So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.

I hear you can choose between electrocution and lethal injection in
Florida.
I suppose a true republican would go for "Ol' Sparky"?

harry wrote:
So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground" laws.
These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal force -
assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.

This is a mere codification of the Common Law found in Anglo jurisprudence
since 1216. In the Common Law, however, one had to be in his home or
curtilage. This limited provision is classically know as the "Castle
Doctrine" (ever man's home is his castle). The "Stand Your Ground" laws
expand on this concept to include ANYWHERE you happen to legally be - your
car, the street corner, in the dentist's chair - wherever.

As to the shooter not being arrested immediately, this case is no different
than if a cop shoots a suspect. There will be an investigation and the
results of the investigation will determine whether the shooter was
justified in his (stated) belief that he felt his life was in danger.

I would note that, by statute, the UK has done away with the Castle
Doctrine, upending 800 years of common sense. Now, if an armed intruder
forces his way into a British home, the threatened family must, I repeat,
MUST, retreat if at all possible.

On 3/22/2012 2:23 PM, harry wrote:
So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.


I notice there are some crime problems in Blighty these days...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17179003


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17479995

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground" laws.
These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal force -
assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if the
DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it (or
it found you.)



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:50:55 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

harry wrote:
So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground" laws.
These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal force -
assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.

This is a mere codification of the Common Law found in Anglo jurisprudence
since 1216. In the Common Law, however, one had to be in his home or
curtilage. This limited provision is classically know as the "Castle
Doctrine" (ever man's home is his castle). The "Stand Your Ground" laws
expand on this concept to include ANYWHERE you happen to legally be - your
car, the street corner, in the dentist's chair - wherever.

As to the shooter not being arrested immediately, this case is no different
than if a cop shoots a suspect. There will be an investigation and the
results of the investigation will determine whether the shooter was
justified in his (stated) belief that he felt his life was in danger.

I would note that, by statute, the UK has done away with the Castle
Doctrine, upending 800 years of common sense. Now, if an armed intruder
forces his way into a British home, the threatened family must, I repeat,
MUST, retreat if at all possible.


For many years Florida law was a person had to "retreat to the wall".
Meaning to avoid confrontation until the last moment before deadly
force was justified -- so to speak.

The "stand your ground" gave a person the right to kill without
retreat or having to avoid attack.

The shooter in this case made a mistake. He "pursued and challenged"
the victim, then shot him. He will be arrested in my opinion.

Funny, the media reported this as a white man on black man. The
shooter is Hispanic.

Nevada law allows deadly force (open carry in all but two counties)
ANYWHERE you have a legal right to be. You cannot be breaking the law
when deadly force is used.

On Mar 22, 2:30*pm, harry wrote:
I hear you can choose between electrocution and lethal injection in
Florida.
I suppose a true republican would go for "Ol' Sparky"?

Stupid political comment.
We expect no less from you, Harry.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:30:42 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

"Ol' Sparky"?

The electric chair in Florida, "Ol' Sparky" is made from Oak. A
chain-gang of prisoners harvested the wood along the Swanee river.

Shockingly, the condemned kept falling out of the chair at execution.
One prisoner made leather straps for the arms and legs, to keep them
in the chair. He was later executed in Ol' Sparky.

In article ,
Oren wrote:

Funny, the media reported this as a white man on black man. The
shooter is Hispanic.

Reuters did not know where come down on this issue calling the dude a
White Hispnic.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:23:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank
wrote:

We expect no less from you, Harry.

He posted from his Etch A Sketch!

On 3/22/2012 4:53 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:23:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank
wrote:

We expect no less from you, Harry.

He posted from his Etch A Sketch!

Good 'un.

They're not allowed to have pencils, pens or crayons in the UK as they
are considered deadly weapons.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:03:40 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.

If the feds get involved and both the state and DOJ pursues
prosecution he could get time in both jurisdictions. State for murder
/ manslaughter and a weapon charge during a felony ( Florida a gun
crime gets you mandatory time). Feds for civil rights violations.

Double jeopardy does not apply in separate charges under different
jurisdictions.

DOJ will assist in the prosecution for a strong state prison sentence.

In this case, I believe the shooter is a self-appointed citizens
guardian watch dog - a Vigilante.

On Mar 22, 8:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
*The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been following it. The evidence will be presented to a grand
jury to determine if charges will be brought. Based on what I've
heard
so far, I agree the guy is likely to be charged. Some folks just
can't
wait to jump on the system before letting it play out. And the media
can't wait to try to link this somehow to the FL "stand your ground"
law. I don't see that as really having any direct bearing on the
case.

The guy in question singled the victim out for acting suspicously
apparently without any real basis other than he was walking down
the street with his hand in his waistband. He called it in to 911
and the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow the guy. He
chose to leave his car and engage him. What followed next is
what needs to be determined. But since the kid was 17, didn't look
to be very big, and was unarmed, I think the guy is in a heap of
trouble and should be. Where in the stand your ground law does
it OK that?

Also disturbing is that the guy had called 911 47 times in the last
year with similar calls, almost all of which were for bogus nonsense.
You have to wonder if the calls were mostly BS, why the police
didn't have a talk with him to disuade him from false reporting
and to tell him to stop playing cop.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:12 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:03:40 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.

If the feds get involved and both the state and DOJ pursues
prosecution he could get time in both jurisdictions. State for murder
/ manslaughter and a weapon charge during a felony ( Florida a gun
crime gets you mandatory time). Feds for civil rights violations.

Double jeopardy does not apply in separate charges under different
jurisdictions.

DOJ will assist in the prosecution for a strong state prison sentence.

In this case, I believe the shooter is a self-appointed citizens
guardian watch dog - a Vigilante.

I believe he was a member of an official police volunteer organization,
however. His rank was quoted (captain?). Such groups aren't unusual here.
They even have cars in the city I work in now.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:33 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 22, 8:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
*The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been following it. The evidence will be presented to a grand
jury to determine if charges will be brought. Based on what I've
heard
so far, I agree the guy is likely to be charged.

Yes, apparently the police didn't have "enough evidence" to charge him so the
DA brought the case before the grand jury. There is new evidence, apparently.
Some folks just
can't
wait to jump on the system before letting it play out. And the media
can't wait to try to link this somehow to the FL "stand your ground"
law. I don't see that as really having any direct bearing on the
case.

Not if it went down as they're now saying. The poor schlub is recorded
pleading for help before he's shot. There aren't many ways that turns the
shooting into justifiable homicide.

The guy in question singled the victim out for acting suspicously
apparently without any real basis other than he was walking down
the street with his hand in his waistband.

...and being black, wearing a hoodie.

He called it in to 911
and the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow the guy.

In fact, told him not to.

He
chose to leave his car and engage him. What followed next is
what needs to be determined. But since the kid was 17, didn't look
to be very big, and was unarmed, I think the guy is in a heap of
trouble and should be. Where in the stand your ground law does
it OK that?

When they guy is crying for help? That's not self defense.

Also disturbing is that the guy had called 911 47 times in the last
year with similar calls, almost all of which were for bogus nonsense.
You have to wonder if the calls were mostly BS, why the police
didn't have a talk with him to disuade him from false reporting
and to tell him to stop playing cop.

He was part of a civilian police force. HE should have been thrown off,
though.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

You mean like in the movie "Death Wish"?

And isn't that what cops on patrol do?

One day this bold Muscovite shouldered his gun,
And walked down the streets with a sneer,
He was looking for fun,
When he happened to run,
Upon Abdul el-BulBul Amir.

"Young man," said BulBul,
"Is existence so dull,
That you're anxious to finish your career?"
"For infidel know,
You have tread on the toe,
Of Abdul el-BulBul Amir!"

Then a fight broke out. I'll spare you the details since there are (it is
reported) over a thousand stanzas to this epic saga.

And, contrary to your assertion, just walking down the streets with a sneer
is perfectly legal, whether in Florida or Buffalo. We condem those who claim
a rape victim, for instance, "was just asking for it", but there's really
nothing wrong with "just asking for it."

Well, maybe one more...

Then this bold Maraluke
Drew his trusty Seljuk
And shouted "Allah, Akbar! Akbar!
Then with murderous intent,
He most suddenly went,
For Ivan Skavinsky Skivar!

On Mar 22, 9:04*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:33 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
*The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been following it. *The evidence will be presented to a grand
jury to determine if charges will be brought. *Based on what I've
heard
so far, I agree the guy is likely to be charged.

Yes, apparently the police didn't have "enough evidence" to charge him so the
DA brought the case before the grand jury. *There is new evidence, apparently.

Some folks just
can't
wait to jump on the system before letting it play out. *And the media
can't wait to try to link this somehow to the FL "stand your ground"
law. * I don't see that as really having any direct bearing on the
case.

Not if it went down as they're now saying. *The poor schlub is recorded
pleading for help before he's shot. *There aren't many ways that turns the
shooting into justifiable homicide.

The guy in question singled the victim out for acting suspicously
apparently without any real basis other than he was walking down
the street with his hand in his waistband.

..and being black, wearing a hoodie.

He called it in to 911
and the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow the guy.

In fact, told him not to.

He
chose to leave his car and engage him. *What followed next is
what needs to be determined. *But since the kid was 17, didn't look
to be very big, and was unarmed, I think the guy is in a heap of
trouble and should be. *Where in the stand your ground law does
it OK that?

When they guy is crying for help? *That's not self defense.

Good point, but it depends on who was calling for help.
I heard a bit of those tapes and you'd have to determine
which of the two was calling for help.

Probably the most remarkable thing in all this is if the
kid had his hand in his waistband and was acting suspicously,
"like he was on drugs or something", why would anyone
get out of their car, go over and confront
them instead of waiting for police? Meaning I'm not buying
that he really thought the kid could have a gun, etc.
Almost certainly he thought the kid was no real danger to
him, at least when he first confronted him.




Also disturbing is that the guy had called 911 47 times in the last
year with similar calls, almost all of which were for bogus nonsense.
You have to wonder if the calls were mostly BS, why the police
didn't have a talk with him to disuade him from false reporting
and to tell him to stop playing cop.

He was part of a civilian police force. *HE should have been thrown off,
though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not sure what you mean by civilian police force. The most
I've heard is he was part of a "neighborhood watch". Not
sure exactly what that means, could be it was just him.
Also kind of odd we haven't heard from others that new
him as to what kind of guy he was, etc.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:18:18 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 22, 9:04*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:33 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
*The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been following it. *The evidence will be presented to a grand
jury to determine if charges will be brought. *Based on what I've
heard
so far, I agree the guy is likely to be charged.

Yes, apparently the police didn't have "enough evidence" to charge him so the
DA brought the case before the grand jury. *There is new evidence, apparently.

Some folks just
can't
wait to jump on the system before letting it play out. *And the media
can't wait to try to link this somehow to the FL "stand your ground"
law. * I don't see that as really having any direct bearing on the
case.

Not if it went down as they're now saying. *The poor schlub is recorded
pleading for help before he's shot. *There aren't many ways that turns the
shooting into justifiable homicide.

The guy in question singled the victim out for acting suspicously
apparently without any real basis other than he was walking down
the street with his hand in his waistband.

..and being black, wearing a hoodie.

He called it in to 911
and the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow the guy.

In fact, told him not to.

He
chose to leave his car and engage him. *What followed next is
what needs to be determined. *But since the kid was 17, didn't look
to be very big, and was unarmed, I think the guy is in a heap of
trouble and should be. *Where in the stand your ground law does
it OK that?

When they guy is crying for help? *That's not self defense.

Good point, but it depends on who was calling for help.
I heard a bit of those tapes and you'd have to determine
which of the two was calling for help.

Witnesses say it was the dead kid.

Probably the most remarkable thing in all this is if the
kid had his hand in his waistband and was acting suspicously,
"like he was on drugs or something", why would anyone
get out of their car, go over and confront
them instead of waiting for police? Meaning I'm not buying
that he really thought the kid could have a gun, etc.
Almost certainly he thought the kid was no real danger to
him, at least when he first confronted him.

He wanted to be have the big score of the day. I'm not so big on civilian
volunteer police, for this reason. Giving them weapons is stupid. It's bad
enough when you have volunteer firemen setting fires.


Also disturbing is that the guy had called 911 47 times in the last
year with similar calls, almost all of which were for bogus nonsense.
You have to wonder if the calls were mostly BS, why the police
didn't have a talk with him to disuade him from false reporting
and to tell him to stop playing cop.

He was part of a civilian police force. *HE should have been thrown off,
though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not sure what you mean by civilian police force. The most
I've heard is he was part of a "neighborhood watch". Not
sure exactly what that means, could be it was just him.
Also kind of odd we haven't heard from others that new
him as to what kind of guy he was, etc.

No, it was an organized civilian police force, under the auspices of the
uniformed police. I don't remember what they called it, but they have the
same thing here. They even drive (special) patrol cars here.

"harry" wrote in message
...
So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.

Apparently the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" has been lost in
Britain
No wonder the country produces ****heads like you.

"harry" wrote in message
...
I hear you can choose between electrocution and lethal injection in
Florida.
I suppose a true republican would go for "Ol' Sparky"?

Please don't confuse one of your a suppositoies with actual thought
They are not the same.

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 3/22/2012 4:53 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:23:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank
wrote:

We expect no less from you, Harry.

He posted from his Etch A Sketch!

Good 'un.

They're not allowed to have pencils, pens or crayons in the UK as they are
considered deadly weapons.

Even the crayons are considered dangerous since they are pointy..

I expect to see stories of restaurants being raided for toothpicks in the
near future.
They're pointy objects too...

On 3/22/2012 11:03 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 3/22/2012 4:53 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:23:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank
wrote:

We expect no less from you, Harry.

He posted from his Etch A Sketch!

Good 'un.

They're not allowed to have pencils, pens or crayons in the UK as
they are considered deadly weapons.

Even the crayons are considered dangerous since they are pointy..

I expect to see stories of restaurants being raided for toothpicks in
the near future.
They're pointy objects too...



O Pointy pointy.

On Mar 22, 8:02*pm, Duesenberg wrote:
On 3/22/2012 2:23 PM, harry wrote:

So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.

I notice there are some crime problems in Blighty these days...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17179003

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17479995

Nobody shot him in the UK.
Your boy was perfectly innocent and some cowardly, paranoid thug,
shoots him in the street and that's OK by you?
Sick you are.

On Mar 22, 8:20*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:50:55 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:





harry wrote:
So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground" laws.
These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal force -
assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.

This is a mere codification of the Common Law found in Anglo jurisprudence
since 1216. In the Common Law, however, one had to be in his home or
curtilage. This limited provision is classically know as the "Castle
Doctrine" (ever man's home is his castle). The "Stand Your Ground" laws
expand on this concept to include ANYWHERE you happen to legally be - your
car, the street corner, in the dentist's chair - wherever.

As to the shooter not being arrested immediately, this case is no different
than if a cop shoots a suspect. There will be an investigation and the
results of the investigation will determine whether the shooter was
justified in his (stated) belief that he felt his life was in danger.

I would note that, by statute, the UK has done away with the Castle
Doctrine, upending 800 years of common sense. Now, if an armed intruder
forces his way into a British home, the threatened family must, I repeat,
MUST, retreat if at all possible.

For many years Florida law was a person had to "retreat to the wall".
Meaning to avoid confrontation until the last moment before deadly
force was justified -- so to speak.

The "stand your ground" gave a person the right to kill without
retreat or having to avoid attack.

The shooter in this case made a mistake. He "pursued and challenged"
the victim, then shot him. *He will be arrested in my opinion.

Funny, the media reported this as a white man on black man. *The
shooter is Hispanic.

Nevada law allows deadly force (open carry in all but two counties)
ANYWHERE you have a legal right to be. You cannot be breaking the law
when deadly force is used.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are Hispanics white or not? I think the Spanish in Euope consider
themselves to be white.

On Mar 22, 8:23*pm, Frank wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:30*pm, harry wrote:

I hear you can choose between electrocution and lethal injection in
Florida.
I suppose a true republican would go for "Ol' Sparky"?

Stupid political comment.
We expect no less from you, Harry.

I thought it would be thought more manly and traditional, hence
attractive to republicans.

A bit like refusing the blindfold when being shot.

On Mar 22, 10:08*pm, Frank wrote:
On 3/22/2012 4:53 PM, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:23:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank
*wrote:

We expect no less from you, Harry.

He posted from his Etch A Sketch!

Good 'un.

They're not allowed to have pencils, pens or crayons in the UK as they
are considered deadly weapons.

We won our last war. You have lost your last four or five.
All wind and **** you are. The (failed) bullyboys, individually and
nationally.

We too are a violent people with a history far more violent then
yours.
But not legally on our streets. We know when to desist.

On Mar 23, 12:37*am, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:03:40 -0400, "





wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force..
*The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.

If the feds get involved and both the state and DOJ *pursues
prosecution he could get time in both jurisdictions. *State for murder
/ manslaughter and a weapon charge during a felony ( Florida a gun
crime gets you mandatory time). Feds for civil rights violations.

Double jeopardy does not apply in separate charges under different
jurisdictions.

DOJ will assist in the prosecution for a strong state prison sentence.

In this case, I believe the shooter is a self-appointed citizens
guardian watch dog - a Vigilante.-

Isn't anyone that wanders around with a gun a vigilante?

On Mar 23, 12:58*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:12 -0700, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:03:40 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
*The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.

If the feds get involved and both the state and DOJ *pursues
prosecution he could get time in both jurisdictions. *State for murder
/ manslaughter and a weapon charge during a felony ( Florida a gun
crime gets you mandatory time). Feds for civil rights violations.

Double jeopardy does not apply in separate charges under different
jurisdictions.

DOJ will assist in the prosecution for a strong state prison sentence.

In this case, I believe the shooter is a self-appointed citizens
guardian watch dog - a Vigilante.

I believe he was a member of an official police volunteer organization,
however. *His rank was quoted (captain?). *Such groups aren't unusual here.
They even have cars in the city I work in now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The sad *******s that watched too much Perry Mason, Highway Patrol and
Cannon as kids?
Do they have guns? Or is that a stupid question?

On Mar 23, 1:18*am, "
wrote:
On Mar 22, 9:04*pm, "





wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
*The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been following it. *The evidence will be presented to a grand
jury to determine if charges will be brought. *Based on what I've
heard
so far, I agree the guy is likely to be charged.

Yes, apparently the police didn't have "enough evidence" to charge him so the
DA brought the case before the grand jury. *There is new evidence, apparently.

Some folks just
can't
wait to jump on the system before letting it play out. *And the media
can't wait to try to link this somehow to the FL "stand your ground"
law. * I don't see that as really having any direct bearing on the
case.

Not if it went down as they're now saying. *The poor schlub is recorded
pleading for help before he's shot. *There aren't many ways that turns the
shooting into justifiable homicide.

The guy in question singled the victim out for acting suspicously
apparently without any real basis other than he was walking down
the street with his hand in his waistband.

..and being black, wearing a hoodie.

He called it in to 911
and the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow the guy.

In fact, told him not to.

He
chose to leave his car and engage him. *What followed next is
what needs to be determined. *But since the kid was 17, didn't look
to be very big, and was unarmed, I think the guy is in a heap of
trouble and should be. *Where in the stand your ground law does
it OK that?

When they guy is crying for help? *That's not self defense.

Good point, but it depends on who was calling for help.
I heard a bit of those tapes and you'd have to determine
which of the two was calling for help.

Probably the most remarkable thing in all this is if the
kid had his hand in his waistband and was acting suspicously,
"like he was on drugs or something", why would anyone
get out of their car, go over and confront
them instead of waiting for police? *Meaning I'm not buying
that he really thought the kid could have a gun, etc.
Almost certainly he thought the kid was no real danger to
him, at least when he first confronted him.



Also disturbing is that the guy had called 911 47 times in the last
year with similar calls, almost all of which were for bogus nonsense.
You have to wonder if the calls were mostly BS, why the police
didn't have a talk with him to disuade him from false reporting
and to tell him to stop playing cop.

He was part of a civilian police force. *HE should have been thrown off,
though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not sure what you mean by civilian police force. *The most
I've heard is he was part of a "neighborhood watch". *Not
sure exactly what that means, could be it was just him.
Also kind of odd we haven't heard from others that new
him as to what kind of guy he was, etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Self appointed" according to news in the UK. ie wandered about
looking for someone to shoot. A bit like a mugger but the mugger has
a motive.

On Mar 23, 3:56*am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.

Apparently the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" has been lost in
Britain
* * No wonder the country produces ****heads like you.

Oh? You taking any bets that this guy is innocent?

On Mar 23, 4:03*am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message

...

On 3/22/2012 4:53 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:23:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank
*wrote:

We expect no less from you, Harry.

He posted from his Etch A Sketch!

Good 'un.

They're not allowed to have pencils, pens or crayons in the UK as they are
considered deadly weapons.

Even the crayons are considered dangerous since they are pointy..

I expect to see stories of restaurants being raided for toothpicks in the
near future.
* * They're pointy objects too...

My wife had her nail clippers taken off her before boarding AA.

Oh, AA=American Airlines.
Just so you don't confuse it with Alcoholics Anonymous.
Or is it cannabis you're on?

Nobody shot him in the UK.
Your boy was perfectly innocent and some cowardly, paranoid thug,
shoots him in the street and that's OK by you?
Sick you are.


What does "YOUR BOY" mean??? I don't understand. Your boy? I don't
have a son and my dogs are female dogs, so i dunno what "your boy"
means. Please clarify.


I am not an American, I do not live in the USA, nor do I know their laws
so I have no opinion on the "stand your ground" laws they have in some
jurisdictions in the USA. Maybe you thought I had the same nationality
as that shooting victim so you used the term "your boy".

I was simply pointing out some crime issues in the UK because you said
it was a slow news day there and was offering you some reading material...

On Mar 22, 10:19*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:18:18 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Mar 22, 9:04*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
*The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been following it. *The evidence will be presented to a grand
jury to determine if charges will be brought. *Based on what I've
heard
so far, I agree the guy is likely to be charged.

Yes, apparently the police didn't have "enough evidence" to charge him so the
DA brought the case before the grand jury. *There is new evidence, apparently.

Some folks just
can't
wait to jump on the system before letting it play out. *And the media
can't wait to try to link this somehow to the FL "stand your ground"
law. * I don't see that as really having any direct bearing on the
case.

Not if it went down as they're now saying. *The poor schlub is recorded
pleading for help before he's shot. *There aren't many ways that turns the
shooting into justifiable homicide.

The guy in question singled the victim out for acting suspicously
apparently without any real basis other than he was walking down
the street with his hand in his waistband.

..and being black, wearing a hoodie.

He called it in to 911
and the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow the guy.

In fact, told him not to.

He
chose to leave his car and engage him. *What followed next is
what needs to be determined. *But since the kid was 17, didn't look
to be very big, and was unarmed, I think the guy is in a heap of
trouble and should be. *Where in the stand your ground law does
it OK that?

When they guy is crying for help? *That's not self defense.

Good point, but it depends on who was calling for help.
I heard a bit of those tapes and you'd have to determine
which of the two was calling for help.

Witnesses say it was the dead kid.

From what I can gather, no one actually SAW what
happened. The most they have are witnesses statements
about what they heard. Also, I've seen some of those
witnesses talking to the press and instead of the press
focusing on just the specifics of what the witness saw
or heard, they are focusing on what the witnesses
OPINIONS are. In one bad example, a witness
is bitching about how the police refuse to
talk to her despite her trying several times. But if you
listen carefully, she actually says
the police did interview her and take her statement.
What she wants is for them to take her OPINION that
what she heard means it was not self defense.

The police have not only her testimony, but others
including possibly ones that aren't running around
talking to the press and their version could be
different. They also have physical evidence
and I heard one report that Zimmerman's face had
evidence of injuries that night.

I agree from what we do know it sounds like Zimmerman
is likely guilty of something. He was significantly larger
than the 17 year old and it's very hard to justify using
a gun to end a street fight with an unarmed opponent.
But it's only if you have all the available facts that you
can make a determination of what charges could apply.
That process hasn't even started yet with the grand
jury.




Probably the most remarkable thing in all this is if the
kid had his hand in his waistband and was acting suspicously,
"like he was on drugs or something", why would anyone
get out of their car, go over and confront
them instead of waiting for police? *Meaning I'm not buying
that he really thought the kid could have a gun, etc.
Almost certainly he thought the kid was no real danger to
him, at least when he first confronted him.

He wanted to be have the big score of the day. *I'm not so big on civilian
volunteer police, for this reason. *Giving them weapons is stupid. *It's bad
enough when you have volunteer firemen setting fires.


I've seen nothing that says Zimmerman got his weapon
throught the police. AFAIK, there is no indication that
he didn't just get it and the carry permit like any other
citizen can in FL, without being part of any civilian police
force.








Also disturbing is that the guy had called 911 47 times in the last
year with similar calls, almost all of which were for bogus nonsense.
You have to wonder if the calls were mostly BS, why the police
didn't have a talk with him to disuade him from false reporting
and to tell him to stop playing cop.

He was part of a civilian police force. *HE should have been thrown off,
though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not sure what you mean by civilian police force. *The most
I've heard is he was part of a "neighborhood watch". *Not
sure exactly what that means, could be it was just him.
Also kind of odd we haven't heard from others that new
him as to what kind of guy he was, etc.

No, it was an organized civilian police force, under the auspices of the
uniformed police.

I'd like to see your source for that. In all the coverage
that I've heard Zimmerman is referred to as the head of a
"neighborhood watch", whatever that means. I've also
seen the term "self-appointed head" used. And I have
never seen that it had any affiliation at all with the police.
Now you would think in all the heat that has been brought
on the police, if that neighborhood watch was in any way
affiliated with the police it would have been widely reported
by now. And it should be, because it would be a possibly
conflict of interest for them to be investigating.




*I don't remember what they called it, but they have the
same thing here. *They even drive (special) patrol cars here.- Hide quoted text -

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 4:03 am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message

...

On 3/22/2012 4:53 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:23:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank
wrote:

We expect no less from you, Harry.

He posted from his Etch A Sketch!

Good 'un.

They're not allowed to have pencils, pens or crayons in the UK as they
are
considered deadly weapons.

Even the crayons are considered dangerous since they are pointy..

I expect to see stories of restaurants being raided for toothpicks in the
near future.
They're pointy objects too...

My wife had her nail clippers taken off her before boarding AA.

Oh, AA=American Airlines.
Just so you don't confuse it with Alcoholics Anonymous.
Or is it cannabis you're on?

And you are stupid enough to claim that it was AA that took them away from
her ??
Why do you need to prove that you're a moron over and over again ?
Are you a masochist ?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 8:02 pm, Duesenberg wrote:
On 3/22/2012 2:23 PM, harry wrote:

So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.

I notice there are some crime problems in Blighty these days...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17179003

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17479995

Nobody shot him in the UK.
Your boy was perfectly innocent and some cowardly, paranoid thug,
shoots him in the street and that's OK by you?
Sick you are.

And naturally, YOU already KNOW ALL the facts of the case before the
investigation is complete ??
Stupid you are...

"Duesenberg" wrote in message
...

Nobody shot him in the UK.
Your boy was perfectly innocent and some cowardly, paranoid thug,
shoots him in the street and that's OK by you?
Sick you are.


What does "YOUR BOY" mean??? I don't understand. Your boy? I don't
have a son and my dogs are female dogs, so i dunno what "your boy" means.
Please clarify.


I am not an American, I do not live in the USA, nor do I know their laws
so I have no opinion on the "stand your ground" laws they have in some
jurisdictions in the USA. Maybe you thought I had the same nationality as
that shooting victim so you used the term "your boy".

I was simply pointing out some crime issues in the UK because you said it
was a slow news day there and was offering you some reading material...

harry is stupid enough to believe that making projections about other
posters to build strawman arguments is a way of proving his position to be
correct
But then harry is a stupid and ignorant bigot who believes ALL KINDS of
nonsense about the US and people who live there.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 8:20 pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:50:55 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:





harry wrote:
So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws.
These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal force -
assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.

This is a mere codification of the Common Law found in Anglo
jurisprudence
since 1216. In the Common Law, however, one had to be in his home or
curtilage. This limited provision is classically know as the "Castle
Doctrine" (ever man's home is his castle). The "Stand Your Ground" laws
expand on this concept to include ANYWHERE you happen to legally be -
your
car, the street corner, in the dentist's chair - wherever.

As to the shooter not being arrested immediately, this case is no
different
than if a cop shoots a suspect. There will be an investigation and the
results of the investigation will determine whether the shooter was
justified in his (stated) belief that he felt his life was in danger.

I would note that, by statute, the UK has done away with the Castle
Doctrine, upending 800 years of common sense. Now, if an armed intruder
forces his way into a British home, the threatened family must, I
repeat,
MUST, retreat if at all possible.

For many years Florida law was a person had to "retreat to the wall".
Meaning to avoid confrontation until the last moment before deadly
force was justified -- so to speak.

The "stand your ground" gave a person the right to kill without
retreat or having to avoid attack.

The shooter in this case made a mistake. He "pursued and challenged"
the victim, then shot him. He will be arrested in my opinion.

Funny, the media reported this as a white man on black man. The
shooter is Hispanic.

Nevada law allows deadly force (open carry in all but two counties)
ANYWHERE you have a legal right to be. You cannot be breaking the law
when deadly force is used.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are Hispanics white or not? I think the Spanish in Euope consider
themselves to be white.

Maybe the ones in Spain do
But when you consider that Spain contains a VERY SMALL minority of Hispanics
compared to the rest of the planet, your argument is just another stupid
attempt to claim that the exception makes the rule.

Lets see
http://www.spanishseo.org/resources/...ing-population
Estimated hispanic population in the world (2008)
452,480,979
Estimated population of Europe
40,491,051

Another fine example of your stupidity, harry
You are a TRUE credit to the British educational system

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 8:23 pm, Frank wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:30 pm, harry wrote:

I hear you can choose between electrocution and lethal injection in
Florida.
I suppose a true republican would go for "Ol' Sparky"?

Stupid political comment.
We expect no less from you, Harry.

I thought it would be thought more manly and traditional, hence
attractive to republicans.

A bit like refusing the blindfold when being shot.

Typically, it's mostly young black and hispanic males, that are 7 times
more likely to be murdered, and 5 times more likely to commit murder, than
the rest of the population.
Since they are also typically inner city residents of Democrat strongholds,
it would follow that Democrats would qualify more often for Ol' Sparky than
Republicans.

But, hey, it's just another demonstration of your ignorance and anti-US
bigotry