Thread would not be pleased.
 
2012-04-27 01:21:45 AM  
That article confused and upset me. And Peeta sucks.
 
2012-04-27 05:52:03 AM  
Anyone notice all the stories of people beating up white people randomly in the name of trayvon? There was a story 2 days ago about an Alabama man that was beat by 40 black people with baseball bats.
 
2012-04-27 05:54:59 AM  

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Anyone notice all the stories... There was a story 2 days ago...


I live with my mom
 
2012-04-27 05:59:19 AM  
I understood 0% of that story.
 
2012-04-27 06:12:03 AM  

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Anyone notice all the stories of people beating up white people randomly in the name of trayvon? There was a story 2 days ago about an Alabama man that was beat by 40 black people with baseball bats.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/alabama-man-attack-investigated - hate-crime-claims-justice-trayvon-article-1.1067387?localLinksEnabled= false

- Owens' sister and another witness say that as the group left, one assailant said: "Now that's justice for Trayvon" following the assault....Ashley Parker, Owens' sister, told WKRG in Mobile that she saw the attack from her house across the street, which she called "the scariest thing I have ever witnessed."

But police have been unable to reach Parker and confirm what she said she heard.

(Who's the other witness, and why can't police reach his sister?)

-
Furious neighbors say that no matter what was said, the attack had nothing to do with Martin.

"This has something to do with an adult that doesn't like black kids," Lemika Whisenhunt, who lives on the same street as Owens, told WKRG.

Owens was attacked after he yelled at a group of kids for playing basketball in the street, WKRG reports.

At the request of viewers, the station also took a look at Owens' rap sheet, which includes charges of assault, domestic violence, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

(Why were viewers requesting the television station reporting the incident look at Owen's rap sheet? And how many viewers made the request? Two? Three? Twenty?)

- Loquacious1 over at MTO states, "I read somewhere that this was an ongoing dispute between neighbors for 3 years and that it was only 3 men who beat him up, and other people were just watching.There were some racial slurs thrown around, but during an interview, someone said he has a black girlfriend and has helped her take care of her kids...but who knows?? " who knows indeed. Has anyone else heard any of this? I can't find any articles with this. Ongoing dispute (like the two Michigan families that made Fark last year when that woman created a Halloween gravesite dedicated to her neighbor's grandchild with Huntington's) sounds likely, and that there's more to the story. Be it three men or twenty, they shouldn't have beaten him up for yelling at kids playing basketball. But that isn't the same as beating someone up out of the blue over the Martin case.
 
2012-04-27 06:12:06 AM  
This will be a good "who read the article" thread. Those who immediately post about SYG laws are the ones who didn't read it. Those who did read it are still trying to figure out what to make of it.
 
2012-04-27 06:16:28 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Anyone notice all the stories of people beating up white people randomly in the name of trayvon? There was a story 2 days ago about an Alabama man that was beat by 40 black people with baseball bats.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/alabama-man-attack-investigated - hate-crime-claims-justice-trayvon-article-1.1067387?localLinksEnabled= false

- Owens' sister and another witness say that as the group left, one assailant said: "Now that's justice for Trayvon" following the assault....Ashley Parker, Owens' sister, told WKRG in Mobile that she saw the attack from her house across the street, which she called "the scariest thing I have ever witnessed."

But police have been unable to reach Parker and confirm what she said she heard.

(Who's the other witness, and why can't police reach his sister?)

-
Furious neighbors say that no matter what was said, the attack had nothing to do with Martin.

"This has something to do with an adult that doesn't like black kids," Lemika Whisenhunt, who lives on the same street as Owens, told WKRG.

Owens was attacked after he yelled at a group of kids for playing basketball in the street, WKRG reports.

At the request of viewers, the station also took a look at Owens' rap sheet, which includes charges of assault, domestic violence, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

(Why were viewers requesting the television station reporting the incident look at Owen's rap sheet? And how many viewers made the request? Two? Three? Twenty?)

- Loquacious1 over at MTO states, "I read somewhere that this was an ongoing dispute between neighbors for 3 years and that it was only 3 men who beat him up, and other people were just watching.There were some racial slurs thrown around, but during an interview, someone said he has a black girlfriend and has helped her take care of her kids...but who knows?? " who knows indeed. Has anyone else heard any of this? I can't find any articles with this. Ongoing dispute (like ...


I'm sure that if you scour the Internets hard enough, you will find what you are looking for. Other guys who have already formed conclusions and are looking for "evidence" to support their "conclusions" never have any trouble finding it.
 
2012-04-27 06:17:54 AM  
????
 
2012-04-27 06:21:38 AM  

jso2897: ExperianScaresCthulhu: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Anyone notice all the stories of people beating up white people randomly in the name of trayvon? There was a story 2 days ago about an Alabama man that was beat by 40 black people with baseball bats.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/alabama-man-attack-investigated - hate-crime-claims-justice-trayvon-article-1.1067387?localLinksEnabled= false

- Owens' sister and another witness say that as the group left, one assailant said: "Now that's justice for Trayvon" following the assault....Ashley Parker, Owens' sister, told WKRG in Mobile that she saw the attack from her house across the street, which she called "the scariest thing I have ever witnessed."

But police have been unable to reach Parker and confirm what she said she heard.

(Who's the other witness, and why can't police reach his sister?)

-
Furious neighbors say that no matter what was said, the attack had nothing to do with Martin.

"This has something to do with an adult that doesn't like black kids," Lemika Whisenhunt, who lives on the same street as Owens, told WKRG.

Owens was attacked after he yelled at a group of kids for playing basketball in the street, WKRG reports.

At the request of viewers, the station also took a look at Owens' rap sheet, which includes charges of assault, domestic violence, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

(Why were viewers requesting the television station reporting the incident look at Owen's rap sheet? And how many viewers made the request? Two? Three? Twenty?)

- Loquacious1 over at MTO states, "I read somewhere that this was an ongoing dispute between neighbors for 3 years and that it was only 3 men who beat him up, and other people were just watching.There were some racial slurs thrown around, but during an interview, someone said he has a black girlfriend and has helped her take care of her kids...but who knows?? " who knows indeed. Has anyone else heard any of this? I can't find any articles with this. ...
I'm sure that if you scour the Internets hard enough, you will find what you are looking for. Other guys who have already formed conclusions and are looking for "evidence" to support their "conclusions" never have any trouble finding it.


Oh, well I guess that makes what happened ok then?
 
2012-04-27 06:24:15 AM  

MacWizard: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Anyone notice all the stories... There was a story 2 days ago...

I live with my mom


If there really are racial retaliatory attacks in the name of Martin, that's one thing, and it must be discussed.... but these aren't it. These need to be discussed for different reasons, but not because there is a rampage of blacks attacking whites in the name of Martin/

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-trayvon-beating s -20120426,0,1822417.story

Stories 'plural' about blacks beating whites over Trayvon, except
- Hayes and a 15-year-old from Chicago attacked the victim about 1 a.m. April 17 in Oak Park, west of Chicago, police said.

Hayes told police the pair grabbed the man from behind, hit him several times and threatened him with a tree branch, saying, "Empty your pockets, white boy," FOX Chicago reported. The pair then allegedly threw the man to the ground and hit him in the head several more times before taking off. The man called police, who stopped the pair a few blocks away.

(That wasn't about Trayvon, that was about two dudes looking to rob somebody, and who would have robbed somebody whether or not Martin had been killed. Not retaliatory at all, but the dude deserves the hate crime added charges for being stupid enough to go there.)

-Despite pleas from the man's relatives for the incident to be investigated as a hate crime, the attack on Matthew Owens, 40, was investigated as an assault. Investigators insisted that the Martin case had nothing to do with the assault, that the attack arose out of an ongoing dispute between Owens and a neighbor. On Wednesday, police arrested 44-year-old Terry Rawls for first-degree assault in connection with the attack, WKRG reported.

(Ah, there we go. What other words had been said, over the years?)

- Dallas Watts, 78, told police he was walking home in Toledo on March 31 when he was confronted by six youths, white and black, ages 11 to 17, one of whom directed the group to "take him down," FoxToledo.com reported.

Watts said he pleaded, "Why me? Remember Trayvon," in a "peaceful way." He told reporters that only seemed to anger the youths.

"[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon. ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]," the boys are quoted as saying in a police report cited by the Toledo Blade.

Three of the six youths have since been charged in connection with the attack, but police did not find evidence to support hate crime charges, FoxToledo.com reported.

(Why would the old white dude mention Trayvon Martin in the first place? If he was making a connection between himself and Martin, that means that he considered Martin *innocent* and Zimmerman guilty of killing a kid without cause, right? I can see some kids attacking an elderly dude, and if they did indeed target him because he was white not just easy, then they deserve additional hate crime chages. That attack didn't have anything to do with Trayvon Martin, though, as the kids didn't mention him first.. the old man did.)

Those are the ones I found. Are there any more -- with *real* connections to Trayvon Martin on the part of assailants? OMG is SouthernmanDunWrong and 9beers like, but real people feel the way those three do, so i'm not going to call the troll card yet just because dude has an irrational fear of blacks.
 
2012-04-27 06:33:35 AM  

anarchy_x: jso2897: I'm sure that if you scour the Internets hard enough, you will find what you are looking for. Other guys who have already formed conclusions and are looking for "evidence" to support their "conclusions" never have any trouble finding it.


Oh, well I guess that makes what happened ok then?


Sigh. A white woman -- the dude's sister -- originally reports it was the scariest thing she ever saw (which is understandable, it's her brother after all) and that there were twenty blacks beating him down................... but someone else says it was only three, and everybody else was just standing around watching.

Three or twenty, grown men shouldn't fight each other over a basketball game played in the street by kids 30 years younger. HOWEVER, there's a difference between three dudes, and twenty. Did twenty dudes really converge on a single white dude, or was his sister engaging in racial multiplication? You know the phenomenon (and that is not its name) where whites will 'see' a single black but 'remember' there being more than there actually were?

If the sister was reporting 20 people beat up her brother, but was counting bystanders who did nothing as among those physically assaulting her brother, there's a problem with the witness.

Since she's not talking to the police even through a lawyer, who knows what's up.

The long-time dispute makes sense. It won't gain traction, and this guess will show up years from now on white nationalist sites as evidence that blacks are planning on destroying whties and will gang up to beat down whites in overwhelming numbers for no reason/political reasons.......................... but the long-time dispute that heated up enough to put a man in the hospital makes a lot more sense than that the beating was connected to the Martin/Zimmerman case.
 
2012-04-27 06:55:18 AM  
Maybe I missed something FTA, but I'm not sure what the point was here.

You take the fictional character that is running Hitlers Fascist dream land, put students in charge of defending him with some absurd concoction of a law that doesn't make sense, and strike a blow against SYG when he loses to a Jury that's already biased by the books and movie?

I think all they proved is how difficult it is for someone to get a fair trial when the media's gone to town on the case months before the Jury is assembled.

My direction of argument would have been that many nations already have conscription laws, and many of those conscripts risk death in the line of duty. More than twenty per year around the globe will certainly die in just training accidents.
If culling the herd with ONLY this number is what it would cost to maintain world peace, what is happening in Hunger games could be considered legitimate.

/Of course what's happening isn't world peace, its punishment of the many to give a glorious life to the few.
/As told from the Victims perspective. Altho I haven't read the books yet.
/The few seem to be enjoying things like anti-gravity machines and high speed rail.
/Al-Gore would love that place.
 
2012-04-27 06:56:23 AM  
Yeah, because manipulating other peoples children in a public school to make a political point is always a way to find out the truth of an issue.

Hey, here's an idea, how about we leave the the kids alone for a change and NOT try to manipulate them for political purposes?
 
2012-04-27 07:07:16 AM  
So a law that allows a nation to brutally victimize a random group of citizens in order to intimidate the rest into submission (hypothetical Stand Your Nation law from the article), mirrors a law that allows a person to defend their life from an attacker without requiring said person to attempt retreat if possible (actual Stand Your Ground law from real life)?

Am I missing something? This article seems to be a sloppy attempt to straw-man Florida's Stand Your Ground law. It's really too bad because this would have been a perfect opportunity to have the students consider the acceptability of the Nuremberg defense, and whether following orders/the law is an acceptable defense to heinous crimes.

But then, we don't really want students to think about whether they should disobey rules when their morals conflict with them, do we.
 
2012-04-27 07:18:20 AM  
What the heck does the Treaty of the Treason have to do with Stand Your Ground?
 
2012-04-27 07:36:54 AM  

taurusowner: This will be a good "who read the article" thread. Those who immediately post about SYG laws are the ones who didn't read it. Those who did read it are still trying to figure out what to make of it.


And what about he ones Threadjacking it to discuss the bigus "justice for trayvn" story?

This was cute way to combine current events and pop culture for kids tryng to understand the justice system, not too strange. Though I'll note that if grade school kids ain't buying SYG then they have proven themselves smarter than the FLA legislature

The Thing I find most remarkable about SYG is how it came into being. It wasn't crafter by alwmakers after consultation with police or prosecutors (they universally opposed it) It wasn't even written as a Knee-jerk reaction to some high-profile case that lawmakers considered a horrible msscarriage of justice.. No it was created out of whole cloth by a single NRA lobbyist who decided the organization need a high-profile "win" to report on to spur fund-raising. So she went the ALEC staff to have the law written and then bribed a few FL legislatures to introduce it, and threatened the rest if they didn't vote it. And suddenly 1000 years of English common law tradition is thrown out the window and replaced with dangerous stupidity
 
2012-04-27 07:54:06 AM  
We had a mock trial once in like 6th grade. The "Jury" ignored the whole trial, then agreed on the first verdict suggested so they could go outside and play.

/sooo.. just like grown ups and real trials.
 
2012-04-27 07:55:58 AM  
Not to go off topic, but it seems quite a few people are unaware that several states have Stand Your Ground or Line in the Sand laws. And frankly, that's fine---you shouldn't have to retreat from a place that you're legally allowed to be. Keep in mind English common law originally required a retreat because it was written before there were firearms---what sane man would try to run in the open from someone shooting at them with a semi-automatic, for instance?

Bottom line, sometimes the situation calls for a serious beat down or murdering. Self-defense is a perfectly legitimate thing, lest we become a police state where only sanctioned officials may "protect" you from non-law abiding citizens. And let me tell you, the law may punish criminals, but it doesn't stop them from committing their crimes.

/oh it's fark
//pointless rant
 
2012-04-27 08:04:48 AM  
A better example would be that Katniss is on trial in District 1 for the cold-blooded murder of their boy.

At the time of his murder he was not holding a weapon and was carrying a water bottle and dried fruit. He wasn't a threat to Katniss when she decided to take the law into her own hands for allegedly killing Rue. She should have let the police do their job instead of murdering that boy. She had no right to stand her ground because he wasn't a threat and she could have safely retreated into a tree.
 
2012-04-27 08:15:16 AM  
I can see the merit in trying to introduce kids to courtroom proceedings by capitalizing on a popular book/movie/whathaveyou. However, I don't think that starting them off with the equivolent of a war crimes tribunal is the best way to go about it. That said, it was kind of scary to read that the kids just started chanting "guilty" during the trial. My school did something similar with "To Kill a Mockingbird" except we had our mock trial before we read the book. After the verdict, which was thankfully "not guilty," we had to read the book, and I think having that kind of perspective on it made the experience all the better.
 
2012-04-27 08:17:37 AM  

Ruiizu: Not to go off topic, but it seems quite a few people are unaware that several states have Stand Your Ground or Line in the Sand laws. And frankly, that's fine---you shouldn't have to retreat from a place that you're legally allowed to be. Keep in mind English common law originally required a retreat because it was written before there were firearms---what sane man would try to run in the open from someone shooting at them with a semi-automatic, for instance?

Bottom line, sometimes the situation calls for a serious beat down or murdering. Self-defense is a perfectly legitimate thing, lest we become a police state where only sanctioned officials may "protect" you from non-law abiding citizens. And let me tell you, the law may punish criminals, but it doesn't stop them from committing their crimes.

/oh it's fark
//pointless rant


And then there are those times when you really really need to kill someone, like when someone is running away with a piece of your poverty, or you see burglars in your neighbors house. The law needs to allow people to take thier guns and kill people without having to worry about the legal ramifications. What's the point of owning a gun if you never get to use it to kill people?
 
2012-04-27 08:30:41 AM  

Ruiizu: Not to go off topic, but it seems quite a few people are unaware that several states have Stand Your Ground or Line in the Sand laws. And frankly, that's fine---you shouldn't have to retreat from a place that you're legally allowed to be. Keep in mind English common law originally required a retreat because it was written before there were firearms---what sane man would try to run in the open from someone shooting at them with a semi-automatic, for instance?

Bottom line, sometimes the situation calls for a serious beat down or murdering. Self-defense is a perfectly legitimate thing, lest we become a police state where only sanctioned officials may "protect" you from non-law abiding citizens. And let me tell you, the law may punish criminals, but it doesn't stop them from committing their crimes.

/oh it's fark
//pointless rant


That justification for removing the retreat requirement is utterly nonsensical. Common law required you to retreat only if you could do so in PERFECT safety. That situation does not exist when a gun is being pointed at you. What it did NOT allow that SYG does is to say, get into an argument with a neighbor, go back into your house to go get a gun, and then continue the argument and shoot him when you "felt threatened" (this actually happened and the man was ruled protected under SYG). If going back inside your house ended the danger, under the old rule you had to do that rather than kill the person. Or if you are in a bar and somebody wants to "go outside and fight", if you are safe staying in the bar, (protected by bouncers or other security) then under the old rules you couldn't claim self defense if you willing went outside to fight, and after getting your ass kicked, shot the other guy. Now you can.

Like I said, it was a stupid law drafted by people with no experience in criminal law, solely to give the NRA something to crow about in fund-raising letters. EVERY Cop and Prosecutor's organization in the state said it was a bad idea and campaigned against it.
 
2012-04-27 08:34:44 AM  
From TFA
"We're not going to debate philosophy with them; we just want them to have fun and hopefully they retain something."

This is the worst possible way to get kids to side with you. Syg opinion aside, forcing a law you are opposed to into the bad guy from a kids book does nothing but get all their little empty heads nodding with you in unison.
They haven't learned anything. Instead of actually thinking about the issue, they have formed a weak association between a law they don't understand and a fictional villain.

It seems a lot like the indoctrination the liberals/republicans are always accusing each other of...

If you want kids to have fun and maybe retain something, plug in an old Bill Nye video or something.
/Bill
//Bill
///billbillbill
 
2012-04-27 08:46:48 AM  

IanMoone: A better example would be that Katniss is on trial in District 1 for the cold-blooded murder of their boy.

At the time of his murder he was not holding a weapon and was carrying a water bottle and dried fruit. He wasn't a threat to Katniss when she decided to take the law into her own hands for allegedly killing Rue. She should have let the police do their job instead of murdering that boy. She had no right to stand her ground because he wasn't a threat and she could have safely retreated into a tree.


Does Al Sharpton live in district 1?
 
2012-04-27 08:49:23 AM  
If at least two people from the DA's office don't somehow die in this exercise, the experiment is a failure.
 
2012-04-27 09:05:41 AM  

TheOriginalEd: We had a mock trial once in like 6th grade. The "Jury" ignored the whole trial, then agreed on the first verdict suggested so they could go outside and play.

/sooo.. just like grown ups and real trials.


We did the trial of - I wish I could remember his name - a Civil War era black man who escaped and was then caught and tried for stealing himself from his owner.

The jury was supposed to be made up of white, southern slave holders from the time period. They were supposed to attempt to think like people might have back then, which was the point. Instead only one person voted guilty. I'm still kind of proud of that kid - everyone else wanted to be modern and PC.
 
2012-04-27 09:21:09 AM  

RobocopMustang: So a law that allows a nation to brutally victimize a random group of citizens in order to intimidate the rest into submission (hypothetical Stand Your Nation law from the article), mirrors a law that allows a person to defend their life from an attacker without requiring said person to attempt retreat if possible (actual Stand Your Ground law from real life)?

Am I missing something?


You are attempting a rational and meaningful analysis. Individuals who oppose legal use of defensive of force lack rationality.
 
2012-04-27 09:31:57 AM  

Magorn: Ruiizu: Not to go off topic, but it seems quite a few people are unaware that several states have Stand Your Ground or Line in the Sand laws. And frankly, that's fine---you shouldn't have to retreat from a place that you're legally allowed to be. Keep in mind English common law originally required a retreat because it was written before there were firearms---what sane man would try to run in the open from someone shooting at them with a semi-automatic, for instance?

Bottom line, sometimes the situation calls for a serious beat down or murdering. Self-defense is a perfectly legitimate thing, lest we become a police state where only sanctioned officials may "protect" you from non-law abiding citizens. And let me tell you, the law may punish criminals, but it doesn't stop them from committing their crimes.

/oh it's fark
//pointless rant

That justification for removing the retreat requirement is utterly nonsensical. Common law required you to retreat only if you could do so in PERFECT safety. That situation does not exist when a gun is being pointed at you. What it did NOT allow that SYG does is to say, get into an argument with a neighbor, go back into your house to go get a gun, and then continue the argument and shoot him when you "felt threatened" (this actually happened and the man was ruled protected under SYG). If going back inside your house ended the danger, under the old rule you had to do that rather than kill the person. Or if you are in a bar and somebody wants to "go outside and fight", if you are safe staying in the bar, (protected by bouncers or other security) then under the old rules you couldn't claim self defense if you willing went outside to fight, and after getting your ass kicked, shot the other guy. Now you can.

Like I said, it was a stupid law drafted by people with no experience in criminal law, solely to give the NRA something to crow about in fund-raising letters. EVERY Cop and Prosecutor's organization in the state said it was ...


This was a pretty succinct summation of the issue. It beats me taking the time to find a clip of the Simpsons episode where Bart says, "I'm just going to start walking forward swinging my arms like this, if you don't move and get hit, that's not my fault."
 
2012-04-27 09:44:23 AM  
So they had 1st graders killing each other? Well, it's a good start.
 
2012-04-27 09:49:51 AM  

TheOriginalEd: We had a mock trial once in like 6th grade. The "Jury" ignored the whole trial, then agreed on the first verdict suggested so they could go outside and play.

/sooo.. just like grown ups and real trials.


I was a prospective juror, but I mentioned to one of my friends on the prosecution that, since I had a crush on the defense attorney, I was going to vote not-guilty regardless. They had to mention it during disclosure, so the girl defense attorney struck me from the jury and made some biatchy comment about how it was never going to happen.

So I guess my school managed to take it seriously as a trial while still maintaining the adequate level of middle school drama.
 
2012-04-27 10:13:38 AM  

precia: We did the trial of - I wish I could remember his name - a Civil War era black man who escaped and was then caught and tried for stealing himself from his owner.

The jury was supposed to be made up of white, southern slave holders from the time period. They were supposed to attempt to think like people might have back then, which was the point. Instead only one person voted guilty. I'm still kind of proud of that kid - everyone else wanted to be modern and PC.


Dred Scott? It was kind of famous.
 
2012-04-27 10:17:41 AM  

Magorn: Ruiizu: Not to go off topic, but it seems quite a few people are unaware that several states have Stand Your Ground or Line in the Sand laws. And frankly, that's fine---you shouldn't have to retreat from a place that you're legally allowed to be. Keep in mind English common law originally required a retreat because it was written before there were firearms---what sane man would try to run in the open from someone shooting at them with a semi-automatic, for instance?

Bottom line, sometimes the situation calls for a serious beat down or murdering. Self-defense is a perfectly legitimate thing, lest we become a police state where only sanctioned officials may "protect" you from non-law abiding citizens. And let me tell you, the law may punish criminals, but it doesn't stop them from committing their crimes.

/oh it's fark
//pointless rant

That justification for removing the retreat requirement is utterly nonsensical. Common law required you to retreat only if you could do so in PERFECT safety. That situation does not exist when a gun is being pointed at you. What it did NOT allow that SYG does is to say, get into an argument with a neighbor, go back into your house to go get a gun, and then continue the argument and shoot him when you "felt threatened" (this actually happened and the man was ruled protected under SYG). If going back inside your house ended the danger, under the old rule you had to do that rather than kill the person. Or if you are in a bar and somebody wants to "go outside and fight", if you are safe staying in the bar, (protected by bouncers or other security) then under the old rules you couldn't claim self defense if you willing went outside to fight, and after getting your ass kicked, shot the other guy. Now you can.

Like I said, it was a stupid law drafted by people with no experience in criminal law, solely to give the NRA something to crow about in fund-raising letters. EVERY Cop and Prosecutor's organization in the state said it was a bad idea and campaigned against it.


Not that I entirely disagree with the idea of there being some retarded abuse of the law, but I don't really agree with the supporting point that "cops and prosecutors are and were against it." Of course they would be---their job is to indiscriminately (for the most part) punish people (not actually prevent any meaningful crime) for breaking laws that may or may not even be good (shockingly, as you're pointing.g out yourself, some laws are bad).

My point is, I don't ever want to have to rely on sonera arbitrary authority figure to protect me from people threatening my wellbeing or property. Again, I think there is definitely some room for abuse with this law, but that just means it needs to be amended to account for said abuses.

For the record, I don't feel there's anything wrong with shooting the guy running away with your TV in the back. But you'd better be prepared to prove he really was stealing your stuff if taken to court.
 
2012-04-27 10:30:25 AM  

Ruiizu: For the record, I don't feel there's anything wrong with shooting the guy running away with your TV in the back. But you'd better be prepared to prove he really was stealing your stuff if taken to court.


Is it okay to chase him for several blocks with a knife and stab him to death, then take his stolen goods as your own? (that happened and the death was not reported, when the police found the killer he was protected under SYG)
 
2012-04-27 10:34:27 AM  

precia: TheOriginalEd: We had a mock trial once in like 6th grade. The "Jury" ignored the whole trial, then agreed on the first verdict suggested so they could go outside and play.

/sooo.. just like grown ups and real trials.

We did the trial of - I wish I could remember his name - a Civil War era black man who escaped and was then caught and tried for stealing himself from his owner.

The jury was supposed to be made up of white, southern slave holders from the time period. They were supposed to attempt to think like people might have back then, which was the point. Instead only one person voted guilty. I'm still kind of proud of that kid - everyone else wanted to be modern and PC.


To be fair I want to think most adults these days would have a hard time getting into a slave owner's head, even if the ultimate purpose of that exercise could be seen as a worthy one.
 
2012-04-27 10:55:48 AM  

wedun: Ruiizu: For the record, I don't feel there's anything wrong with shooting the guy running away with your TV in the back. But you'd better be prepared to prove he really was stealing your stuff if taken to court.

Is it okay to chase him for several blocks with a knife and stab him to death, then take his stolen goods as your own? (that happened and the death was not reported, when the police found the killer he was protected under SYG)


I don't know the details of said case so I'm not able to give any specific answer. You drum the situation up pretty well, but without the details it makes it hard to comment.

But, unless it was something truly dear to me, I can't imagine chasing someone that far anyway. There are definitely things worth chasing a thief over, and I don't see merit in letting them get away if pursuit is within reason (running around lime you're the goddamn batman and trashing the town in the process is not what I see within reason.)

Hypothetically speaking, in the case you listed, assuming the murderer indeed was abusing the law, he should have been punished and the law amended to reflect future cases of a similar incident. Laws are made to be changed, removed, and rewritten as appropriate for the times and situations.

Remember, you as a citizen should not feel at the mercy of criminals and authorities---a free citizen should be mentally and physically able to defend themselves and their property.
 
2012-04-27 11:17:42 AM  
Educational as fark
 
2012-04-27 11:29:47 AM  

phyrkrakr: Dred Scott? It was kind of famous.


Bad ass name, but I don't think that's the one. I swear it came down to a theft case. That mock trial was ages ago, though, so I'm blurry on almost all of the details.

Crotchrocket Slim: To be fair I want to think most adults these days would have a hard time getting into a slave owner's head, even if the ultimate purpose of that exercise could be seen as a worthy one.


Granted. The teacher assigned me as a prosecutor though, and that verdict was BS. It might be hard to really work around all of the deeper reasons behind and implications of slavery, but all those kids were being asked to do was remember that black person = property for the duration of the exercise.
 
2012-04-27 11:49:37 AM  

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: Anyone notice all the stories of people beating up white people randomly in the name of trayvon? There was a story 2 days ago about an Alabama man that was beat by 40 black people with baseball bats.


Yes, there have already been a number of black-on-white race crimes..."All In The Name of Trayvon"

Of course, this is OK with the Black Racists and the White Guilt Liberals...even though we now know that George Zimmerman is more African-American than Dred Scott, or Spike Lee, ever were.
 
2012-04-27 11:53:37 AM  

taurusowner: This will be a good "who read the article" thread. Those who immediately post about SYG laws are the ones who didn't read it. Those who did read it are still trying to figure out what to make of it.


The article makes no sense, whatsoever. Even for Hunger Games fans it would make little sense

However, Broward County is one of the most Leftist counties in the state....maybe in America (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz district)....and you can bet those prosecutors (who have lost a few of those SYG rulings) are not doing this in support of SYG laws
 
2012-04-27 11:57:43 AM  
Aw, was hoping for a Hung Jury ...
0.tqn.com
 
2012-04-27 01:02:07 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: precia: TheOriginalEd: We had a mock trial once in like 6th grade. The "Jury" ignored the whole trial, then agreed on the first verdict suggested so they could go outside and play.

/sooo.. just like grown ups and real trials.

We did the trial of - I wish I could remember his name - a Civil War era black man who escaped and was then caught and tried for stealing himself from his owner.

The jury was supposed to be made up of white, southern slave holders from the time period. They were supposed to attempt to think like people might have back then, which was the point. Instead only one person voted guilty. I'm still kind of proud of that kid - everyone else wanted to be modern and PC.

To be fair I want to think most adults these days would have a hard time getting into a slave owner's head, even if the ultimate purpose of that exercise could be seen as a worthy one.


Colonial Williamsburg offers a similar expereince when you tour the courthouse. They ask for vlunteers to be on a jury but don't tell you the case. Of the Hands that go up, they then disqualify all the Non-white people, all the women, all the non-Christians and all the Non-property owners.

The case they put on while I was thee was one of a slave accused of poisoning the family that owned his girlfriend. With your 20th century knowledge you KNOW the case is BS and he's falsely accused, but as you are trying to role play someone of the time you feel this enormous pressure not to intervene (even though they tell you Juror os the time are able to ask questions, interrupt the proceedings etc) and so in an effort to "play along" I found myself voting to convict this guy. It was a Very ugly feeling that stuck with me for the rest of the day even though I know it was all pretend.
 
2012-04-27 04:17:04 PM  
Well if they are putting Katness on trial for being a total biatch im vetoing guilty.
 
2012-04-27 04:29:12 PM  

Ruiizu: wedun: Ruiizu: For the record, I don't feel there's anything wrong with shooting the guy running away with your TV in the back. But you'd better be prepared to prove he really was stealing your stuff if taken to court.

Is it okay to chase him for several blocks with a knife and stab him to death, then take his stolen goods as your own? (that happened and the death was not reported, when the police found the killer he was protected under SYG)

I don't know the details of said case so I'm not able to give any specific answer. You drum the situation up pretty well, but without the details it makes it hard to comment.

But, unless it was something truly dear to me, I can't imagine chasing someone that far anyway. There are definitely things worth chasing a thief over, and I don't see merit in letting them get away if pursuit is within reason (running around lime you're the goddamn batman and trashing the town in the process is not what I see within reason.)

Hypothetically speaking, in the case you listed, assuming the murderer indeed was abusing the law, he should have been punished and the law amended to reflect future cases of a similar incident. Laws are made to be changed, removed, and rewritten as appropriate for the times and situations.

Remember, you as a citizen should not feel at the mercy of criminals and authorities---a free citizen should be mentally and physically able to defend themselves and their property.


The inicident mentioned was in Miami, Greyston Garcia killed Pedro Roteta because he caught him stealing car radios. The killing was caught on tape. Afterwards, Garcia took the stolen radios and sold them, he hid the murder weapon, and he lied to police when questioned.

After chasing someone you saw stealing your car radio, stabbing him to death, hiding the knife you used to kill him, and then selling some of the deceased's stolen car radios, you should not only worry about being charged, you should be charged.

Stand your ground "the theory" is not stand your ground "the practice".
 
2012-04-28 03:34:36 AM  

wedun: Is it okay to chase him for several blocks with a knife and stab him to death, then take his stolen goods as your own? (that happened and the death was not reported, when the police found the killer he was protected under SYG)


Yes, that's how the world works. Don't steal things.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report