• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

What's the opposite of "stand your ground"? "Cower and Slink Away"?
 
Thrilla said:
requiring one to have the duty to retreat is horribly unjust...and I see no logic in constraining or punishing the victim of violent crime.

Holder should be concerned with folks perpetuating violence rather than being concerned with those defending themselves from the violence.
Click to expand...

I agree - in Holder's world, criminals would have the upper hand since citizens would be legally bound not to confront or get in the way of any criminal commiting a crime if that citizen could possibly back away and not get involved.

It also seems contrary to other laws on the books that make it a crime not to assist someone. Sounds like Holder wants to get innocents charged coming or going.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Well, he is not arguing that the self-defense laws, in general, should be taken away. He is arguing that Stand Your Ground laws ought to be reexamined and perhaps done away with. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to characterize his arguments as taking the self-defense option away from people. You would still have the option to defend yourself if it was necessary.
Click to expand...

you would have the right to defend yourself, after you have tried to run away, as required by law.
SYG laws rectifies the horrible policies of requiring retreat.. that's their primary reason for existing

Texas has never had a duty to retreat, but we do have SYG type laws on the books..... hell, even California doesn't have a duty to retreat.
I think it if wasn't for the buffoon who invented "duty to retreat", we wouldn't even need SYG laws
 
CanadaJohn said:
I agree - in Holder's world, criminals would have the upper hand since citizens would be legally bound not to confront or get in the way of any criminal commiting a crime if that citizen could possibly back away and not get involved.

It also seems contrary to other laws on the books that make it a crime not to assist someone. Sounds like Holder wants to get innocents charged coming or going.
Click to expand...

Good evening, CJ.:2wave:
Holder was the bag man for the Marc Rich pardon. If you keep that in mind everything else makes sense.:eek:
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Which has no effect on the fact that regular self-defense laws would still apply.
Click to expand...


Except that he also said "all options remain on the table" concerning Zimmerman...So, I guess in Holder's mind it is fine to have the laws, and to let the court do the trial, as long as they rule "the right way"? There was NO civil rights issue in this case.
 
Jack Hays said:
Very well. Home after spending a week at the beach with six grandchildren. Going to work to rest up. You?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Doing great thanks, except I hate the weather and the dog's been sick, but otherwise well thanks.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
The premise of his position is that regular citizens (i.e. not law enforcement) have too much authority to use violence so this test of sincerity doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Citizens have too much authority to defend themselves? Typical leftist bull**** that says it's better and more fair if we all just roll over.
 
Thrilla said:
you would have the right to defend yourself, after you have tried to run away, as required by law.
SYG laws rectifies the horrible policies of requiring retreat.. that's their primary reason for existing

Texas has never had a duty to retreat, but we do have SYG type laws on the books..... hell, even California doesn't have a duty to retreat.
I think it if wasn't for the buffoon who invented "duty to retreat", we wouldn't even need SYG laws
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with "duty to retreat" as long as those laws respect situations when no option to retreat is available.
 
j-mac said:
Except that he also said "all options remain on the table" concerning Zimmerman...So, I guess in Holder's mind it is fine to have the laws, and to let the court do the trial, as long as they rule "the right way"? There was NO civil rights issue in this case.
Click to expand...
How does this stop self-defense laws from applying? If Zimmerman is tried for another crime, then he can still apply self-defense laws.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
How does this stop self-defense laws from applying? If Zimmerman is tried for another crime, then he can still apply self-defense laws.
Click to expand...

Why must he jump through another hoop because the "mob" doesn't like the not guilty verdict? Do you think there is a civil rights issue here?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I don't have a problem with "duty to retreat" as long as those laws respect situations when no option to retreat is available.
Click to expand...

So who do determines when the situation has no option to retreat? An investigator? An politicized State's attorney? Some elected official?

You're allowing yourself to potentially be abused by a subjective measure.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Sure and Holder believes that Stand Your Ground facilitates false claims of self-defense. He wants to prevent people from shooting innocent people and then falsely claiming self-defense. He doesn't want to wait until after people are already dead.
Click to expand...

really?.. he believes that?..seriously?
"I'm tired of false self defense claims..we should make defending yourself even harder .. maybe we should make require the peons to run away..and charge them with a crime if they don't"

I wonder what caused folks to falsely claim self defense before SYG laws came into existence?.. probably those pesky self defense laws. .. they should probably be stricken from the books too :lol:
 
j-mac said:
Why must he jump through another hoop because the "mob" doesn't like the not guilty verdict? Do you think there is a civil rights issue here?
Click to expand...
You're going off topic. Again, how does this stop self-defense laws from applying? If Zimmerman is tried for another crime, then he can still apply self-defense laws.
 
Fishstyx said:
So who do determines when the situation has no option to retreat? An investigator? An politicized State's attorney? Some elected official?
Click to expand...
The jury.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
You're going off topic. Again, how does this stop self-defense laws from applying? If Zimmerman is tried for another crime, then he can still apply self-defense laws.
Click to expand...

Do you see a civil rights issue here?
 
Thrilla said:
really?.. he believes that?..seriously?
"I'm tired of false self defense claims..we should make defending yourself even harder .. maybe we should make require the peons to run away..and charge them with a crime if they don't"
Click to expand...
That's not what he said so I see no reason to respond to this.

I wonder what caused folks to falsely claim self defense before SYG laws came into existence?.. probably those pesky self defense laws. .. they should probably be stricken from the books too :lol:
Click to expand...
Well, as I said, his argument is that SYG INCREASES the number of people who unlawfully shoot people and falsely claim self-defense. He wants to get rid of that increase.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I don't have a problem with "duty to retreat" as long as those laws respect situations when no option to retreat is available.
Click to expand...

well, I do have a problem with requiring people to run away as a first course of action... hell, i'd have a problem with a duty to shoot someone too....you can't decree, from on high, that folks have a duty to act in one acceptable manner in a very fluid and stress filled situation , or be punished for not doing so.. it's incredibly wrong.


but i don't have a problem with keeping the option to run away legal... folks can run away if they want, just don't require everyone to.
 
j-mac said:
Do you see a civil rights issue here?
Click to expand...
I don't move onto other topics until I resolve the original debate. You can answer my question and resolve our original debate. After that, we can move onto your civil rights question.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
That's not what he said so I see no reason to respond to this.


Well, as I said, his argument is that SYG INCREASES the number of people who unlawfully shoot people and falsely claim self-defense. He wants to get rid of that increase.
Click to expand...
ahh, then what he really wants is better investigating by LEO...
 
Thrilla said:
well, I do have a problem with requiring people to run away as a first course of action... hell, i'd have a problem with a duty to shoot someone too....you can't decree, from on high, that folks have a duty to act in one acceptable manner in a very fluid and stress filled situation , or be punished for not doing so.. it's incredibly wrong.

but i don't have a problem with keeping the option to run away legal... folks can run away if they want, just don't require everyone to.
Click to expand...
Well, I think there should be a balance between self-defense and excessive use of force. SYG tips the balance to the latter. I can't support that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom