State's Rights

[Cancel 2016.2]

Johnny said he posted the law. In fact, he said it thrice or more. I assumed, based on his insistence, that what he posted was the law. My apologies for relying on Johnny's usual competence.

Fair enough. But again, thanks for pointing out to the rest of the liberals that they too were wrong.

Except that in this case a murderer walked.

Which has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with the enforcement of the law. Which is why the public got involved. Which is what forced the state and Fed to get invovled. Which is EXACTLY what should happen with law enforcement personnel/DA's don't enforce the law.

And the rest of that paragraph is fucking stupid.

Let me guess, this is going to become a liberal trend? How many times in the past few days have liberals done this? Simply proclaim it to be stupid in an attempt to avoid actually addressing it. What I stated is correct. You stated...

Under this law, if you shoot and kill someone and claim self-defense you cannot be charged unless there is probable cause to believe that you did not act in self-defense.

Tell us... do they or do they not need probable cause to charge someone and hold them regardless of this law?

If you want to talk about the law then we can talk about the law. It has major flaws that this case has exposed.

Describe these major flaws. You keep saying that, but don't point out what the flaws are.

Now, maybe it wasn't the intent that this law has glaring loopholes but I doubt it. My guess is that the folks at the NRA crafted it that was in full knowledge of the glaring loopholes and state legislators, all too eager to be in the good graces of the NRA, just went along with it.

Ah... now I see, the 'blame Libertarian ideology' went down in flames to it utter stupidity so now you want to trot out the next boogeyman... the NRA.

 

[Damocles]

No, it's total horseshit. The Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws are two totally different things. This guy is either a fucking moron or a fucking liar.

By the way, this little bit of rhetoric is tremendously dishonest:



He wants you to believe that this law is totally uncontroversial because a group with an innocuous sounding name that must totally be a non-partisan outfit that created model legislation for other states while not informing the reader that the group is actually a right-wing organization that tries to get right-wing legislation passed in state legislatures.

I'm pretty sure that the guy who wrote the "stand your ground" law knows it is different than the castle doctrine.

 

[Jarod]

So, let me ask you, regarding states rights....

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when the Supreme Court ordered the State of Alabama to allow otherwise qualified black Americans to attend the University of Alabama?

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when Johnson sent the National Guard to Alabama to enforce that order?

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when it ordered Florida to integrate its Public Highschools?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I'm pretty sure that the guy who wrote the "stand your ground" law knows it is different than the castle doctrine.

I'm sure he does but what I want to know was did Jeb Bush understand he was trying to fix a problem that wasn't broke and that the by signing this into law he was being grossly irresponsible?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So, let me ask you, regarding states rights....

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when the Supreme Court ordered the State of Alabama to allow otherwise qualified black Americans to attend the University of Alabama?

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when Johnson sent the National Guard to Alabama to enforce that order?

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when it ordered Florida to integrate its Public Highschools?

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.

 

[Bonestorm]

Fair enough. But again, thanks for pointing out to the rest of the liberals that they too were wrong.

Not sure what you are referring to specifically.

Which has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with the enforcement of the law. Which is why the public got involved. Which is what forced the state and Fed to get invovled. Which is EXACTLY what should happen with law enforcement personnel/DA's don't enforce the law.

Enforcement of the law has everything to do with the law. Jesus Christ that's stupid. If you write a shitty law you are going to get shitty law enforcement. What should happen is that you don't write shitty laws in the first instance.

I mean, the only question is whether Zimmerman was attacked. If he was, regardless of what prompted the attack, he is immune from prosecution if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to use force to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself. Unless there is probable cause to believe that he was not attacked, and it's very difficult to say that given that there was a physical altercation between the two, and that Zimmerman did not fear that he would be subject to great bodily harm, which again is difficult to say given the altercation, he is immune from prosecution.

Let me guess, this is going to become a liberal trend? How many times in the past few days have liberals done this? Simply proclaim it to be stupid in an attempt to avoid actually addressing it. What I stated is correct. You stated...



Tell us... do they or do they not need probable cause to charge someone and hold them regardless of this law?

I've already explained it to you. Maybe you misunderstood. Self defense is a defense to conviction for the commission of a crime. You admit to committing the crime but claim that your commission of the crime is legally justified under the circumstances. Unless it is is overwhelmingly clear that the justification defense is applicable, you will be charged and tried and a jury will have to decide whether you are entitled to the justification defense.

This law doesn't work that way. This law says you are immune from prosecution for murder if you claim self-defense, unless there is probable cause to believe that the you did not act in self defense.

There is a huge difference between a justification defense and immunity from prosecution. This law is flawed because it is incredibly overborad and poorly written and because it grants an immunity to prosecution.

Describe these major flaws. You keep saying that, but don't point out what the flaws are.

I've explained some of them above.

Ah... now I see, the 'blame Libertarian ideology' went down in flames to it utter stupidity so now you want to trot out the next boogeyman... the NRA.

(1) This is an NRA law. The NRA made a huge nationwide push for this legislation in the mid-2000s. I'm just stating the facts here. Whether you think it bad or good that this is a piece of NRA legislation is a matter of personal opinion, but the facts are what they are.

(2) Libertarians and the NRA see eye to eye on these matters of the right to carry firearms and the right to defend oneself so NRA or Libertarian are pretty much the same w/r/t the topic of discussion.

 

[Bonestorm]

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.

Do you have a link for this or are you just stating your beliefs, claiming to be a Libertarian and then claiming that all Libertarians believe what you believe?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

It doesn't matter how many times you explain it. Unless you say what they want you to say, you have refused to answer any questions, you have run away, you have not explained.

After a while you just shrug and say "whatever".

 

[sedan]

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.

An excellent answer!

A few more questions:

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when the Supreme Court ordered the State of Alabama to allow otherwise qualified black Americans to attend the University of Alabama?

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when Johnson sent the National Guard to Alabama to enforce that order?

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when it ordered Florida to integrate its public high schools?

 

[NOVA]

So, let me ask you, regarding states rights....

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when the Supreme Court ordered the State of Alabama to allow otherwise qualified black Americans to attend the University of Alabama?

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when Johnson sent the National Guard to Alabama to enforce that order?

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when it ordered Florida to integrate its Public Highschools?

The term public school has two different meanings. In the United States, as well as in Australia and Canada, a public school is a Federally funded school, administered to some extent by the government, and charge with educating all citizens.
PUBLIC education is mandatory/compulsory by law.

States rights shouldn't be in the equation and states can't make law to take those rights away......... the Fed..Gov. and courts had to intervene in the states to guarantee the rights that Democrat racists were trying to take away form blacks in the 60's.........

So lets not compare apples and prunes like they were the same topic.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

That though can be an abstraction. Where do you draw the line or reach a balance between protecting individual rights and assuring domestic peace, order and public safety? The common law/common sense precedent of the Castle doctrine had worked well for hundreds of years where as the "Stand Your Ground" law has objectively done the opposite. It has decreased domestic peace, order and public safety.

 

[Damocles]

It doesn't matter how many times you explain it. Unless you say what they want you to say, you have refused to answer any questions, you have run away, you have not explained.

After a while you just shrug and say "whatever".

Wow, talk about standing in front of a mirror and pointing fingers...

 

[cawacko]

So basically both 'sides' have presented their case in this discussion, neither side really agrees with the other's case and so now we are at a standstill. Is that an accurate cliff notes version?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Wow, talk about standing in front of a mirror and pointing fingers...

Not. I have not accuse people of those things. Especially when they answered my posts numerous times!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

An excellent answer!

A few more questions:

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when the Supreme Court ordered the State of Alabama to allow otherwise qualified black Americans to attend the University of Alabama?

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when Johnson sent the National Guard to Alabama to enforce that order?

Was the Federal Government overstepping its bounds when it ordered Florida to integrate its public high schools?

The answer to the above are all no. Because in each case the Federal government was protecting the rights of the INDIVIDUAL when the state would not.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Not. I have not accuse people of those things. Especially when they answered my posts numerous times!

Nor have I. You actually refuse to answer the questions. Unless you care to point out which post of yours did answer them?

 

[Jarod]

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.

Thats not what I understand a libertarian to belive.... Where did this idea come from?

 

[cawacko]

Thats not what I understand a libertarian to belive.... Where did this idea come from?

Why don't you share with us then what you understand a Libertarian to believe and maybe even how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Jarod]

The term public school has two different meanings. In the United States, as well as in Australia and Canada, a public school is a Federally funded school, administered to some extent by the government, and charge with educating all citizens.
PUBLIC education is mandatory/compulsory by law.

States rights shouldn't be in the equation and states can't make law to take those rights away......... the Fed..Gov. and courts had to intervene in the states to guarantee the rights that Democrat racists were trying to take away form blacks in the 60's.........

So lets not compare apples and prunes like they were the same topic.

While public schools get some federal money, they are largely funded with Property taxes.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Do you have a link for this or are you just stating your beliefs, claiming to be a Libertarian and then claiming that all Libertarians believe what you believe?

I am stating what the main premise of the Libertarian platform is. No, not all Libertarians agree. Just like any large group, you are going to have people that rest on one extreme or another. That is why people like Darla take an extremist and try to label the whole group by the actions/words of the extremist.

Libertarians support Individual freedom and responsibility. They want as limited a federal role as possible. That does NOT mean they want no Federal involvement for any reason. (yet another stereotype Darla wishes to lay on Libertarians). As far as responsibility... the order of action should be the lowest level of interaction.

Ex: You have a dispute with your neighbor. First you try to resolve it yourself. If that doesn't work, you go to the local authorities/court. If they refuse/can't help then you go to the State, then the Fed.