General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHe's getting ready for 2016."In Arlington, Jeb Bush says ‘stand your ground’ law invalid "
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20120323-in-arlington-jeb-bush-says-stand-your-ground-law-invalid-in-trayvon-martin-case.eceFormer Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Friday that the stand your ground self-defense law he signed while in office should not apply to the case of a teenager who was shot by a neighborhood watch volunteer in his home state.
This law does not apply to this particular circumstance, Bush said after an education panel discussion at the University of Texas at Arlington. Stand your ground means stand your ground. Its doesnt mean chase after somebody whos turned their back.
He was referring to reports that the 17-year-old, Trayvon Martin, was pursued by the volunteer and fatally shot in a scuffle.
Anytime an innocent life is taken it's a tragedy, Bush said. You've got to let the process work."
Bush signed the law, pushed for by gun-rights advocates, in 2005. It allows people to use deadly force rather than retreat if they feel threatened, even if they are not at home. Police and prosecutors cited the law in deciding not to charge Martins killer.
Skittles
(153,226 posts)yes INDEED
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)need anymore Bushes in office, period.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)extirpated root and branch from the public life of this country. In perpetuity.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)John Edward Bush, you're being charged with accessory to murder. You have the right to remain silent....
ok, I can dream, can't I?
And for those few here who insist that Stand Your Ground doesn't come into play with this incident, the article puts that nonsense to rest.
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,505 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I should've remembered that.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I've read through it twice, and it's not readily apparent.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Bush signed the law, pushed for by gun-rights advocates, in 2005. It allows people to use deadly force rather than retreat if they feel threatened, even if they are not at home. Police and prosecutors cited the law in deciding not to charge Martins killer.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Unless you're asserting that just because this racist police department is using it as a fig leaf means that it actually applies here.
Are you taking the word of the Sanford PD?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You saw it after I explicitly posted it for you, didn't you?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Am I getting that right?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm not going to have a discussion, argument, or anything else with someone trying to play word games when a kid has been butchered. The police cited the fucking law, according to this article. That's apparently why he wasn't arrested. He'll very likely try to use this law one way or another in court. The law has been used, and will continue to be used, as an excuse for murder. I don't play games with gun nuts. I consider gun nuts to be aberrant members of society. I consider the NRA to be goddamned near a terrorist organization, and most fucking certainly a giant tool of the GOP. If you're into guns, great, have fun. If you support the NRA, the murderous lobbying they do, and the lies they tell, then you're part of a death cult, and you're my enemy.
Fuck your word games. A kid was murdered in cold blood, and the NRA and the jackasses who support them are running to hide in the nearest convenient spot. Fuck those cockroaches.
Do you support the NRA, XD?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I really don't care *what* you consider to be 'goddamned near a terrorist organization'.
I support the NRA's protection of my rights, yes. I don't always agree with their rhetoric, but I supported their position in Heller and McDonald.
I support the removal of 'Duty to Retreat', even if racist PDs try to misapply it to shield themselves from scrutiny. I also support the first amendment, even if blatant assholes like the Phelps Phamily use it to bother people.
I'm funny that way, I suppose. I don't evaluate a particular law based on what the worst elements of society attempt to do with it.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I mean, who could have possibly foreseen that some trigger-happy yahoo would read this law as permission to pull out his gun and plug anyone he wants on the pretext of being scared? Who, who, who? Well, except for the dirty fucking hippies, and we all know their opinion doesn't matter. If only they weren't so annoyingly and consistenly right all the time.
w8liftinglady
(23,278 posts)"All the prominent Republicans who knew they would be asked called Karl Rove and asked "What do we say about this? I mean, we look bad!" Old Karl said "I got a way you guys can wriggle out of being accountable for such an awful piece of legislation, and keep the NRA happy, besides."
So now they are all saying that the law is wonderful, but it doesn't apply in this case. Only problem is that it doesn't matter - if law enforcement officials believe they cannot pursue an investigation and a case every time someone says that they committed a crime in self-defense. it won't matter if the law applies or not.
Nice try, Jeb. It doesn't wash."
TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)Better start now, Jebbie.
LisaL
(44,974 posts)As long as he says he was reasonably scared doesn't that make it valid?
rustydog
(9,186 posts)What a puke.