Eric holder on Stand Your Ground Laws.

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • JBP55

    La. CHP Instructor #409
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    338   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    17,087
    113
    Walker
    AG Holder: 'Stand your ground' law dangerous, unnecessary
    Attorney General Eric Holder said the law and laws like it try to fix something that was never broken
    inShare0

    By Pete Yost and Mike Schneider
    Associated Press

    ORLANDO, Fla. — Stand-your-ground laws that allow a person who believes he is in danger to use deadly force in self-defense "sow dangerous conflict" and need to be reassessed, Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday in assailing the statutes that exist in many states.

    Holder said he was concerned about the Trayvon Martin slaying case in which Florida's stand-your-ground law played a part.

    Attorney General Eric Holder delivers the keynote address at the annual NAACP convention, Tuesday, July 16, 2013, in Orlando, Fla. (AP Image)
    Related Articles:
    Calif. police battle with Zimmerman protestersJurors: Zimmerman not guilty of 2nd-degree murder
    Related content sponsored by:

    But he added: "Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation's attention, it's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods."

    George Zimmerman was acquitted over the weekend of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in Martin's 2012 death in Sanford, Fla. Holder said the Justice Department has an open investigation into what he called Monday the "tragic, unnecessary shooting death" of the unarmed Miami 17-year-old.

    He urged the nation then to speak honestly about complicated and emotionally charged issues. A day later, he seemed to shift away from the specific case to one of those issues — the debate over stand-your-ground.

    "There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the 'if' is important — no safe retreat is available," Holder told the NAACP.

    The country must take a hard look at laws that contribute to "more violence than they prevent," Holder said during a speech before an NAACP convention in Orlando, about 20 miles from the courthouse where Zimmerman was cleared of the charges three days earlier. Such laws "try to fix something that was never broken," he said.

    Martin's shooting shined a light on Florida's stand-your-ground and similar laws around the nation. Most say a person has no duty to retreat if he is attacked in a place he has a right to be and can meet force with force if he fears death or great bodily harm.

    Sanford's police chief cited the law as his reason for not initially arresting Zimmerman in February 2012. Zimmerman told police Martin was beating him up during the confrontation and that he feared he would be killed.

    Though stand-your-ground was never raised during trial, Judge Debra Nelson included a provision about the law in the instructions that allowed jurors to consider it as a legitimate defense.

    "But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common-sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely," Holder said.

    The defense skipped a chance to ask that Zimmerman have a stand-your-ground hearing before trial. If the judge had decided there was enough evidence that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, she could have tossed out the case before a jury heard it.

    "Stand-your-ground laws license vigilantism and we should all worry about that," said Benjamin Jealous, the NAACP's president and CEO, after Holder's speech.

    Holder on Tuesday only briefly touched on a possible federal civil rights case being brought against Zimmerman. And legal experts say such a case would be a difficult challenge.

    Prosecutors would have to prove that Zimmerman was motivated by racial animosity to kill Martin. The teen was on his way back to his father's fiancee's house after going to a store when the neighborhood watch volunteer saw him and followed him in the community of about 50,000, which is about one-third black.

    Civil rights leader Al Sharpton, who has been one of the most vocal champions of a federal investigation, acknowledged Tuesday there are possible legal hurdles. Still, he said "there is also a blatant civil rights question of does Trayvon Martin and the Trayvon Martins of this country have the civil right to go home."

    Saturday's acquittal has inspired "Justice For Trayvon" protests around the nation. Most have been peaceful, although vandalism and violence happened in Los Angeles.

    Dozens of protesters carrying signs demanding justice for Martin crammed into the lobby of Florida Gov. Rick Scott's office Tuesday and refused to leave until the governor either met with them or called lawmakers back to Tallahassee to address issues like the state's stand-your-ground law. Many planned to spend the night in the Capitol building.

    Despite the challenges of bringing a federal civil rights case, some NAACP members said they wanted swift action.

    Tony Hickerson, an NAACP member from Seattle, said he would be disappointed if he doesn't see the Justice Department taking action within a month.

    "I heard what he (Holder) said, and I don't question his sincerity, but I'd like to see swift action in this case, and I haven't seen that yet," said Hickerson. "His words were eloquent but I need to see some action before I get enthusiastic."

    Added Hickerson, "This is a very obvious case. How much thinking do you have to do?"

    In his comments referencing the Zimmerman case, Holder offered a story from his own personal experience — describing how when he was a young black man his father had told him how to interact with the police, what to say and how to conduct himself if he was ever stopped or confronted in a way he thought was unwarranted.

    "I'm sure my father felt certain — at the time — that my parents' generation would be the last that had to worry about such things for their children," Holder told the NAACP convention. "Trayvon's death last spring caused me to sit down to have a conversation with my own 15-year-old son, like my dad did with me. This was a father-son tradition I hoped would not need to be handed down."
     

    Hitman

    ® ™
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Sep 4, 2008
    16,034
    36
    Lake Charles
    I saw this earlier. When the Attorney General of the United States considers 'self-defense' a concept...it scares me...

    It's not like we don't know who he is, has been and continues to be.


    1994

     
    Last edited:

    maysen

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jul 5, 2011
    172
    16
    Luling, LA
    and we're not suppose to believe that the current administration uses "race baiting" to further their agenda of disarming americans? then why did he address this at a NAACP meeting instead of a national press conference to all americans? i'll tell you why, in order to rally the black population into rising up and creating a black vs white situation.. the problem i have is that everytime something "tragic" happens to a black person, the NAACP and similar orginizations seem to blame the white man, even if there was no white man involved.. hell they even blame black on black crime on the white man.. the NAACP is a politically correct black panther group and should be investigated themselves as a threat against national security.. People (black, white, asian, hispanic, yellow, brown, red, whatever) need to wake up and realize that we are all americans and need to unite as one, or this country will fall, and not one of our races will be in charge.. YOUR RACE IS AMERICAN, ACT LIKE IT
     

    JayKay

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 14, 2011
    68
    6
    Metairie, LA
    But he added: "Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation's attention, it's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods."

    Laws that cover self-defense sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods??? Wow, and I thought all along that it was the thugs and criminals.

    Let me translate for Mr. Holder: We want to reduce or eliminate self-defense laws so that when a thug attacks you, you'll just have to take it.
     

    maysen

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jul 5, 2011
    172
    16
    Luling, LA
    no, you would ave to retreat and get to a phone to call the authorities. then tell your attacker he has to wait for the police to arrive and protect you!!!
     

    Rainsdrops

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    57   0   0
    Nov 17, 2010
    648
    16
    Houma
    I believe in stand your ground when a victim is violently attacked, by a criminal. That person should use necessary measures, to preserve their life. Now on the other hand, when you follow a young male, with a hoodie, that you perceive as dangerous, but is actually walking home, after the authorities, direct you to not follow, and shoot him following a physical altercation, will evoke anger, chaos, and cries of injustice, in the community.
    They Zimmerman incident, isnt the case, that should be used tho argue "stand your ground" by any side of the argument.

    Yes he shot in self defense, but only after the authorities told him not to follow. If he had followed directions, the racial separation we are currently experiencing wouldn't exist. I believe he discharge his firearm in self defense, but he should not have followed a young, that was just going home.
     

    mpl006

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 4, 2011
    386
    16
    Ruston
    I believe in stand your ground when a victim is violently attacked, by a criminal. That person should use necessary measures, to preserve their life. Now on the other hand, when you follow a young male, with a hoodie, that you perceive as dangerous, but is actually walking home, after the authorities, direct you to not follow, and shoot him following a physical altercation, will evoke anger, chaos, and cries of injustice, in the community.
    They Zimmerman incident, isnt the case, that should be used tho argue "stand your ground" by any side of the argument.

    Yes he shot in self defense, but only after the authorities told him not to follow. If he had followed directions, the racial separation we are currently experiencing wouldn't exist. I believe he discharge his firearm in self defense, but he should not have followed a young, that was just going home.

    Three questions:

    1) How would Zimmerman have known that Martin was "just going home?"
    2) At what point in the conversation did the civilian non-emergancy operator he was on the phone with tell him not to follow?
    3) What was the question the civilian non-emergancy operator ask him right before he got out of his vehicle?
     

    Gus McCrae

    No sir, I ain't.
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 25, 2009
    8,370
    38
    Colorado
    Three questions:

    1) How would Zimmerman have known that Martin was "just going home?"
    2) At what point in the conversation did the civilian non-emergancy operator he was on the phone with tell him not to follow?
    3) What was the question the civilian non-emergancy operator ask him right before he got out of his vehicle?

    None of that **** matters. Zimmerman made a stupid decision to follow someone he perceived as a bad person. Right, Wrong or indifferent, a kid is dead and his life is ruined.
     

    JayKay

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 14, 2011
    68
    6
    Metairie, LA
    I believe in stand your ground when a victim is violently attacked, by a criminal. That person should use necessary measures, to preserve their life. Now on the other hand, when you follow a young male, with a hoodie, that you perceive as dangerous, but is actually walking home, after the authorities, direct you to not follow, and shoot him following a physical altercation, will evoke anger, chaos, and cries of injustice, in the community.
    They Zimmerman incident, isnt the case, that should be used tho argue "stand your ground" by any side of the argument.

    Yes he shot in self defense, but only after the authorities told him not to follow. If he had followed directions, the racial separation we are currently experiencing wouldn't exist. I believe he discharge his firearm in self defense, but he should not have followed a young, that was just going home.

    If you've been following the media, that's exactly what's been reported. If you've followed the case, those are not accurate and complete facts. GZ was never directed to not follow. "We don't need you to do that" is not an order.

    As far as the other details, following/observing someone is not a crime. When TM took off running and disappeared for 4 1/2 minutes while stalking GZ, that wasn't a crime either. Heck, even the fight, regardless of who started it, could have ended without it being a really big deal. What changed everything was TM mounting GZ and bashing his head into the sidewalk. Any reasonable person would perceive that as a life and death situation.
     

    mpl006

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 4, 2011
    386
    16
    Ruston
    None of that **** matters. Zimmerman made a stupid decision to follow someone he perceived as a bad person. Right, Wrong or indifferent, a kid is dead and his life is ruined.

    It matters in that people believe that these are the facts of the case and that is simply not true. It matters in the discussion of "stand your ground."

    I agree with you that in the end, the decision to get out and follow and not got immediately back to his vehicle turned out to be a stupid decision. In the same breath, not continuing home turns out to be a stupid decision on Martin's side as well.
     

    Hitman

    ® ™
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Sep 4, 2008
    16,034
    36
    Lake Charles
    Three questions:

    1) How would Zimmerman have known that Martin was "just going home?"
    2) At what point in the conversation did the civilian non-emergancy operator he was on the phone with tell him not to follow?
    3) What was the question the civilian non-emergancy operator ask him right before he got out of his vehicle?

    Guys see this post ;
    http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/...n-NOT-Guilty&p=1275278&viewfull=1#post1275278

    Also you can pull up the Call on Youtube.

    GZ was out the car b/c he didn't know what street he was on. Assuming since Trayvon had took off running that he would be long gone, he walked passed the first set of apartments to get to the other side where he could see a street sign to give to Dispatch. Once he hung up the phone with dispatch telling them to just call him when he gets here he hangs up and heads back to his truck.

    He makes it half way back through the back side of the houses and (claims that he heard a voice from behind him say, "You got a problem!?" to which he responds with no man i don't have a problem>You do now*PUNCH IN THE MOUTH*

    They fight, GZ shoots him yata yata
     
    Last edited:

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,888
    Messages
    1,550,410
    Members
    29,324
    Latest member
    MiyaMarukutsune
    Top Bottom