BS: Stand Your Ground

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Stu
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 09:32 AM

""But," some might say, "who is to decide what is reasonable?"

The answer is that that is what we have prosecutors and grand juries and judges and trial juries for."

No you don't. Society as a whole decides what's reasonable or not, and simply suggesting the judicial system decides what is and isn't stinks of the avoidance of personal responsibility on behalf of gun-owners and others who carry weapons. By the time a case gets to court someone might well be dead already, so the 'what is reasonable' decision has been made by the perpetrator, and the court's role is to arbitrate and apply the letter of the law.

So if you carry a gun, you will be responsible for deciding what reasonable force is, and base your actions on that decision. If you don't know the law, haven't thought about it or don't care then you shouldn't have a weapon. Of course, who can tell though?


"Joe, maybe because I grew up watching westerns but I believe that no one should shoot an unarmed man."

Oh blood and sand, is this sort of thing your moral reference? Hollywood films? Irony, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 08:22 AM

And by the way, if you happened to be instead the guy who was doing the pounding and grinding of another man's head, would you have kept on doing it indefinitely even after somebody stood less than twenty feet away and yelled he was calling the cops?

Or would you, as Martin might have done, jumped up and run like hell?

But you could have done that after knocking the guy down in the first place, couldn't you?

Couldn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 08:12 AM

Get your head beaten on concrete for 45 seconds while no help comes and you'll be in a better position to call names.

Or just think about it intently as you watch 45 seconds pass on a clock.

Not to mention that Zimmerman claims that the "innocent child" Martin had found and was fumbling for the gun. Or is that plain impossible because Zimmerman said it?

Who was more to blame, moralists? A man stepping from his car and walking a few yards or one who comes back, breaks that man's nose and beats him to the ground

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST,Red Queen
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 06:41 AM

Yup. And so does Senator McCain. I had a funny feeling we could count on him. I was thinking of writing him. As it turns out, I didn't need to. He was already on the job. Good news on a Monday morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 12:27 AM

Red Queen, I grew up watching westerns, too - and I believe the same thing you do.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST,Red Queen
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 04:36 PM

Joe, maybe because I grew up watching westerns but I believe that no one should shoot an unarmed man.

I think George Zimmerman is a two bit coward who would not have behaved the way he did without that gun. Coward.

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 03:54 PM

Or send ya to the loonie bin.

Hey- wehat about Dudettes???

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 03:34 PM

If one dude packs a rod, all dudes must pack rods.

That's why they're called "equalizers."

Now make me President of the NRA!

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 03:20 PM

So, Martin's problem was that he should have had a firearm also, and when he reasonably believed his life threatened by Zimmerman, he should have just blown him away FIRST.

And we're right back to Dodge City. Or some other Hobbesian dystopia.

But ain't that America, somethin' to see.....

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 12:22 PM

I wrote approximately what is contained in the first four paragraphs below yesterday, and posted it. That post has disappeared, and I hope not because of censorship. I have here enlarged upon my original short post.

First let me assure you that I am not a member or sympathizer of NRA. Likewise, I do not own a firearm of any kind. I am not a Tea-Bagger. I have no intent to change any of those statuses.

But here's where I make myself unpopular, I expect:

I am firmly of the opinion that every person has the natural right to protect him/herself and his immediate family from an attack, even to the extent of lethal force if he reasonably believes the attack will or is likely to cause death to himself or family.

Note the word "reasonably". If the person can escape the attack under the pending circumstances, it is incumbent on him to do so. If escape is or reasonably seems impossible, then the application of nonlethal force is justified, if not required. If the person reasonably believes that his use of nonlethal force is either impossible or doomed to failure, then the use of lethal means is justified.

"But," some might say, "who is to decide what is reasonable?"

The answer is that that is what we have prosecutors and grand juries and judges and trial juries for. Prosecutors have discretion to bring criminal charges (or not), again based on a judgment of what was reasonable at the time of the incident. If the prosecutor decides that the defendant's judgments and actions were not reasonable, he submits it to a grand jury, who exercise judgment in whether to indict or not. If the grand jury does indict, then a judge and probably a trial jury need to find whether the prosecutor has established every one of the essential elements of the charged crime(s) BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

If the defendant has raised self-defense (Stand Your Ground) as a legal defense, that may, if the facts presented at trial support its reasonability, defeat one or more of the essential elements of the crime charged, in which case the defendant stands acquitted of that particular charged crime.

If there is an acquittal, note that no jury (at least in the United States) finds that "THE DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT;" they find that "THE DEFENDANT IS NOT GUILTY", which is a different matter from innocence. A verdict of not guilty is merely a finding that the prosecutor failed to PROVE one or more of the essential elements of the specific charge.

Turning to the Zimmerman case, it's my best estimate that the trial jury merely found that the prosecutor's admittedly weak case did not PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element charged.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 11:07 AM

olddude, of course you know I was kidding when I said, "beat down mercilessly with words." I see people put down around here regularly. It used to bother me. Now it just makes me laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: olddude
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 10:53 AM

John
two words "Louisville slugger"

let em chew on that for awhile

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 10:49 AM

Very, very good as a matter of fact. Have you seen him?

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 10:18 AM

'And any who oppose me will be beat down mercilessly with words.'

Good Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST,Red Queen
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 02:27 AM

Richard who? Maybe you should read more and talk less...

You're absolutely right Joe. I was being much too generous. Looking through the rose coloreds. Like I said before, Lincoln should have let them go. I have never been fond of the corporation. Decentralization of power is the lesson I took from my studies.

Eliza, my boy is a complete marshmallow. Golden Retriever. He puts up a powerful bark. If he thought he had to, he would die in the line of duty. Funny thing, he only has instinct to protect me. When the master comes home, the master is the protector. Teddy is our second dog. Our first dog was a chocolate lab, our little girl Annie.

No, that's a lie. Our first dog was a Husky named Blue. Enough said.

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 01:45 AM

Wikipedia gives a pretty good explanation of "Stand Your Ground" laws: A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation.

The trouble is, many people think the laws are much broader, and I think the impression is that people are justified in using any sort of defense if they have reason to believe the other person presents a threat to them.

I think that the perception people have of a law, is just as important as the actuality of it. People are going to obey their perception - the facts have little bearing on how they conduct themselves.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 08:05 PM

Sickening. But not quite unbelievable.

What's really sickening is that certain folks see no connection.

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 07:36 PM

The difference between "castle law" and the way that "stand your ground" laws is simple...

Castle laws say you can protect your home...

Stand your ground laws, as they are being used, means you can stalk someone with a gun and murder them and get away with it saying you felt threatened...

Big difference...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 07:10 PM

An application of Kansas' Stand Your Ground Statute:

My little village of course has a Municipal Code. The Code claims numerous "privileges" that are clearly illegal and unenforceable.

Unfortunately, the current "Code Enforcers" were all trained by "Dennis" who was a supervisor in that department for ten years, and have been taught that "punishing people is FUN." The result is that they consistently and deliberately misinterpret the existing code, make claims of "Code violations" that do not exist, and claim the right "at any time and for any purpose" to enter any private property.

The US Constitution, the Kansas Constitution, Kansas Statutes, and County Codes and Ordinances make it quite clear that NO ENTRY IN OR ONTO A PRIVATE PROPERTY IS LAWFUL EXCEPT WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY HOLDER. Any other entry requires a warrant or court order, and municipalities and/or municipal courts are SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED from issuing any such warrant or order in both State and County Statutes.

After each of three fraudulent claims of "violations" that do not appear in the Code I visited the city office to try to find out what I could do to cooperate with what the city expected. At each visit the same two "officers" assumed what they considered an "intimidating stance," repeated multiple vague threats, refused to permit ANY QUESTIONS, and concluded with "We can find lots of things to charge you with" and then grinned (and almost giggled) at each other.

In the third instance of fraudulent claims and threats, they surreptitiously invaded my yard, causing not less than $1,000 in damage to the existing lawn (according to the lawn care company I consulted), did NOTHING to remedy the "violation" they falsely claimed had existed, and made ruts in the lawn that broke a wheel bearing on my mower the next time I mowed properly.

Then they sent me a bill for their "services."

The invasion of the property was a Criminal Trespass (Class C Misdemeaner, 30 days in jail and up to $500 fine) and the "demand for payment," having no lawful basis was in fact a Criminal Extortion (Class B Felony). Just like your average street gang protection racket.

While the Kansas "SYG" statute wouldn't (I assume) allow me to shoot them the next time they make a similar criminal invasion, it does permit me lawfully to say "GET THE F**K OUT OF MY YARD."

(Given their past record of abuses, they'd probably beat the crap out of me, but I'd be on firm legal standing.)

An interesting history of their teacher, Dennis, and of some of his little personality quirks that he passed on to the current city agents, is at Wikipedia.

Or just search for "BTK."

The city doesn't appear to think there's anything wrong.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 04:49 PM

> so-called liberals

I've been a real liberal for as long as I can remember.

As I've said elsewhere, "so-called liberals" are starry-eyed, New Age populists (Don't confuse them with facts!), and "so-called conservatives" are reactionary populists (Don't confuse them with history!).

While, as John says, the stand-your-ground statute was *not* invoked by anybody in the Z trial, the broader self-defense statute in Florida seems to include the phrase "while standing one's ground" to allow for use of the statute when applicable. Thus many people who should know better are claiming that the the SYG law itself was in play.

It wasn't.

And now for some more venting. (Sorry.) The evidence at trial showed that Z made *no* "fantastic" statements to police. Both detectives testified that his minor inconsistencies suggested sincerity rather than a made-up story.

When Detective Cerino tried to bluff Z that what *really* happened had all been recorded on one of the security cameras that Z knew were in the area, Z said "Thank God!" or words to that effect.

Unfortunately the camera that *should* have taped it was scheduled for repair. Murphy's Law.

Recall that the story was news because the Sanford DA said he had no case to prosecute. That marked him, and the Chief of Police who had to resign, as presumptive "racists." (The claim that Z had "not even been arrested" was only technically true: he was taken into custody on the scene and released only after several hours of grilling, but without being booked for a crime. If it had happened to you or me, I think we'd consider it "being arrested.") Then SYG was injected.

And get this, also BTW. After the verdict, I watched the Florida State's Attorney, who'd prosecuted without even bringing the case to a Grand Jury as is usually required, being asked on Headline News if she could describe Z with one word. She pondered for a long time.

Then she said (with a creepy smile): "Murderer."

Not "killer," mind you, which at least would be literally true. "Murderer." Never mind the legal acquittal.

The case pisses me off because it was hyped from the start with the implied accusation of Klan-like racism against the Sanford police and DA. (And the falsehood that Z had called T a "coon.") In spite of a trial, with a jury chosen by both sides, it's now claimed that the jury too was racist; that the prosecution "botched the case"; that Z was a racist "profiler" and a "cop wanna-be" (the police call shows that T's possibly odd behavior in the rain aroused Z's concern, not his race or his "hoodie"); that T was an "innocent child;" that the "cards were stacked in Z's favor from the beginning" (according to Jesse Jackson) and that the trial was a "miscarriage of justice." Jackson also noted that Z "was not tried by a jury of Trayvon Martin's peers."

The implication that an all-black jury would or could not have evaluated the evidence logically (and the secondary implication that that's a good thing!) should make everybody sick. Would "another jury" have convicted Z? Maybe, maybe not. But so what? That's true of every case that's ever been tried. And what are the odds that a *fair* jury would have convicted on this evidence?

Now T is being ranked as a "martyr" with 14-yr.-old Emmett Till (tracked down and murdered in 1955 for whistling in the direction of a white woman) and Medgar Evers (WWII veteran and Civil Rights leader gunned down while working to end segregation at Ole Miss).

Sickening. But not quite unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 03:49 PM

M kept beating the smaller Z instead.

Got that backwards, amigo.

But have fun.....

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 03:00 PM

Quite obviously hardly anyone who has posted thus far has any knowledge of what the "Castle Doctrine" or a "Stand Your Ground" law is or means.

It also is obvious that nobody here is aware that the Florida Stand Your Ground Law had NOTHING TO DO WITH the trial of Zimmerman.

The Castle Doctrine originated in European law, and essentially said that every citizen in his own home is entitled to the same privacy and security as the prince in his castle.

"A Man's Home Is His Castle."

This principle is recognized in FOUR separate Clauses of the US Constitution, and in several US State Constitutions.

In several places, the Castle Doctrine was extended to make "defense of the home" a defense if force was used against an intruder. The BASIC reason for the original extensions was because several civil cases in which an intruder, injured by a homeowner during an unlawful intrusion, successfully sued the homeowners for their injuries. Notorious cases in Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia are commonly cited by legal historians.

Some of the extensions to the Castle Doctrine included "equal force" limitations, making it clear that one could use "deadly force" only to repel a "deadly threat," or ball bat against brick, etc. Others were less clear, but all that I've looked at include "appropriate force" terminology.

When the "ban them all" tribe managed to bring new Federal Laws into effect, it was necessary to produce clear regulations that essentially provided a "recipe book" for getting a "concealed carry" permit. Each state was required to produce their own laws regarding "concealed carry" but there were Federal standards intended to provide some uniformity. "Accessory provisions" such as the prohibition against buying ammunition outside one's own state, or having a gun repaired by a gunsmith "next door across the state line" forced many legitimate gun users who would not previously have considered "concealed carry" useful to get licensed. In addition, many who would not have even considered having a gun decided to get one "to prove they could."

Given that lots of people who otherwise wouldn't were now carrying concealed weapons, it was necessary to clarify how and where they could use them. While many of the "Stand Your Ground" laws previously said you can stand your ground at your front door, some but not all of the state statutes now permit you to "stand" anywhere you are legally permitted to be (with or without your gun).

Regardless of the specific language of an individual law, in order to invoke "immunity" under a Stand Your Ground law, it is generally necessary to show both that:

1. A reasonable person would have percieved an aggressor to be a real threat.

2. That the person invoking immunity did, in fact, perceive the aggressor to be a real threat.

This pretty much mandates that the person claiming immunity under a Stand Your Ground provision must take the stand at trial to permit examination of his/her "state of mind."

Only an attorney who was a complete IDIOT would have permitted Zimmerman to claim that immunity, based on his prior fantastic and conflicting statments alone.

At the instant when Martin walked in a direction away from Zimmerman, any claim of "immediate threat" was gone.

When Zimmerman left his vehicle and followed Martin, Zimmerman became the aggressor (stalker) and any reasonable (black) person in a strange (white) neighborhood would be justified in perceiving a threat. (It's unfortunate that the "black" and "white" have any bearing, and it's difficult to say how much effect they had.)

Martin would have been justified in claiming applicability of the Stand Your Ground statute, had he actually injured Zimmerman; but he was unfortunately unable to take the stand, so there was NO APPLICATION OF OR REFERENCE TO THAT STATUTE AT ANY TIME IN THE TRIAL.

As presented to the jury, the case was "two guys got into a fight and one of them is dead." The prosecuter did not even introduce "... because the other guy had a gun."

PERIOD.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 01:47 PM

Digression-
Amazing how many people, especially so-called liberals, invent their own scenario in any white vs. black encounter, and disregard the evidence.
Not guilty was the only possible verdict in the Zimmerman trial, given the evidence (Lighter, above).

Digression because "Stand your ground" was not invoked in the trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 01:38 PM

I did not follow the Zimmerman trial and have my own opinion on the outcome, which I reserve to myself.

As for "stand your ground" laws -- silly, bad laws. The best thing to do is not to get in such a situation in the first place and second best is to leave if you are. ONLY if you have NO OTHER option is force (not necessarily deadly force) justifiable. If you attack me and I have no where to retreat to, I have no right to kill you UNLESS you are going to kill me and the threat is real (e.g., you are coming at me with a knife); I can and would disable you by breaking a bone or whatever other step might be needed before I would kill you. For one thing it simplifies the paperwork in the cop shop.

Many homes in the US have "mail slots" -- we had one in Indiana. You have no more right to harm the mailman than you do to harm anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 01:23 PM

According to eyewitness Jon Good who was standing within twenty feet, Z's head was being "ground" and "pounded" into the concrete as he cried for help (for at least 45 seconds, as the 911 tapes proved: and no real help came).

Nor did "innocent child" M desist when Good hollered at them and said he was calling the cops. M kept beating the smaller Z instead. Only one forensic pathologist testified - for the defense, interestingly enough: evidently the prosecution couldn't find one who'd disagree. He said that even one more blow to the head against the concrete could have killed Z or turned him into a vegetable, regardless of how much blood appeared on his scalp.

I could go on - and on - but anyone who's really interested can find the testimony on YouTube and elsewhere. We watched all of it as it happened. Not just reasonable doubt, the confluence of actual *evidence* was in Z's favor.

The jury delivered the only possible verdict. If evidence doesn't matter, why have a trial at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 09:36 AM

If you punch my nose, and I'm in no deadly danger, I'll still go to jail if I shoot you.

Like Zimmerman went tyo jail, you mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 09:09 AM

Like it or not, thirty or more states have stand-your-ground laws.

So unless the Florida law is especially egregious (I don't know if it is), singling it out is unfair and, let's face it, media-driven.

As I wrote elsewhere, the *theory* behind these laws (aside from encouraging gun sales) is that they deter violence by making an attacker think twice before using potentially deadly force. )

Like attackers think twice.

(And the laws only apply if the force is potentially deadly. If you punch my nose, and I'm in no deadly danger, I'll still go to jail if I shoot you.)

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 08:49 AM

Stand your ground laws have been pushed onto states by the NRA to sell more guns... And it's worked...

Right after NewTown there was a picture in the "Charlotte Observer" of a local gun shop with a line of white males waiting outside the door to purchase guns... There was another picture that ran a couple days later of that same gun store this time showing the inside of the store... There was not one single gun left....

The NRA is very, very good at selling guns and very, very bad in making us safer... Their narrative that guns make us safer is like telling us that smoking cigarettes is good for us... They have the microphone and the $$$ to push lies down people's throats and that's what they are doing...

The Center for Disease Control was in the midst of a study on the effects of gun violence and was close to making some of the preliminary finding public... The NRA got wind of it and used it clout to stop it...

Do the math...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST,spb at work
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 06:59 AM

If the law applied in London, instead of a no junk mail sign I could put one up saying that "I reserve the right to use deadly force to protect myself from junk mail"

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 06:15 AM

Gracious! All our posties have to worry about is nasty dogs!

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST,SPB at work
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 06:08 AM

Is that why in US you have mailboxes by your front garden gate instread of letterboxes in your doors? ie if a postman(mailman) was to take the post to the door the householder has the legal right to kill him. Just in case....

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 06:02 AM

No need to apologise to Michael W. He was a distant relative of mine, did you know? and we were at Cambridge together.

And that is my way of calming down when they get going over there!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 05:46 AM

apologies, not aplologies! Arthur Itis strikes again!

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 05:45 AM

But Michael, nobody's asking you to contribute if you don't wish to. "Calm down dear, it's only Thread." (Aplologies to the late Michael Winner)

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 03:34 AM

I shall not contribute to this thread any remarks about your dysfunctional gun-laws I shall not contribute to this thread any remarks about your dysfunctional gun laws I shall not contribute to this thread any remarks about your dysfunctional gun laws I shall not contribute to this thread any remarks about your dysfunctional gun laws I shall not contribute to this thread any remarks about your dysfunctional gun laws I shall not

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 02:33 AM

Hi, Lady Jean -

I have mixed feelings about your statement that police officers should have as much discretion as possible. I spent 30 years investigating police officers, and I found that a lot of them were lacking in discretion. There's a "cop mentality" that tends to be very legalistic, to the detriment of common sense. It tended to emphasize legalism over ethics - an attitude that said, "If it isn't illegal, it must be right." Yes, there were many that had very good judgment and that I felt completely comfortable with, but far too many had that "cop mentality."

So, I think police officers need fairly strong oversight.

But on the "Stand Your Ground" laws, I think they're a mistake. They encourage vigilantism. Even trained police officers need close supervision. Who's going to supervise the armed vigilantes?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST,Lady Jean
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 01:32 AM

Law enforcement officers all over America are becoming more visible and more vocal in terms of what they need to do their jobs. Everyone must understand that police officers are inclined to do their jobs to the letter of the law. That's their job. Give them bad laws and they will be incompetent police officers. They hate their jobs because their jobs defy common sense. Ask one.

Police officers should have as much discretion as possible. That's not police state. That's police officers using their best judgement as professionals that have the right to say, at the end of the day, I'm a good cop. I have done the best I could have done. Nobody knows what that is except a cop.

So, are we going to micromanage them, subject them to laws that lead to vigilantism? Or are we going to trust them? We're better off if we do. Trayvon Martin taught me that.

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 12:19 AM

Who is Richard?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: LadyJean
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 12:14 AM

There are petitions out there from people who won't visit Florida until the law is repealed. Find one and sign it.

The local fire chief showed up in my yard on Memorial Day. He didn't announce himself. He was inspecting my yard, apparently he does that. But I didn't know him. I'm a single lady. I suppose I could have shot him, if I had had a gun, instead of a set of clippers. (I was pruning my roses.) I'm happy I didn't.

Subject: BS: Stand Your Ground
From: GUEST,Red Queen
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 12:07 AM

This is not a good law. Castle Law. In a public place, you have a duty to retreat if you can do so SAFELY. That's more than reasonable. That must become the law of the land. And any who oppose me will be beat down mercilessly with words.

And Richard, I'm counting on you.