Headlines
Comments for Smith: Battered Women Not Protected by Stand Your Ground
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Search:
Gray Television, Inc - Copyright 2002-2012 - Powered by Gray Interactive Media
True. The sad part here is, a lot of Battered Women kill the Betterer well AFTER the Battering was over.
Always some "Criminal Coddler" that gets in the way. Until THEY become a victim. What needs to be , but will sadly never happen ... is an UNCOMPLICATED , Plain Language Law. IF , No Matter where you are , permit or not , you are attacked , by Gun , Knife or Horse whip , doesnt matter , then you have the Right to pull out the Iron and go to work. Old West Justice. As it should also apply to a "Passer by." If I am out for a stroll , and witness a woman being beaten , or the like , and I intervine...good. An Armed and Free Society , which can defend itself is a Polite , and Safe one.
The SYG law does protect a woman anywhere on campus. The law plainly states that it applies to ..."A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be." A women, or man, can still meet force with force, on campus or off. They just can't use a firearm to do it.The problem is not with SYG, but with the fact that the Fla. legislature bowed to political pressure in Mar 2011 and voted down a bill that would have allowed licensed CCW permit holders, be they male or female, to carry concealed weapons while on a college campus. You can thank the very people like Sen. Smith, who are now whining about the poor women are unprotected by SYG. It was he and those of his political ilk who screamed the loudest and got the bill defeated.
Yes,you were lied to.Police officers aren't the ones who decide whether anyone goes to prison or not.
Ummm.. It is illegal to carry a weapon on a college campus... Just thought I would point out that this law doesn't protect a woman walking back to her dorm room...
Funny how that never made the news huh? Doesnt matter that 2 blacks poured gasoline on a kid and lit him on fire in front of his mother does it? Doesnt matter that a black 'gangster' wanna-be shot a black 4 y/o in the head during a robbery does it? Nope, only matters that this 'white' guy shot a black 'innocent kid'. You all should blame the media, president and all the other ignorant people out there who continue to refuse to change and continue to be racist.
Jane: He did go looking for trouble, that was his job as a watchman genius. What he DIDNT go looking for was a thug to come up and sucker punch him and smash his head into the ground. "Brain": I guess you dont have one either do you? He wasnt stalking anyone. If you would actually go READ the facts that are out there, you would realize that this is a case of justifiable homicide.
Hey, lets not forget moral values. That needs to be noted as well. Of course it could be argued that what he is doing is trying to cut down on the number of his thugsins (thug cousins) being put in the ground by law abiding citizens. So yes, if one looks at this from an immoral perspective, he is doing a very good thing!
You were lied to.
Sandy Sandy Sandy. For many many decades now there has been a legal thing called "disparity of force". Check it out, it is real and has a legal definition. The fact that you did not and apparently still do not have to motivation to take appropriate steps to learn your rights . . . well, you are going to get the treatment you deserve. The US Supreme Court rules years ago that the police have no duty to protect you. That officer may have simply thought he (or she) was acting in the best interest of the nation as a whole. One less lazy person seldom a bad thing.
There is no "threat or endangerment to life or possibility of great bodily harm in the scenario you outline. Simply a dispute regarding custody. The children aren't "her" children in those disputes. It' their children (unless the court decided full custody). The father CANNOT be denied visitation or even custody if it has not been adjudicated previously. This IS NOT a deadly force scenario as you outline.
I was told by LE that my 6'4" husband when he was trying to kill me, if I could have gotten to my gun, I would have been put in prison had I killed him because I was using unequal force. I'm 5'3". 120 pounds. He weighed 240 pounds. Where's the "unequal force?"
I understand your point, but, legally owning a gun, or guns in general, have nothing to do with SYG. "FS 776.013 (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet FORCE WITH FORCE, INCLUDING DEADLY FORCE, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." Firearms are not even mentioned in the entire statute. A person can use any means available to defend themselves, clubs, knives, chairs, teeth, bad breath, etc. Legally owning a firearm would disqualify a lot of people, who have a right to defend their own life, whether they can legally own a firearm of not.
Not long ago I heard a hardcore, leftwing feminist try to argue that no women are covered under SYG. The fact is that SYG is gender neutral. What it does not cover is anger, revenge or stupidity.
Chris Smith should be fired. The guy lacks any mental capacity.