(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. Well, good news on Trayvon Martin case - Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder. And there's a coalition of states standing up to repeal the "stand your ground" law.
Saw a similar case in Kansas way back in 1992. The case was a man who shot and killed someone who came on his property. The defense was filed "trespasser statute" that permitted him to defend himself against anyone who trespassed on his property. It would be considered "voluntary manslaughter" and "in self defense".



http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0411/Trayvon-Martin-case-reveals-confusion-over-how-Stand-Your-Ground-works

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-blackwell/stand-your-ground-law_b_1414676.html

Florida's SYG law provides that a person under attack can use force -- including deadly force -- against his attacker if he "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm... or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Several keys points. First, the threat must be deadly. It's not just that you're under attack. You must be attacked with sufficient force to kill you or cause massive bodily harm, including rape.

Second, it's not enough that the victim believes he is under a deadly threat. His belief must also be reasonable, meaning that under the circumstances an objective observer would also conclude the victim could be killed or severely injured.

Third, SYG only protects victims; it does not apply to attackers. If you're attacking someone, you cannot claim SYG as a defense for what follows.

And fourth, it doesn't apply if you cannot retreat. If retreat is not an option, then the situation is governed by ordinary self-defense laws, not SYG laws.

Under any version of the facts, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman's account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.

Bloomberg is in Washington D.C. to announce a national campaign to repeal the controversial laws, which in general hold that a person has no duty to retreat when attacked.

Opponents of the laws, however, say they should really be called “Shoot First, Ask Questions Later.”

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” provision is at the center of the firestorm surrounding the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

“I don’t think any civilized society should allow people to just all of a sudden decide they don't like somebody, feel threatened or whatever it is, pull a gun and kill 'em," Bloomberg told reporters in New York before hopping a flight to D.C.

Florida’s version of the law has been blamed for preventing police from arresting George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain who killed the unarmed Martin in February.

Zimmerman has said that he followed Martin because the 17-year-old looked suspicious in his hooded sweatshirt, and that he was forced to shoot him because the teen had attacked him.

Florida is one of 25 (fixed) states that have passed “Stand Your Ground” laws since 2005. Florida's version allows police to decide whether they believe the shooter's claims of self-defense.

New York does not have such a law on the books, but one has been championed by state Sen. George Maziarz (R-Niagara County).

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2012/04/mayor-bloomberg-end-stand-your-ground-laws

To date over 40 people between the ages of 14-20 have been murdered by either police, neighborhood watch groups or individuals operating under this doctrine. All were unarmed.
Last night at a social justice committee meeting that I attended, I watched a working class black woman, with three disabled children, break down in tears begging us to help her find a way to get rid of these laws that were killing our children.

Then tonight, I watched Justified, and I read lj over the week and saw comments on how people found it easier to watch tv shows like Breaking Bad and Justified and The Wire, because they weren't as disturbingly realistic as Mad Men?

I read this blurb...and it sickened me:

New York does not have such a law on the books, but one has been championed by state Sen. George Maziarz (R-Niagara County).

His bill proposes expanding the rights of gun owners to use deadly force outside of their homes if they have reason to fear for their safety.

“Individuals, in their homes, on their own property, in their cars, have every right to protect themselves now if they feel threatened, legitimately threatened,” Maziarz (pictured right) said in a television interview, arguing for his bill to be passed.

“This law is absolutely not about protecting vigilantes, or people who take the law into their own hands,” he added.

Actually I beg to differ. It is. I was robbed. I had someone break into my apartment while I was asleep and steal my lap-top computer. Did it traumatize me? YES! But I thank god every day that I did not have a gun. Because I got over the robbery, that trauma faded over time. Doesn't bug me at all now. But if I'd killed someone? That I would never get over. That would take away a piece of my soul. Over a lap-top? Ugh.

I hate guns. I hate laws that justify using guns or force to kill other people. I also hate the NRA and ALEC (American Legislative Executive Council).
And I wish the people who supported these organizations would be transported to the whedonverse where they belong. What? They'd be happy there. And we'd be happier without them.

2.Another piece of Good News...Rick Santorium pulled out of the Presidential Race. I really despised that man. Is it just me, or have we had the worse people on the planet run for US President in the past several years?

3. Smash - if you could only focus more on the Broadway Show bit and a lot less on the boring personal subplots, you'd be a great show. Glee and Smash have the same problem, they work best when they focus on "putting on the show" or "what it takes to put on a show" and are abysmal when they focus on romantic subplots or things that have nothing to do with putting on the show.

Ugh. going to bed. Natty day. Tired. And my allergies are driving me crazy.

4.) Mark Watches? Things worth commenting on or not as the case may be.
* I mean, who the hell is watching Angel without having seen a second of Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Wait, I’m sure that’s actually a thing, so don’t answer that. God, that must be a strange experience. I always thought much the same thing. Granted there are tv spin-offs that you can ignore the original article completely. (Private Practice comes to mind, actually you can ignore the spin-off completely for that matter). But Angel wasn't one of them. Certain plot threads just make no sense if you don't watch both shows.
* I know Mark hasn't watched that much television, but he has a weirdly inflated perspective on Eliza Dusku's acting talents. Proof that such things are all in the eye of the beholder.
* Mark reminded me today how much I loved Yoko Factor and how marvelously Machiavellian and manipulative Spike is in that episode. Actually that episode does two things: 1) it makes it really hard for me to believe that the chip stops Spike from being evil and he's not choosing to do good on his own. Sorry writers, you sort of showed your own hand on that one - by giving us Yoko Factor - demonstrating perfectly how Spike could do horrible things without biting anyone. 2) Why in the hell did the Scoobies not stake him at the end of S4? This is one of those episodes...much like Innocence, where the writers came up with this great idea, but then had to write their way out of the corner they'd written themselves into. (They actually admit that they'd written themselves into a corner in the Primeval commentary and chose to blame Spike for it. Because they realized halfway through the plotting, that, wait they couldn't get Buffy into the Initiative without Willow, and couldn't do the cool plan. So they had to find a way to put the Scooby gang back together again. So...a little creative plotting.) So Yoko Factor? Amazing episode, much like Innocence, but screws up the entire story and plot. LOL!

Comments

[flameraven.livejournal.com]

I'm SO glad they finally charged Zimmerman. I've been watching that case with growing disbelief that he hadn't been charged yet. Makes me a little more hopeful about the whole thing, although from the other things I've heard about Florida, the SYG law is perhaps the least of their problems.

I grew up in a hunting family, so I don't mind people owning guns, but gun safety was always stressed, and I firmly believe in pretty strict gun control. I've never understood why the pro-gun lobby seems to think that putting checks in place to ensure crazy people don't walk in off the street and buy a deadly weapon equals taking away people's freedom. :/

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I've never understood why the pro-gun lobby seems to think that putting checks in place to ensure crazy people don't walk in off the street and buy a deadly weapon equals taking away people's freedom. :/

They think that because (1) a lot of their funding comes from people who sell guns and (2) they are more interested in thwarting gun control advocates than the actual policies espoused.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

True. Also...a very odd interpretation of the Constitutional Amendment regarding the "right to bear arms and raise a militia". Apparently having the right to own a gun and defend oneself is a)god given, and b)
granted by the Constitiution. (People forget at that point in time, you had to hunt to feed yourself, you had to own a rifle to defend yourself against things like Bears and Mountain Lions and Bobcats and pissed off Native Americans, British Soliders, and French Soliders.)

I really wish people who thought this right was god-given, would accidentally blow a certain unmentionable portion of their anatomy off. ;-)

Hee. I've had a lot of discussions with gun owners on this one. I get the hunting angle. But do you really need to own a machine gun? An automatic rifle? A handgun? To shoot deer??? One would think a bow and arrow would be more challenging or a rifle.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed, very happy they finally charged him. Why it took so long...sigh.
Florida does have issues. Strange state, lots of ultra conservative transplants from other locals - including NYC.

Why people need to own a machine gun or a handgun to kill a deer is beyond me.
A rifle makes sense. But a machine gun?