Holder: REPEAL 100 y/o SYG Laws

[ScienceRocks]

What part of having some thug on top of you beating you has to do with stand your ground?

 

[ScienceRocks]

We are going to have to learn to live our lives as if it were a lottery.
Hope that your number doesn't come up as one of the statistics
that report violent crimes.

Yet Chicago barely gets a mention regarding the shootings and killings there.

This will effect blacks and will probably end up increasing their death rate. Everyone deserves a right to defend themselves.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

We are going to have to learn to live our lives as if it were a lottery.
Hope that your number doesn't come up as one of the statistics
that report violent crimes.

Yet Chicago barely gets a mention regarding the shootings and killings there.

I think this is because they are virtually all gang related, much as in Los Angeles in the late 1980s - early 90s when the Crips and Bloods pretty much wiped each other out.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are so many bars against federal prosecution that I doubt there will be one at all. The obama regime is well known that obama doesn't pay attention to many laws but I doubt he will go that far. Usually the obama/holder cabal will ignore laws they don't like and enforce ones that please them. But they aren't known to make up new ones.

 

[Contumacious]

So, liberals, like Holder, don't want to see people defending themselves if they are attacked. Got it.

.

He can not possibly be serious. He is just grandstanding for his "liberal" base.

This is an administration which has been standing its ground in Syria, Lybia, AfPak......

.

I hope the Stuttering Clusterfukk and Eric Himmler are stupid enough to prosecute Z on Civil Rights charges.

God, do I hope they do that.

It would be the end for them.

Anybody else remember 1994?

A big part, a REALLY big part of the 'Republican Revolution' was the rapist's Assault Weapons ban and his push for more Gun Control

God do I hope these two communist totalitarian asswipes push this.

It's our best shot at trouncing them and taking complete control of the Senate. I'm talking close to 60 seats.

The dimocraps have 21 Seats coming up for re-election. As it stands right now, 11 of them are vulnerable.

If the scumbag-in-chief and his Gestapo DoJ do file on Zimmerman, we could easily take all 11 'vulnerable' seats plus a couple more and that would put us at 60 seats.

Enough to stonewall anything the Nazi-In-Chief tries to do. And maybe even impeach AND convict him. dimocraps are notorious cowards, We could get a few to make it fly. At least enough to make him sweat and destroy the rest of his presidency.

Please do it, scumbags. Please, please, please

What a dirtbag this guy is. THE worst ever.

I am a cynic.

After 12 years at a government schools Americans have become spineless.

.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Holder: Time to Question "Stand Your Ground" Laws

By Bob Adelmann

The New American

July 19, 2013

When Attorney General Eric Holder (shown) told his audience at the NAACP’s annual convention on Tuesday, “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” he was either ignorant of, or didn’t want to consider, the precedents the Supreme Court has used for nearly 100 years to defend the “stand your ground” laws to which he was referring. Twenty-five states have adopted some form of those laws, including the State of Florida. Simply stated, those laws provide that an individual may be justified in using deadly force to defend himself against an unlawful threat without an obligation to retreat first

.Back in 2000, Second Amendment scholar and Research Director of the Independence Institute David Kopel published his analysis of a dozen self-defense cases brought before the Supreme Court in the 1890s. These cases laid the legal groundwork for a decision in 1921 that “became the most important armed self-defense case in American legal history, upholding and extending the right to armed self-defense,” according to Kopel. Calling them “The Self-Defense Cases,” Kopel examined each of them in turn, including the primary case — Beard v. United States — which led inevitably and directly to the 1921 decision, Brown v. United States, that has served as the touchstone that Holder now wants to “question.”"

.

That ****** just wants law abiding citizens to live in fear of protecting themselves. The hate this ****** has for freedom is palpable.

 

[Two Thumbs]

So, liberals, like Holder, don't want to see people defending themselves if they are attacked. Got it.

.

He can not possibly be serious. He is just grandstanding for his "liberal" base.

This is an administration which has been standing its ground in Syria, Lybia, AfPak......

.

The obama admin wants to take AR's out of the hands of Americans

AND

Is giving them to cannibals in Syria


So yeah, Holder is a serious hypocrite

 

[midcan5]

This thread has so many racists in a circle jerk of stupid apologetics for a coward who followed a teenager for no reason, except the was black, and when the teenager fought back which he had every right to do, the coward crying like a friggin baby, had to shoot the child for his manhood was too weak to fight, even though he initiated the entire episode. You racist whack jobs are a sad example of how racism is now rationalized and cowards now can shoot because they are scared. What pussies America has become. But the funny thing now is every two bit criminal can claim stand your ground. Only blacks as the statistics shown are not allowed stand your ground excuses. Glad you weakling can hug your gun as without it you be the cry baby Zimmerman is.

You cowards in need of a gun better hope someone does scare you and the both of you cowards don't shoot each other. Kinda funny. Humankind goes back to the jungle cause they scared.

"According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010."

Deaths Nearly Triple Since ?Stand Your Ground? Enacted « CBS Miami

 

[ScienceRocks]

Holder: Time to Question "Stand Your Ground" Laws

By Bob Adelmann

The New American

July 19, 2013

When Attorney General Eric Holder (shown) told his audience at the NAACP’s annual convention on Tuesday, “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” he was either ignorant of, or didn’t want to consider, the precedents the Supreme Court has used for nearly 100 years to defend the “stand your ground” laws to which he was referring. Twenty-five states have adopted some form of those laws, including the State of Florida. Simply stated, those laws provide that an individual may be justified in using deadly force to defend himself against an unlawful threat without an obligation to retreat first

.Back in 2000, Second Amendment scholar and Research Director of the Independence Institute David Kopel published his analysis of a dozen self-defense cases brought before the Supreme Court in the 1890s. These cases laid the legal groundwork for a decision in 1921 that “became the most important armed self-defense case in American legal history, upholding and extending the right to armed self-defense,” according to Kopel. Calling them “The Self-Defense Cases,” Kopel examined each of them in turn, including the primary case — Beard v. United States — which led inevitably and directly to the 1921 decision, Brown v. United States, that has served as the touchstone that Holder now wants to “question.”"

.

That ****** just wants law abiding citizens to live in fear of protecting themselves. The hate this ****** has for freedom is palpable.

What's really fucked up about this is the fact that 49% of all murders are 93% against other blacks. So holder(being black) is telling all the innocent black victims that they don't have a right to self defense.

This is how stupid this is. It is mind blowing.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This thread has so many racists in a circle jerk of stupid apologetics for a coward who followed a teenager for no reason, except the was black, and when the teenager fought back which he had every right to do, the coward crying like a friggin baby, had to shoot the child for his manhood was too weak to fight, even though he initiated the entire episode. You racist whack jobs are a sad example of how racism is now rationalized and cowards now can shoot because they are scared. What pussies America has become. But the funny thing now is every two bit criminal can claim stand your ground. Only blacks as the statistics shown are not allowed stand your ground excuses. Glad you weakling can hug your gun as without it you be the cry baby Zimmerman is.

You cowards in need of a gun better hope someone does scare you and the both of you cowards don't shoot each other. Kinda funny. Humankind goes back to the jungle cause they scared.

"According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010."

Deaths Nearly Triple Since ?Stand Your Ground? Enacted « CBS Miami

gunna bold the obvious lies so you know why I negged you.

Seriously, so little truth, just agitates the hell outta me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Holder: Time to Question "Stand Your Ground" Laws

By Bob Adelmann

The New American

July 19, 2013

When Attorney General Eric Holder (shown) told his audience at the NAACP’s annual convention on Tuesday, “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” he was either ignorant of, or didn’t want to consider, the precedents the Supreme Court has used for nearly 100 years to defend the “stand your ground” laws to which he was referring. Twenty-five states have adopted some form of those laws, including the State of Florida. Simply stated, those laws provide that an individual may be justified in using deadly force to defend himself against an unlawful threat without an obligation to retreat first

.Back in 2000, Second Amendment scholar and Research Director of the Independence Institute David Kopel published his analysis of a dozen self-defense cases brought before the Supreme Court in the 1890s. These cases laid the legal groundwork for a decision in 1921 that “became the most important armed self-defense case in American legal history, upholding and extending the right to armed self-defense,” according to Kopel. Calling them “The Self-Defense Cases,” Kopel examined each of them in turn, including the primary case — Beard v. United States — which led inevitably and directly to the 1921 decision, Brown v. United States, that has served as the touchstone that Holder now wants to “question.”"

.

Just so you really understand WTF you are babbling about, why don't you actually read Brown v. United States and tell us exactly how this pertains to the new SYG laws, which do not take into consideration any aggressive acts prior to the actual incident in which a gun is fired or other weapon used, only the act itself. The defendant only needs to claim he or she felt threatened for their life.

Next up on Florida's docket is Michael Dunn who shot up a car of black kids at a 7-11, killing one. He claims he felt threatened, and yet not one of those kids got out of the car they were in before he shot nine times.

FU and SYG. There is no comparison between Brown v United States and the insanity that is going on now. :




BROWN v. UNITED STATES.

150 U.S. 93 (14 S.Ct. 37, 37 L.Ed. 1010)

BROWN v. UNITED STATES.

No. 758.

Decided: November 6, 1893

opinion, JACKSON

A. H. Garland, for plaintiff in error.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States.

TOP

Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the court.

John Brown, the plaintiff in error, was indicted and convicted for the murder of Josiah Poorboy and Thomas Whitehead on December 8, 1891, at the Cherokee Nation, in the Indian Territory, and on April 30, 1892, was sentenced to be hanged.

It appears from the record that Poorboy and Whitehead were deputy marshals who had been trying to arrest James Craig, an escaped prisoner, for whose apprehension a small reward had been offered, and who was the co-respondent in a suit brought by Brown Hitchcock against his wife for divorce on the ground of adultery.

On the night of the murder, the plaintiff in error, with John Roach and Wacoo Hampton, an escaped convict, were at the house of Mrs. Hitchcock, and at her request started out to find Craig. They did not succeed, and, on their way back, Hampton, who had gone on a short distance ahead, stopped in front of the house of Shirley, where it was known Whitehead was staying, and called out for Whitehead. The latter came out, accompanied by Poorboy, both being armed. As they appeared, Wacoo Hampton rode off; and, about the time the marshals reached the roadway, Roach and the plainitff in error, mounted on one horse, rode up. Whitehead asked if either of them was Matthew Craig, a brother of James Craig, and, when he was told 'No,' he said he 'would arrest them anyhow,' and told them to get off the horse, and lay down their guns. They dismounted, and Roach laid his gun down on the ground. As he straightened up, some one fired, and the shot struck him in the arm. He then ran away, but Wacoo Hampton returned, and a shooting affray ensued. The proof tended strongly to establish the fact that the plaintiff in error killed Whitehead; but, as to whether he or Wacoo Hampton killed Poorboy, the testimony was inconclusive. A few days after the murder, Hampton, who resisted arrest, was killed.

Among the assignments of error specially relied on, and which is apparently well taken, is the seventh assignment. As presented in the record by the plaintiff in error, it is claimed that the court charged the jury that, 'if self-defense does not exist, the only other condition that can exist in the case is a state of murder.' This charge would have been clearly erroneous, but, by reference to the charge of the court itself, it appears that the assignment of error omits a material part of the charge. What the court really said was this: 'I give you the law of manslaughter, because it has been invoked in the case, and you are to see whether it exists; and because you may apply the doctrine of exclusion to enable you to come to the conclusion as to whether murder exists or not, because, if self-defense does not exist, and if manslaughter does not exist, the only other condition that can exist in the case is a state of murder. Manslaughter is the willful and unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, and it occupies a midway position between a state of case where the law of self-defense would apply, and a state of case where the law defining 'murder' applies.' This language, and what was said in other parts of the charge upon the subject of manslaughter, as set out in the record, is not open to exception.

It is next insisted on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the court erred in refusing to give the following instruction, which was asked for the defendant:

'(1) Manslaughter is an unlawful and willful killing, but without malice, and is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding ten years, and fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.

'(2) If you believe from the evidence in this case that the deceased were attempting to make an illegal arrest of the defendant, and that the defendant, in resisting such illegal arrest, either by himself or in conjunction with his companions, killed the deceased, one or both, then the attempt to illegally arrest the defendant would be such a provocation as would reduce the offense to manslaughter, though the killing was done with a deadly weapon.'

This was refused because the court had already fully instructed upon the subject of manslaughter, and by reference to the record it appears that the charge, as given, which defined 'manslaughter' to be 'the willful and unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought,' was more accurate than the instruction asked for, which omitted the element of the killing being without any malice either express or implied. After what the court had said, and in the form presented, we think this instruction was properly refused.

The remaining point to be considered is covered by several assignments, which charge error in the court below in admitting testimony of subsequent declarations or statements of one party tending to show that there was a conspiracy to commit murder, and in charging the jury on that subject.

It appears in the evidence that, while on their mission to find Craig, Wacoo Hampton said to Roach and the plaintiff in error that he intended to kill Brown Hitchcock, the husband of Mrs. Annie Hitchcock, with whom she had quarreled on account of the suit for divorce which her husband was prosecuting. It was claimed on the part of the government that this statement of Wacoo Hampton showed a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act, and while engaged in this unlawful enterprise the murder by Poorboy and Whitehead was perpetrated. Roach, who was wounded on the night of the murder, and was taken to the house of Mrs. Hitchcock, remained there all night. On the following morning, Sullivan, a witness for the government, and his stepson, were riding by the house of Mrs. Hitchcock, and saw her on the porch. He thought she called to him, and he stopped his horse, but she told him not to come in. She said she wanted his stepson. The young man went into the house, and remained there four or five minutes.

In offering this evidence, the district attorney said that he proposed to show a conspiracy between Mrs. Hitchcock, the plaintiff in error, Wacoo Hampton, and Roach, to kill Brown Hitchcock; that she was primarily responsible for the murder; and that they went by her direction, on that evening, for the purpose of committing murder. The district attorney assumed that she did not want Sullivan to come into her house because Roach was there. The counsel for the plaintiff in error strenuously objected to the admission of the testimony of Sullivan as to what Mrs. Hitchcock said, on the ground that, even if she were a co-conspirator, her statements and declarations, made after the killing, were not competent against the plaintiff in error. The court held that the witness might testify as to what Mrs. Hitchcock said, as tending to establish the conspiracy. On the subject of conspiracy, the court, in its charge, said:

'You are to look at it as the motive power which may point to the act done, only by circumstances, such as association of the parties together; such as their being connected together at the time of the doing of the act; such as their association after the act; such as their declaration as to their participation in the act. All these things may be taken into consideration by you for the purpose of showing the existence of conspiracy, of an unlawful understanding to commit the act that was a crime,—that was an act of murder.'

And in that connection the jury were further instructed that:

'If the defendant was on an unlawful mission, if he had entered into an understanding to kill Hitchcock, or if he had entered into an understanding to assist others in resisting arrest, or resisted an arrest that could properly be made, he has entering upon the commission of an act where there was a purpose to do an unlawful act, and he would be in the wrong. He would be entering upon a state of case that he had no right to enter upon.

'If the defendant was traveling with Wacoo Hampton for the purpose of preventing his being arrested,—prompted by a determination to resist efforts to arrest him,—then he was in the wrong. He had entered upon the performance of an unlawful enterprise, of a character that might result in death; an enterprise that was unlawful, under the law, because Wacoo Hampton had no right to resist arrest. It was his duty to submit to arrest at the hand of any officer or any citizen, and whoever engaged in criminal purpose to assist him in resisting that arrest had entered upon the execution of a wrongful act, of a character that, if the arrest was attempted to be executed, and resistance offered, it might result in death; and when parties agree to enter upon a common criminal enterprise of that kind,—of the kind that, as the direct result of its execution, death may be the consequence,—and the party or parties killed were seeking to make the arrest, in the proper way, of another than the defendant in this case,—killed by Hampton, for example,—the act of Hampton, in killing, was the act of this defendant, because it is an act that would naturally, reasonably, and probably grow out of the resistance to the arrest, offered or agreed to be offered. * * * If there was a design upon the part of this defendant to assist Wacoo Hampton in resisting that arrest, and, in the resistance offered to it, these two men were killed, the act of killing would be the act of the defendant; and the act of killing would be an act of murder, upon the part of all who participated in it,—of all who entered into the unlawful agreement to resist arrest, and who were present at the execution of that unlawful agreement, which resulted in the death of the parties.'

Considered in connection with these instructions, the court improperly admitted the testimony as to what Mrs. Hitchcock said after the killing, as evidence tending to establish a conspiracy between the plaintiff in error and herself and others to kill her husband. It was furthermore objectionable because there was no evidence in the case tending to show that the defendant or his alleged co-conspirators killed either of the deceased under the mistaken supposition that either one of them was Hitchcock. In the admission of the statements and declarations of Mrs. Hitchcock, the court assumed that the acts and declarations of one co-conspirator after the completion or abandonment of a criminal enterprise constituted proof against the defendant of the existence of the conspiracy. This is not a sound proposition of law.

In Logan v. U. S., 144 U. S. 263, 309, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617, Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court, said : 'The court went too far in admitting testimony on the general question of conspiracy. Doubtless, in all cases of conspiracy, the act of one conspirator in the prosecution of the enterprise is considered the act of all, and is evidence against all. U. S. v. Gooding, 12 Wheat. 469. But only those acts and declarations are admissible under this rule which are done and made while the conspiracy is pending, and in furtherance of its object. After the conspiracy has come to an end, whether by success or by failure, the admissions of one conspirator by way of narrative of past facts are not admissible in evidence against the others. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 111; 3 Greenl. Ev. § 94; State v. Dean, 13 Ired. 63; Patton v. State, 6 Ohio St. 467; State v. Thibeau, 30 Vt. 100; State v. Larkin, 49 N. H. 39; Heine v. Com., 91 Pa. St. 145; Davis v. State, 9 Tex. App. 363.' The same proposition is stated in the following authorities: People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 103; Indemnity Co. v. Gleason, 78 N. Y. 504; People v. McQuade, 110 N. Y. 307, 18 N. E. Rep. 156; also, Whart. Crim. Ev. (9th Ed.) § 699.

Tested by the rule laid down in these cases, the acts and declarations of Mrs. Hitchcock on the morning after the killing were not competent evidence, against the plaintiff in error, of the existence of any conspiracy on his part to kill her husband, or to resist the arrest of Hampton, or to commit any other unlawful act, such as the court instructed the jury would render him responsible for the acts done by his associates while engaged in a criminal enterprise. If a conspiracy was sought to be established, affecting the plaintiff in error, it would have to be by testimony introduced in the regular way, so as to give the accused the opportunity to cross-examine the witness or witnesses. It could not be established by acts or statements of others directly admitting such a conspiracy, or by any statement of theirs from which it might be inferred.

The case having to be reversed for this error, it is not deemed necessary to consider the other assignments, relating to matters which may not occur upon another trial.

For the erroneous action of the court below in improperly admitting the testimony of Sullivan as to what Mrs. Hitchcock said after the killing, as evidence tending to show a conspiracy, and in charging the jury that the declarations of a party or parties as to their participation in the criminal act was competent evidence of the conspiracy, as against the plaintiff in error, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the cause remanded to the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Arkansas, with direction to set aside the judgment, and award plaintiff in error a new trial, and it is accordingly so ordered.

CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org[/QUOTE]

I have a question for you. Actually it is a few questions.

Regarding Michael Dunn, did the judge rule in favor of him during the required stand your ground hearing?

Did the police arrest him even though he claimed self defense?

Has anyone that is not a blatant racist defend Dunn in what he did?

Since the answer to every single one of those questions is no, why the fuck do you keep bring it up in an attempt to prove that the law is wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This thread has so many racists in a circle jerk...

I am sure they would let you in if you asked.

 

[Contumacious]

So, liberals, like Holder, don't want to see people defending themselves if they are attacked. Got it.

.

He can not possibly be serious. He is just grandstanding for his "liberal" base.

This is an administration which has been standing its ground in Syria, Lybia, AfPak......

.

while he is clearly grandstanding for his liberal - or more precisely black -base, i think he is also very serious.

Holder was making an appearance at a hotel in DC where my gym is also located -- and the security for him was UNREAL. The place was crawling with FBI and even the garage had 4 or 5 bomb sniffing dogs -- for ERIC HOLDER. so of course his world view is skewed and totally unrealistic

Don't think so. He wasn't so "serious" when he whitewashed the Massacre at Mount Carmel.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Thats nice -- what is a black AG going to say to the NAACP? The bigger point though is -- who cares what you say about this? You have no role on the subject of shaping state law - no one is even really listening to this and if they are I can just see the rush in the legislatures of the states that have these laws to change them because Holder and Obama dont like them.

Whatever you think of them, laws like this get enacted not because people want to go out and kill people for shits and giggles but because of the recognition that the state cant and wont protect them from violent crime (any cop will admit that is not really their role, it cant be) so people want the ability to protect themselves.

And that's not it.

The law has always been that you can defend yourself.

What it hasn't been is that you can stalk and kill someone at will.

And that's what SYG is..

He was in a PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY not in the Cabrini Green Projects.

.

 

[boedicca]

Why is this at all surprising from an Administration that wants to repeal The Constitution?

It's so hard to not be king.

 

[Sunshine]

They just don't want people running around defending themselves against black assailants that's all. There should be a right to beat up and kill white people.

I don't think that's all:

Really? And you're the perfect example of why you're headed toward minority status. You're "old world". This is a multi-cultural world, and no longer dominated by Caucasians. No longer do we have to tolerate "white privilege", or white arrogance. You're days of being in control, and exploiting everything, are over. Get used to it. However you deal with it, do.

 

[The T]

Holder: Time to Question "Stand Your Ground" Laws

By Bob Adelmann

The New American

July 19, 2013

When Attorney General Eric Holder (shown) told his audience at the NAACP’s annual convention on Tuesday, “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” he was either ignorant of, or didn’t want to consider, the precedents the Supreme Court has used for nearly 100 years to defend the “stand your ground” laws to which he was referring. Twenty-five states have adopted some form of those laws, including the State of Florida. Simply stated, those laws provide that an individual may be justified in using deadly force to defend himself against an unlawful threat without an obligation to retreat first

.Back in 2000, Second Amendment scholar and Research Director of the Independence Institute David Kopel published his analysis of a dozen self-defense cases brought before the Supreme Court in the 1890s. These cases laid the legal groundwork for a decision in 1921 that “became the most important armed self-defense case in American legal history, upholding and extending the right to armed self-defense,” according to Kopel. Calling them “The Self-Defense Cases,” Kopel examined each of them in turn, including the primary case — Beard v. United States — which led inevitably and directly to the 1921 decision, Brown v. United States, that has served as the touchstone that Holder now wants to “question.”"

.

Holder's race baiting will continue...and this is all his attacks are based upon.

 

[Sunshine]

Holder: Time to Question "Stand Your Ground" Laws

By Bob Adelmann

The New American

July 19, 2013

When Attorney General Eric Holder (shown) told his audience at the NAACP’s annual convention on Tuesday, “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” he was either ignorant of, or didn’t want to consider, the precedents the Supreme Court has used for nearly 100 years to defend the “stand your ground” laws to which he was referring. Twenty-five states have adopted some form of those laws, including the State of Florida. Simply stated, those laws provide that an individual may be justified in using deadly force to defend himself against an unlawful threat without an obligation to retreat first

.Back in 2000, Second Amendment scholar and Research Director of the Independence Institute David Kopel published his analysis of a dozen self-defense cases brought before the Supreme Court in the 1890s. These cases laid the legal groundwork for a decision in 1921 that “became the most important armed self-defense case in American legal history, upholding and extending the right to armed self-defense,” according to Kopel. Calling them “The Self-Defense Cases,” Kopel examined each of them in turn, including the primary case — Beard v. United States — which led inevitably and directly to the 1921 decision, Brown v. United States, that has served as the touchstone that Holder now wants to “question.”"

.

Holder's race baiting will continue...and this is all his attacks are based upon.

Making it ILLEGAL for us to defend our own lives, makes it LEGAL for someone to take our lives.

 

[The T]

Holder: Time to Question "Stand Your Ground" Laws

By Bob Adelmann

The New American

July 19, 2013

When Attorney General Eric Holder (shown) told his audience at the NAACP’s annual convention on Tuesday, “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” he was either ignorant of, or didn’t want to consider, the precedents the Supreme Court has used for nearly 100 years to defend the “stand your ground” laws to which he was referring. Twenty-five states have adopted some form of those laws, including the State of Florida. Simply stated, those laws provide that an individual may be justified in using deadly force to defend himself against an unlawful threat without an obligation to retreat first

.Back in 2000, Second Amendment scholar and Research Director of the Independence Institute David Kopel published his analysis of a dozen self-defense cases brought before the Supreme Court in the 1890s. These cases laid the legal groundwork for a decision in 1921 that “became the most important armed self-defense case in American legal history, upholding and extending the right to armed self-defense,” according to Kopel. Calling them “The Self-Defense Cases,” Kopel examined each of them in turn, including the primary case — Beard v. United States — which led inevitably and directly to the 1921 decision, Brown v. United States, that has served as the touchstone that Holder now wants to “question.”"

.

Holder's race baiting will continue...and this is all his attacks are based upon.

Making it ILLEGAL for us to defend our own lives, makes it LEGAL for someone to take our lives.

Agreed. And that's the point. Holder wants Americans to think we're racist and the lynchmobs are back...far from the truth.

Perhaps Holder has never heard of the 9th and 10th Amendments? Or is he willingly being obteuse to foment faux outrage as to self defense codified by the 2nd?

 

[R.C. Christian]

This thread has so many racists in a circle jerk of stupid apologetics for a coward who followed a teenager for no reason, except the was black, and when the teenager fought back which he had every right to do, the coward crying like a friggin baby, had to shoot the child for his manhood was too weak to fight, even though he initiated the entire episode. You racist whack jobs are a sad example of how racism is now rationalized and cowards now can shoot because they are scared. What pussies America has become. But the funny thing now is every two bit criminal can claim stand your ground. Only blacks as the statistics shown are not allowed stand your ground excuses. Glad you weakling can hug your gun as without it you be the cry baby Zimmerman is.

You cowards in need of a gun better hope someone does scare you and the both of you cowards don't shoot each other. Kinda funny. Humankind goes back to the jungle cause they scared.

"According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010."

Deaths Nearly Triple Since ?Stand Your Ground? Enacted « CBS Miami

Sounds like someone could use a nap.