State's Rights

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is where the ideology leads and it's why it's not popular with blacks and with women. That's just how it is. I'm sorry it makes you angry. But I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Of the two of us, I am not the one that is angry and ranting nonsensically. That would be you.

 

[Bonestorm]

you have no proof of your assertion that this would be ignored by the state, therefore you're following the same racecard path as darla, and the same path of failure.

The proof that this would be ignored by the state authorities is the fact that this was ignored by the state authorities.

i'm not disagreeing. but this isn't the feds investigation nor their case. it belongs in the hands of florida.

Who was asking where State's Rights fits into all of this? Well, here you go. By the way, STY, this was a popular refrain in the 50s and 60s and is the attitude the prompted the DOJ's aggressive stance with respect to bringing claims for conspiracy to denial civil rights to prosecute murders and lynching that Southern local authorities refused to prosecute.

 

[Onceler]

you have no proof of your assertion that this would be ignored by the state, therefore you're following the same racecard path as darla, and the same path of failure.


i'm not disagreeing. but this isn't the feds investigation nor their case. it belongs in the hands of florida.

It's not a 'race card.' The fact is, this case would have disappeared if not for the huge public outcry nationally after the tapes were played on the news. Without the audio and coverage, nothing was going to happen.

It's not a race card. This guy was stalked and shot because of his color - period.

 

[christiefan915]

do you not understand why these laws had to be made?

No. People have always had the right of self-defense. How many of these conditions are actually adhered to before someone shoots?

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.

• The intruder must be acting illegally—the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack, for example, officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
• In some states, the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some lesser felony, such as arson or burglary
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
• The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The proof that this would be ignored by the state authorities is the fact that this was ignored by the state authorities.

and here's proof that this is all just smoke and mirrors to make you idiots 'feel' better about your fed gov.

With all federal civil rights crimes, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person acted intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids – the highest level of intent in criminal law. Negligence, recklessness, mistakes and accidents are not prosecutable under the federal criminal civil rights laws

Who was asking where State's Rights fits into all of this? Well, here you go. By the way, STY, this was a popular refrain in the 50s and 60s and is the attitude the prompted the DOJ's aggressive stance with respect to bringing claims for conspiracy to denial civil rights to prosecute murders and lynching that Southern local authorities refused to prosecute.

so 'stand your ground' laws are a massive libertarian conspiracy to bring us back to the days of lynchmobs?????? ROFL

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

need proof? need to be embarrassed? or would you just like me to show your hypocrisy in a strong federal government?

Are you retarded?

MY Op states that Libertarians (psst, that would be you) are proponents of state's rights and that they have trouble attracting blacks and women to that ideology. I further posited that I consider this case a perfect example of why. Black people get murdered, local authorities refuse to press charges, and the federal government has to step in if there is to be any justice.

YOU come along and say that this is a state matter. Right, I get that YOU believe that. And that proves my OP.

Fucking duh man.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

This occurred in Sanford Florida, demographic breakdown shows the city has a population of about 53k. Less than half are white. Of the 45% white... you would assume about half are female.

So tell us Darla... in a city that comprises about 75% of the population that you claim won't vote Republican/Libertarian/Conservative... who do you suppose is running the city...

Democrats or Republicans?

If minorities control the majority of this town... who are they voting for? It is either as you suggest: They put Dems in power OR you are wrong and they are voting for Reps.

What are you talking about?

Do blacks vote Libertarian/con/repub?

The answer is no.

I have no idea what you are babbling about here.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No. People have always had the right of self-defense. How many of these conditions are actually adhered to before someone shoots?

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.

• The intruder must be acting illegally—the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack, for example, officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
• In some states, the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some lesser felony, such as arson or burglary
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
• The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

and 'duty to retreat' was a massive failure because it seeks to impose upon all individuals a single standard of 'reasonableness' that just cant be done. it was a method that liberal states used against people who used self defense in situations that prompted huge public outcry and allowed states to lynch otherwise reasonable people. the proverbial catch 22

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Of the two of us, I am not the one that is angry and ranting nonsensically. That would be you.

While I don't believe I am "ranting nonsensically" this case did make me angry.

Why didn't it anger you?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

The proof that this would be ignored by the state authorities is the fact that this was ignored by the state authorities.




Who was asking where State's Rights fits into all of this? Well, here you go. By the way, STY, this was a popular refrain in the 50s and 60s and is the attitude the prompted the DOJ's aggressive stance with respect to bringing claims for conspiracy to denial civil rights to prosecute murders and lynching that Southern local authorities refused to prosecute.

Exactly thank you.

Listening to Sf and STY is like being gaslighted. It really is.

 

[Bonestorm]

and here's proof that this is all just smoke and mirrors to make you idiots 'feel' better about your fed gov.

With all federal civil rights crimes, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person acted intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids – the highest level of intent in criminal law. Negligence, recklessness, mistakes and accidents are not prosecutable under the federal criminal civil rights laws

I don't what exactly you think you have proven. He shot a man and killed him and his defense of self defense requires that he intentionally shot him. I don't think it too much of a stretch to suggest that the DOJ can prove that he intentionally violated his

so 'stand your ground' laws are a massive libertarian conspiracy to bring us back to the days of lynchmobs?????? ROFL

Not at all what I said. Not even close.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Are you retarded?

MY Op states that Libertarians (psst, that would be you) are proponents of state's rights and that they have trouble attracting blacks and women to that ideology. I further posited that I consider this case a perfect example of why. Black people get murdered, local authorities refuse to press charges, and the federal government has to step in if there is to be any justice.

YOU come along and say that this is a state matter. Right, I get that YOU believe that. And that proves my OP.

Fucking duh man.

that one single case PROVES your OP? yeah, definitely check your blow.

the federal jurisdiction MUST include an interstate commerce connection, do you have that? and if you truly believe that the federal government should be strong enough to eliminate states rights, how do you feel about the national concealed carry reciprocity? or why the feds are ignoring their criminal complicity in the fast and furious fuckup?? why aren't they doing anything about that?

 

[christiefan915]

I just figured Darla might have had more info before she threw down the DOJ link, first, but it looks like that would've been a little too honest for her.

What is your problem? There have been at least three threads, and numerous references to this killing over the last few days. Not that we think your spurious "more info" comments are anything more than your latest ploy to "get" another poster.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?38972-Breaking-News!&highlight=Martin

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?38900-A-racist-killing&highlight=Martin

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ghborhood-Watch-seeks-arrest&highlight=Martin

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

that one single case PROVES your OP? yeah, definitely check your blow.

the federal jurisdiction MUST include an interstate commerce connection, do you have that? and if you truly believe that the federal government should be strong enough to eliminate states rights, how do you feel about the national concealed carry reciprocity? or why the feds are ignoring their criminal complicity in the fast and furious fuckup?? why aren't they doing anything about that?

All of your posts, including this one, prove my OP.

I think it's hysterical you don't get that, and I love that SF won't touch your posts. He gets it I bet.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

All of your posts, including this one, prove my OP.

I think it's hysterical you don't get that, and I love that SF won't touch your posts. He gets it I bet.

SF doesn't need to touch my posts because we are both saying the same thing, that you're a retard for linking one idiot case as a brand on ALL Libertarians. I think it's hysterical that YOU don't get that.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

SF doesn't need to touch my posts because we are both saying the same thing, that you're a retard for linking one idiot case as a brand on ALL Libertarians. I think it's hysterical that YOU don't get that.

You're the one claiming this is a state issue and the fed has no right to step in.

Which is the Libertarian ideology.

I know you are having trouble following this, but I'm not.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're the one claiming this is a state issue and the fed has no right to step in.

Which is the Libertarian ideology.

I know you are having trouble following this, but I'm not.

you're not following the issue, you're trying to lead it astray. again, you're being retarded about it trying to equate this single case as all of Libertarianism, despite your repeated denials.

 

[Damocles]

Why hasn't the dude been arrested? Seriously, WTF are they doing? If it was a cop that shot the kid he'd be on suspension while they investigated, this guy. Not even an arrest...

 

[Onceler]

Why hasn't the dude been arrested? Seriously, WTF are they doing? If it was a cop that shot the kid he'd be on suspension while they investigated, this guy. Not even an arrest...

And it's all on tape, no less. That's one of the most chilling tapes I've heard in a long time - there is no real defense for his words or actions, and what it all lead to...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What are you talking about?

Do blacks vote Libertarian/con/repub?

The answer is no.

I have no idea what you are babbling about here.

It is not surprising that you are unable to grasp the simple point. WHO RUNS SANFORD? Democrats or Republicans?

If the city is a Democratic precinct, it has over 50% of the population that is Black or Hispanic, another 22% that is white women.... WHO is electing these racists in the police department that called this 'self defense???

How could Lee get elected?