State's Rights

SmarterThanYou said:
your entire rant on this thread has been that the libertarian platform is to keep the feds out of the state policing business so that middle aged white males can claim self defense when they kill black people. tell us it hasn't been that.
Click to expand...

Okay, yes that has been my entire rant and is exactly what this thread is about.
 
Well Darla has resorted to relying on one baseless attack after another. When asked for evidence to back her attacks... she simply creates another straw man or ad hom attack.

As for Rana, she realizes Darla is wrong, but can't come out and say it because Darla is a good friend of hers.
 
Superfreak said:
Well Darla has resorted to relying on one baseless attack after another. When asked for evidence to back her attacks... she simply creates another straw man or ad hom attack.

As for Rana, she realizes Darla is wrong, but can't come out and say it because Darla is a good friend of hers.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong and acting like a fool. You have disappointed me, big time in your personal attacks.
 
Jarod said:
WE have a law here in Florida, signed by Jeb Bush, that allows you to shoot and kill anyone who you feel threatened by, so, if this guy says he felt threatened.....
Click to expand...

You would still have to show how it was that you felt threatened.
Getting out of your car and following someone isn't normal for someone who FEELS threatened.

But then; this is prefaced with the idea that we still don't have the findings of the investigations.
 
Rana said:
No, you are wrong and acting like a fool. You have disappointed me, big time in your personal attacks.
Click to expand...

LMAO... please Rana... perhaps you will be the adult then and show me where I am wrong. Because Darla just continues to attack and make baseless claims, then when challenged she moves on to a new attack and baseless claim.

So please grown up Rana, do elaborate. WHAT do you think is wrong with the following. Please tell me you are going to be adult enough to answer and not just resort to baseless attacks. WHAT is wrong with the following????

A Libertarian believes that an individuals rights are first and foremost that which is to be protected. A Libertarian believes that if an individuals rights are violated that the problem should be resolved at the local level, if the local level fails then the state level, if the state level fails then the federal level.
 
Darla said:
View attachment 1563



SF is in angry chimp mode. I learned long to just IA him when he gets like this.
Click to expand...

Oh look, yet ANOTHER baseless attack from Darla. Can't help but notice that yet again, she resorts to an attack rather than actually discussing the issue or providing evidence for the attacks.

I wonder what would happen if a male compared Darla to an animal?
 
Darla said:
The major flaw is stunningly obvious just from reading this case.

A 28 yo 200 pound man stalked and murdered a 140 pound 17yo black youth and no charges were pressed because he "felt" his life was in danger. I mean, what do you need??? Are you guys playing dumb? What is it?
Click to expand...

THAT....IS....NOT....A.....APPLICATION.....OR.....INTENT....IN....ANY.....WAY....SHAPE.....OR....FORM.... FOR.......THE.....LAW.
 
Jarod said:
When it comes to States Rights, the problem is that if we followed the argument of those who are purists we would still have seggregated schools, busses and lunch counters in the south.
Click to expand...

Yes. Clearly states have the right to ignore the Constitution, ESPECIALLY after the 14th amendment. Clearly that was stated in it. It had nothing to do with improper governance.
 
Johnny Rocketfingers said:
THAT....IS....NOT....A.....APPLICATION.....OR.....INTENT....IN....ANY.....WAY....SHAPE.....OR....FORM.... FOR.......THE.....LAW.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. The law is far too ambiguous. Intent is irrelevant. What is its impact on vulnerable populations? That's what matters. And really we don't know the intent of the law. Do laws have intent? Do you know the intentions of who wrote this law, and every single person who voted to pass it? That's why intent really is irrelevant.
 
Derp Derp said:
Looks like a pretty irresponsible bit of legislation to me.
Click to expand...

This is from a Lawyers site, so you have to put up with his advertising; but can you show me where the irrisponsible bit is?

Analysis of Florida's New Self Defense Law
Self defense of the home in Florida:
Chapter 776 of the Florida statutes specifies what you can or can’t do in lawful self defense. The Chapter is entitled “Justifiable Use of Force”. Self defense is generally a complete defense to crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm or improper exhibition of a weapon; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; murder, homicide; manslaughter; and many other misdemeanors and felonies where you are defending yourself, your family, home, etc. Self defense may either be thru the use of “deadly force”, or the use of “non-deadly force”. The difference is often critical in what you can or can’t do. There are three sections of Chapter 776 which are really key to home defense. As a general rule, a person may use deadly force to defend their home from an assailant who is committing or trying to commit a “forcible felony”. A forcible felony generally includes the more serious crimes (burglary, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, sexual attacks, robbery, murder, homicide, etc.), or an attempt to commit them. The defenses are mostly contained in Florida Statutes 776.012; 776.013; and 776.032. Here’s how it works.

Florida Statute 776.013 states that a person defending their home or occupied vehicle from an "unlawful" forceful entry or attempted forceful entry by another may use deadly force to stop the invasion or attempted invasion of the property. In such instances they need not retreat before using deadly force, they need not warn the intruder of their intent to shoot, and there is an absolute presumption that the person attempting the entry was doing so with the intent to commit a violent act (i.e. "forcible felony"), and that the defender is presumed to be acting in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. In other words – no arrest or prosecution is technically "legal" if someone without a right of entry or ownership is trying to break in, and you shoot them. In theory – the police and prosecution cannot try to show your fear was unreasonable, or that the intent of the assailant was not to do you or a family member severe injury. Of course, there are some limitations to this statute. The statute states that in order to take advantage of its protections you can’t be engaged in unlawful activity when the incident occurs, the defender must be aware that someone has broken into the house or occupied vehicle, or is attempting to do so, and the person entering the home or occupied vehicle does not have a right or invitation to do so. Anyone legally in the home or occupied vehicle may protect it. However, don’t go shooting at police officers in the performance of their duties. Using force or deadly force against a police officer who enters or is trying to entry a home or vehicle is not protected by the statute, and is highly illegal.

You may also use a lesser degree of force, “non-deadly force”, which is force that will not usually cause death or great bodily injury, to stop almost any crime so long as a firearm or other deadly weapon is not used by you. If you do use a firearm or other deadly weapon – the law gets complicated, and you may not be acting legally unless you are trying to stop a forcible felony. Under any circumstance, the use of force must be reasonable, and the degree of force used should not be excessive. Using excessive force can be a crime, and even a felony. Again, this area can get really complicated, and I highly recommend you read my book, “Florida Firearms – Law, Use & Ownership” if you want a more in-depth explanation.

The important thing you need to know about self defense is that it is a lawful defense to a great number of criminal charges. If you believe you were arrested in error because you used lawful self defense, Mr. Gutmacher feels it is critical that you retain a criminal attorney who can understand and appreciate your situation. Obviously, these types of cases are extremely intense, and many of them carry mandatory minimum prison sentences. Thus, their outcome is often lifechanging. As Mr. Gutmacher is a staunch defender of Second Amendment Rights, an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor, referral counsel for the NRA, and has written extensively on the subject over the past fifteen years – he believes that he brings a unique background to the defense of these cases that is very pro-self defense, and that he is a criminal attorney who understands the situations in which citizens find themselves. If you are looking for that kind of background and a very pro-self defense type of representation – please call him to discuss your case.
 
Darla said:
It doesn't matter. The law is far too ambiguous. Intent is irrelevant. What is its impact on vulnerable populations? That's what matters. And really we don't know the intent of the law. Do laws have intent? Do you know the intentions of who wrote this law, and every single person who voted to pass it? That's why intent really is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Please, as I have asked so many and yet none are apparently capable, POINT OUT THE FUCKING AMBIGUITY in the law. I posted it here. Do you want me to post it again? Perhaps commission a sky writer for you?
 
Darla said:
It doesn't matter. The law is far too ambiguous. Intent is irrelevant. What is its impact on vulnerable populations? That's what matters. And really we don't know the intent of the law. Do laws have intent? Do you know the intentions of who wrote this law, and every single person who voted to pass it? That's why intent really is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Come on now Billy, once Darla has proclaimed it as such, it is final. If you keep discussing the issue you will be labeled a sexist racist petulant child etc...
 
Johnny Rocketfingers said:
Please, as I have asked so many and yet none are apparently capable, POINT OUT THE FUCKING AMBIGUITY in the law. I posted it here. Do you want me to post it again? Perhaps commission a sky writer for you?
Click to expand...

The ambiguity very simply arises when the law states you do not have to take reasonable measures before murdering someone if you "believe" you are in danger. That is ripe for both judicial prosecutorial misuse.
 
Johnny Rocketfingers said:
Please, as I have asked so many and yet none are apparently capable, POINT OUT THE FUCKING AMBIGUITY in the law. I posted it here. Do you want me to post it again? Perhaps commission a sky writer for you?
Click to expand...

While you are at it... could you get one of them to state what part of

A Libertarian believes that an individuals rights are first and foremost that which is to be protected. A Libertarian believes that if an individuals rights are violated that the problem should be resolved at the local level, if the local level fails then the state level, if the state level fails then the federal level.
Click to expand...

they disagree with? Because they both refuse to answer.
 
Darla said:
The ambiguity very simply arises when the law states you do not have to take reasonable measures before murdering someone if you "believe" you are in danger. That is ripe for both judicial prosecutorial misuse.
Click to expand...

NO. IT. DOESN'T. It does not provide you the unlimited ability to 'defend yourself' in any situation. It clearly spells out when and where one may use deadly force. VERY CLEARLY.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
This is from a Lawyers site, so you have to put up with his advertising; but can you show me where the irrisponsible bit is?

Analysis of Florida's New Self Defense Law
Self defense of the home in Florida:
Chapter 776 of the Florida statutes specifies what you can or can’t do in lawful self defense. The Chapter is entitled “Justifiable Use of Force”. Self defense is generally a complete defense to crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm or improper exhibition of a weapon; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; murder, homicide; manslaughter; and many other misdemeanors and felonies where you are defending yourself, your family, home, etc. Self defense may either be thru the use of “deadly force”, or the use of “non-deadly force”. The difference is often critical in what you can or can’t do. There are three sections of Chapter 776 which are really key to home defense. As a general rule, a person may use deadly force to defend their home from an assailant who is committing or trying to commit a “forcible felony”. A forcible felony generally includes the more serious crimes (burglary, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, sexual attacks, robbery, murder, homicide, etc.), or an attempt to commit them. The defenses are mostly contained in Florida Statutes 776.012; 776.013; and 776.032. Here’s how it works.

Florida Statute 776.013 states that a person defending their home or occupied vehicle from an "unlawful" forceful entry or attempted forceful entry by another may use deadly force to stop the invasion or attempted invasion of the property. In such instances they need not retreat before using deadly force, they need not warn the intruder of their intent to shoot, and there is an absolute presumption that the person attempting the entry was doing so with the intent to commit a violent act (i.e. "forcible felony"), and that the defender is presumed to be acting in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. In other words – no arrest or prosecution is technically "legal" if someone without a right of entry or ownership is trying to break in, and you shoot them. In theory – the police and prosecution cannot try to show your fear was unreasonable, or that the intent of the assailant was not to do you or a family member severe injury. Of course, there are some limitations to this statute. The statute states that in order to take advantage of its protections you can’t be engaged in unlawful activity when the incident occurs, the defender must be aware that someone has broken into the house or occupied vehicle, or is attempting to do so, and the person entering the home or occupied vehicle does not have a right or invitation to do so. Anyone legally in the home or occupied vehicle may protect it. However, don’t go shooting at police officers in the performance of their duties. Using force or deadly force against a police officer who enters or is trying to entry a home or vehicle is not protected by the statute, and is highly illegal.

You may also use a lesser degree of force, “non-deadly force”, which is force that will not usually cause death or great bodily injury, to stop almost any crime so long as a firearm or other deadly weapon is not used by you. If you do use a firearm or other deadly weapon – the law gets complicated, and you may not be acting legally unless you are trying to stop a forcible felony. Under any circumstance, the use of force must be reasonable, and the degree of force used should not be excessive. Using excessive force can be a crime, and even a felony. Again, this area can get really complicated, and I highly recommend you read my book, “Florida Firearms – Law, Use & Ownership” if you want a more in-depth explanation.

The important thing you need to know about self defense is that it is a lawful defense to a great number of criminal charges. If you believe you were arrested in error because you used lawful self defense, Mr. Gutmacher feels it is critical that you retain a criminal attorney who can understand and appreciate your situation. Obviously, these types of cases are extremely intense, and many of them carry mandatory minimum prison sentences. Thus, their outcome is often lifechanging. As Mr. Gutmacher is a staunch defender of Second Amendment Rights, an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor, referral counsel for the NRA, and has written extensively on the subject over the past fifteen years – he believes that he brings a unique background to the defense of these cases that is very pro-self defense, and that he is a criminal attorney who understands the situations in which citizens find themselves. If you are looking for that kind of background and a very pro-self defense type of representation – please call him to discuss your case.
Click to expand...

Damn you... the above kind of blows up the argument that anyone can just go out and kill himself a n****r as Darla has proclaimed over and over again.
 
Darla said:
The ambiguity very simply arises when the law states you do not have to take reasonable measures before murdering someone if you "believe" you are in danger. That is ripe for both judicial prosecutorial misuse.
Click to expand...

LMAO... did you even bother to READ the fucking law? Or are you reading up on it from the same site you got your 'what is a libertarian' information?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top