In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I agree. I don't necessarily object to the stand your ground law - but the burdens to rely on it have to be more onerous.
In that article...
"This has led to some stunning verdicts in the state. In Tallahassee in 2008, two rival gangs engaged in a neighborhood shootout, and a 15-year-old African American male was killed in the crossfire. The three defendants all either were acquitted or had their cases dismissed, because the defense successfully argued they were defending themselves under the "stand your ground" law. The state attorney in Tallahassee, Willie Meggs, was beside himself. "Basically this law has put us in the posture that our citizens can go out into the streets and have a gun fight and the dead person is buried and the survivor of the gun fight is immune from prosecution," he said at the time."
If you're broadcasting a game, tell it the way it really is, but keep your opinions to yourself...!
IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!
So you're the fuck sending me emails every day? Should've never signed that petition to bring McDonalds breakfast bagels to the west coast...
So on one case of questionable judgement (which was reviewed by a court and found a proper adherence to the law), we need to revisit the law. I understand, BUT how about asking for the other side, ie how mmany cases occur in which inocents prevent harm by being armed?
I grow weary of the single example being used as a determinative example as to what always happens, and then is further used to diminish the rights of the many, and in doing so add to the number of maimed and killed innocents. There are always unintended consequences of laws, so there must be an equity balance, and that occurs in a case by case basis in a court room. A mistake in judgement which may have occurred here is no reason to change a law.
If you are arguing against the 'castle doctrine,' or for the incorporation of a "duty to retreat" as an abridgement of the castle doctrine in a home invasion, I challenge that conclusion. If you believe what you are saying, post a sign on your house that you will retreat if your home is invaded. How about the case I linked; there are many more!!!
In the instant case, I would leave the right to retreat to the judge. He ruled in the case. Maybe you ought to argue his rationale rather then issue Brady talking points
Home alone with her 3-month-old son, Sarah Dawn McKinley of Blanchard, Oklahoma, said she decided to make a stand when two men tried to break into her home on New Year's Eve.McKinley, who had been
I'm having trouble seeing the difference (other than numbers) between this guy and the Army Sgt who offed 16 Afghanis.
If the law allows you to chase an unarmed person down and shoot them in "self defense" it needs to be changed.
Only its not a single example....check out some of the linked articles.
hopefully the law won't see a difference either.
I seriously doubt that was the Legislative intent. I say impeach the judge.
Nor is mine, but I was not arguing about this case which by all standards is an egregious application of the law, but terp99's 'Bradyesque' comment about the 'castle doctrine' which is an entirely different set of circumstances.
Heh, spammer deleted so it looks like Baldwin is peppering me with emails.
Not sure they were spamming, it was a link to the petition to have this asshole arrested...
It was the person's first ever post. Figure they're probably googling around about it and throwing that change.org link all over the internet. I really do get emails from those fucks every day. TOOTHPASTE THAT TASTES BAD, STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN AND CLICK ON OUR WEBSITE!!!
Omar, Chris and Snoop would love living in Florida.
Come on out and get your whoopin!
Me neither, but if he can use that law to get away with murder, shouldn't the law be modified to better fit the intent?
lol that wasnt spam that was BOTB
"Maryland football: Where everybody gets hurt and the starting left tackle has an existential crisis."
This debate really isnt about guns, but about an aggressor being able to use deadly force to end a fight he started.
On the one hand the guy attacked has no right to beat the aggressor to death with his fists, but if the aggressor expected an easy fight, and got a battle, he should be expected to take a decent beating before using deadly force.
In the case of my cousin, the aggressor started the fight, was losing in front of his g/f and 4 of his male friends while my cousin was there alone. But the guy, who sustained no serious injury and required no medical treatment, argued he was in reasonable fear of his life when he pulled out his knife and stabbed my cousin through the spleen.
Jury bought it like idiots. shrug. When you have 4 male friends there watching the fight, it isnt reasonable to think they are going to watch you get beaten half to death before breaking it up.
To me there should be some objective evidence besides subjective fear that your life is in danger. Anytime you get in a fight your life is in danger. That is why you should not show some discrection before jumping some guy in a hoodie. You have no idea who he is, or what he may have in store for you. But just because he bloodies your nose doesnt mean you get to shoot him.
There should be a showing of serious bodily harm. Broken ribs etc. Not this subjective fear that Im losing a fight to some black dude.
This post was edited by Nolaeer 2 years ago
Many of Pitt's 58 "rushing attempts" were the result qb Tino Sunseri fleeing the pocket like a man whose clothes were on fire.
Has FOX news even mentioned this story?
I don't exactly know what you're trying to say, but a couple of points:
- the duty to retreat has been a part of the common law of this country since its beginning (and is generally the law in just about every other country that allows guns too). I think you misunderstand the law if you think it's some crazy draconian law that prevents you from legitimately protecting yourself.
- Further, the duty to retreat is not necessarily in conflict with the castle doctrine. The castle doctrine, generally speaking, is an exception to the typical duty to retreat. Thus, for example, if you're in a bar and get into some fight and end up using deadly force, the common law might take into account -- as part of the determination of the reasonableness of your conduct -- whether you could have retreated/avoided that deadly conflict. That same conflict, if it existed within your home, might allow you to use deadly force (i.e., the "castle doctrine" allows you to use deadly force without imposing a duty to retreat, but outside of your castle, that duty may still exist).
- Lastly, the point I was making wasn't a philosophical one, but a factual one. The "stand your ground" laws are largely the by-product of the gun lobby's advocacy, and that advocacy essentially says that the "castle doctrine" should be extended outside the castle (i.e., just like you can stand your ground in your house, you should be able to stand your ground out in the street. [Note: I've said nothing in either post about the propriety of such laws. I'm just commenting on the reason/rationale for their existence.]
Thus, in this case, the issue is that the existence of the "stand your ground" type of law instead of the "duty to retreat" type of law meant that this guy could shoot this guy out on the street. Everyone seems to agree that this shooter acted inappropriately. However, I'd bet that everyone would not feel that way if this shooting occurred at this guy's home. That plainly demonstrates that even those who agree with the castle doctrine might be uncomfortable with that "stand your ground" mentality being applied outside the house.
To follow-up on my last post, this is just an editorial, but it's first link I could find to support my instinctive suggestion that the "stand your ground" movement has been relatively recent and relatively led by the gun lobby.
The Florida Legislature passed the law in 2005 at the behest of the National Rifle Association but over the staunch objections of law enforcement. The law allows the use of deadly force when a person is in a place he has a right to be and feels reasonably threatened with serious harm. Opponents dubbed it the "shoot first" law because people have no duty to attempt to retreat from a threat of violence even if they could do so safely. History has borne them out.
Since the law went into effect, reports of justifiable homicides have tripled, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It has been used to absolve violence resulting from road rage, barroom arguments and even a gang gunfight.
Once again Florida's law that gives legal immunity to people who come to an argument with a hot temper and a ready gun.
Oh shit, now he's really gonna be pissed. Come back Bob, I'll sign!!
They've been all over it.
The attorney for the family of a black teenager fatally shot by a neighborhood watch captain said Tuesday that the boy was talking to his girlfriend on his cell phone when the confrontation began. She did not hear the shooting.
Another thing I don't get that some of you have mentioned but who cares how many times he has called 911 and why does that matter. I saw somewhere where they said his calls have lead to arrests and prevention of some crimes before.
I think it really comes down to if he was an aggressor (and for what reason) and then tried to claim self defense. If he caught him committing a crime that would be one thing with him confronting him but it seems that isn't the case and he went into it looking for trouble.
OMG, OMG, OMG!!!!! FAUX NEWS, OMG OMG OMG!!!!!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports