|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: Tallahassee Mayor Calls on Governor Rick Scott to Immediately Suspend Stand Your Ground Law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Mayor Andrew Gillum called for a State of Emergency on Monday over the Stand Your Ground law until state officials can define how and when the law should be implemented.
The controversial Florida law seems to be working in the defense of white people, but backfiring against Blacks. Gillium’s request comes after the deadly shooting of Markeis McGlockton in July. Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gaultieri refused to arrest Michael Drejka for shooting the 27-year-old to death and said the white man acted in self-defense. However, gun lawmakers and the NRA disagreed with Gaultieri’s understanding according to the Tallahassee Democrat. |
| Comment by:
jac
(8/3/2018)
|
This has nothing to do with stand your ground. The Clearwater victim was attacked and on the ground when he shot his attacker. He could not retreat.
If blacks are getting the short end of this law, it is because they are provoking violence by their actions.
The law works fine. It protects victims from the heavy handed criminal justice system when they defend themselves. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
