Congressional Dems Introduce Amendment To Make Self Defense Illegal

[ubaru]

All fascists states have historically disarmed their people before they take control...in my opinion the Trayvon murder in Florida was a planned operation to pave the way for this.

Congressional Dems Introduce Amendment To Make Self Defense Illegal (https://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/05/congressional-dems-introduce-amendment-to-make-self-defense-illegal/)

https://frontporchpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/120508_grijalva_ellison_ap-150x150.jpg
The Congressional Progressive Caucus has announced it will introduce legislation designed to strip Americans of the right to defend themselves. Called “Stop Shoot First Laws,” the amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill under consideration in the House would deny states federal funding allocated under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 if they continue to allow citizens to defend themselves.

“Shoot first laws have already cost too many lives,” said Progressive Caucus co-chairs Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva (https://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/05/congressional-dems-introduce-amendment-to-make-self-defense-illegal/The%20Congressional%20Progressive%20Caucus%20has%20announced%20it%20will%20introduce%20legislation%20designed%20to%20strip%20Americans%20of%20the%20ri ght%20to%20defend%20themselves.%20Called%20%E2%80%9CStop%20Shoot%20First%20Laws,%E2%80%9D%20the%20amendment%20to%20the%20Commerce,%20Justice,%20Scienc e%20Appropriations%20bill%20under%20consideration%20in%20the%20House%20would%20deny%20states%20federal%20funding%20allocated%20under%20section%20505%2 0of%20the%20Omnibus%20Crime%20Control%20and%20Safe%20Streets%20Act%20of%201968%20if%20they%20continue%20to%20allow%20citizens%20to%20defend%20themselv es.%20%20Democrats%20Raul%20Grijalva%20and%20Keith%20Ellison.%20%20%E2%80%9CShoot%20first%20laws%20have%20already%20cost%20too%20many%20lives,%E2%80%9 D%20said%20Progressive%20Caucus%20co-chairs%20Keith%20Ellison%20and%20Raul%20Grijalva%20upon%20introducing%20their%20amendment.%20%E2%80%9CIn%20Florida%20alone,%20deaths%20due%20to%20self-defense%20have%20tripled%20since%20the%20law%20was%20enacted.%20Federal%20money%20shouldn%E2%80%99t%20be%20spent%20supporting%20states%20with%20laws%2 0that%20endanger%20their%20own%20people.%20This%20is%20no%20different%20than%20withholding%20transportation%20funds%20from%20states%20that%20don%E2%80 %99t%20enforce%20seatbelt%20laws.%E2%80%9D%20%20%E2%80%9CThe%20message%20here%20is%20if%20you%20have%20this%20kind%20of%20law%20that%20your%20federal% 20funding%20is%20going%20to%20take%20a%20hit%20because%20they%20make%20states%20less%20safe,%E2%80%9D%20Adam%20Sarvana,%20communications%20director%20 for%20Grijalva,%20told%20Politico.)upon introducing their amendment. “In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted. Federal money shouldn’t be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people. This is no different than withholding transportation funds from states that don’t enforce seatbelt laws.”

“The message here is if you have this kind of law that your federal funding is going to take a hit because they make states less safe,” Adam Sarvana, communications director for Grijalva, told Politico (https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76045.html).


Continue Reading on www.infowars.com (https://www.infowars.com/congressional-democrats-introduce-amendment-to-outlaw-self-defense/)

[Barry]

I completely agree with the bill that the Democrats have introduced.
The Stand Your Ground laws are just a license to murder, sponsored by the NRA.
The Inforwars.com website seem to a rather far right-wing website.



All fascists states have historically disarmed their people before they take control...in my opinion the Trayvon murder in Florida was a planned operation to pave the way for this.

Congressional Dems Introduce Amendment To Make Self Defense Illegal (https://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/05/congressional-dems-introduce-amendment-to-make-self-defense-illegal/)

https://frontporchpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/120508_grijalva_ellison_ap-150x150.jpg
The Congressional Progressive Caucus has announced it will introduce legislation designed to strip Americans of the right to defend themselves. Called “Stop Shoot First Laws,” the amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill under consideration in the House would deny states federal funding allocated under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 if they continue to allow citizens to defend themselves.

“Shoot first laws have already cost too many lives,” said Progressive Caucus co-chairs Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva (https://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/05/congressional-dems-introduce-amendment-to-make-self-defense-illegal/The%20Congressional%20Progressive%20Caucus%20has%20announced%20it%20will%20introduce%20legislation%20designed%20to%20strip%20Americans%20of%20the%20ri ght%20to%20defend%20themselves.%20Called%20%E2%80%9CStop%20Shoot%20First%20Laws,%E2%80%9D%20the%20amendment%20to%20the%20Commerce,%20Justice,%20Scienc e%20Appropriations%20bill%20under%20consideration%20in%20the%20House%20would%20deny%20states%20federal%20funding%20allocated%20under%20section%20505%2 0of%20the%20Omnibus%20Crime%20Control%20and%20Safe%20Streets%20Act%20of%201968%20if%20they%20continue%20to%20allow%20citizens%20to%20defend%20themselv es.%20%20Democrats%20Raul%20Grijalva%20and%20Keith%20Ellison.%20%20%E2%80%9CShoot%20first%20laws%20have%20already%20cost%20too%20many%20lives,%E2%80%9 D%20said%20Progressive%20Caucus%20co-chairs%20Keith%20Ellison%20and%20Raul%20Grijalva%20upon%20introducing%20their%20amendment.%20%E2%80%9CIn%20Florida%20alone,%20deaths%20due%20to%20self-defense%20have%20tripled%20since%20the%20law%20was%20enacted.%20Federal%20money%20shouldn%E2%80%99t%20be%20spent%20supporting%20states%20with%20laws%2 0that%20endanger%20their%20own%20people.%20This%20is%20no%20different%20than%20withholding%20transportation%20funds%20from%20states%20that%20don%E2%80 %99t%20enforce%20seatbelt%20laws.%E2%80%9D%20%20%E2%80%9CThe%20message%20here%20is%20if%20you%20have%20this%20kind%20of%20law%20that%20your%20federal% 20funding%20is%20going%20to%20take%20a%20hit%20because%20they%20make%20states%20less%20safe,%E2%80%9D%20Adam%20Sarvana,%20communications%20director%20 for%20Grijalva,%20told%20Politico.)upon introducing their amendment. “In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted. Federal money shouldn’t be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people. This is no different than withholding transportation funds from states that don’t enforce seatbelt laws.”

“The message here is if you have this kind of law that your federal funding is going to take a hit because they make states less safe,” Adam Sarvana, communications director for Grijalva, told Politico (https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76045.html).


Continue Reading on www.infowars.com (https://www.infowars.com/congressional-democrats-introduce-amendment-to-outlaw-self-defense/)

[Phred]

So what you're saying Barry is that you believe an individual has no right to defend themselves from potential harm.? What crazy Utopian world do you come from? What you are saying is that if you are faced with a potential threat, you're just going to curl up into a quivering ball and hope the police make it in time before someone who means you and/or your loved one deadly harm can accomplish their deed? Good luck with that. Do make sure you have your affairs in order before your death. Peace and love are a wonderful concept, but the real world does not abide by what we would love to live by. I for one will not, nor expect anyone to be my savior in a split second time of need for my self protection. The only person I can count on in this type of situation is myself, not any type of law enforcement officer. To support this potential law is to criminalize someone for defending the one thing that someone truly owns themself,their own life....


I completely agree with the bill that the Democrats have introduced.
The Stand Your Ground laws are just a license to murder, sponsored by the NRA.
The Inforwars.com website seem to a rather far right-wing website.

[podfish]

So what you're saying Barry is that you believe an individual has no right to defend themselves from potential harm.? .uh, yeah - as I understand it, the new law says if you're threatened you have to curl up in a ball and whimper.<br><br>I don't think there's any middle ground between shoot-at-will and that, is there?

[Barry]

From wikipedia:



A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense) when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat). Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force) in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_from_prosecution) to criminal charges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges) and civil suit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_suit). The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense), permits a plaintiff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff) or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justifies the accused's conduct.



There have been cases that not only that has the would-be plaintif (the person supposedly under attack) pursued the attacker and then killed them, and then claimed they were standing their ground.

I have a problem with this on few accounts, the biggest being when Stand Your Ground provides immunity to prosecution so that when someone claims that they were standing their ground, then can not even be tried to see if that was true! This is a return to vigilante "justice". While police and the court system are far from perfect, I don't want to see people itching for a fight "defending themselves" and killing people, without a legal review. It becomes a license to kill...
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/Film_-_Looking_Back_at_James_Bond%E2%80%99s_Origins_as_the_Franchise_Continues_With_a_New_Novel_-_NYTimes.com-20120515-090028.png

[joehogan]

<style>@font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 8pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-weight: bold; }p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 14pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> I grew up in a neighborhood as rough as most any, and most everybody that I grew up with is dead. Killed by police or each other, some other gang, drugs or car crashes. But it was mostly cowardly punks who carried guns back then. Now there’s a lot more guns. This is the major problem that seems to be getting worse. Guns are killing more and more Americans. The NRA has a lot of power and they seem to think all white people need guns.


In 2009 there were 6 murders in a population of near a half million in Sonoma County and I believe most of the participants knew each other. If you’re worried about those odds, you aren’t the bravest boy on the block, or maybe you haven’t thought the math through very thoroughly.

The problem with the Stand Your Ground laws is that dead people can’t tell their side of the story. It’s very hard to know what happened. So why would you want to have a law that encourages people to carry guns and shoot other people and then the shooter is allowed to be the sole witness at his own trial?

Joe Hogan


uh, yeah - as I understand it, the new law says if you're threatened you have to curl up in a ball and whimper.

I don't think there's any middle ground between shoot-at-will and that, is there?

[podfish]

<style>@font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 8pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-weight: bold; }p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 14pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> So why would you want to have a law that encourages people to carry guns and shoot other people and then the shooter is allowed to be the sole witness at his own trial? Joe Hogangood point. So if Trevon had also had a gun, and been the one left standing, could he have also avoided arrest by saying he was standing his ground against someone coming after him as he was walking along minding his own business??<br><br>This seems to be the position of those advocating a society where we all carry arms and can/must defend ourselves. The one left standing must by definition be the wronged party.

["Mad" Miles]

Bullies like to provoke those weaker than themselves and then hurt the provoked victim and claim self-defense. "Stand Your Ground" is tailor made for bullies. "I had to kill him/her, they attacked me!" No mention of what may have provoked that "attack".

The one time in my life I was punched so hard in the face it blackened both eyes, I was slam dancing. Afterwards, when I asked the moron who punched me, "Why did you do this?!" He reacted as if afraid, and told his friends, "Get him away from me! He wants to kill me!!"

If he'd been packing, he could have shot me, and claimed he was, "standing his ground".

Stupid law, with predictable results, as many critics said when it was under consideration. And several instances have borne out exactly what was predicted.

Check out ALEC, stealth corporatism making laws to benefit the elite.

This is a democracy?

In answer to your question Podfish, based on the other not quite as famous case of the Black Woman who stood her ground and is incarcerated? If Trayvon had "defended" himself from George Z. he would likely have been arrested, tried and convicted (or be in the process of that given how slowly the wheels of "Justice" grind. Most likely he wouldn't go to trial, he would cop a plea and be serving time.) "Standing your ground while Black/Brown/Red" is different. Don't you know?

[podfish]

In answer to your question Podfish, based on the other not quite as famous case of the Black Woman who stood her ground and is incarcerated? If Trayvon had "defended" himself from George Z. he would likely have been arrested, tried and convicted (or be in the process of that given how slowly the wheels of "Justice" grind. Most likely he wouldn't go to trial, he would cop a plea and be serving time.) "Standing your ground while Black/Brown/Red" is different. Don't you know?
I had considered that, but (uncharacteristically for me) decided to simplify my post by staying with one topic at a time....