ZIMMERMAN TRIAL LIVE LINK

[tmleadr03]

Sorry...but just gotta raise you with that one: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-sta...ities-2012.php

So what your saying is that if you are going to be attacked and killed by a dog it will most likely be a pit bull. But the chances of that are not what one would say is high...

[Bailey Guns]

I just watched a VIDEO of Alan Dershowitz on Huckabee absolutely verbally mangling Angela Corey and her behavior in bringing this case. Aside from TM, Corey is the real criminal in this legal fiasco.

[Great-Kazoo]

Just another "religion of peace" What that saying? A picture is worth a thousand words

http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-prot...075210080.html


Protesters ran through Los Angeles streets Monday night, breaking windows, attacking people on sidewalks and at one point raiding a Wal-Mart store, while others blocked a major freeway in the San Francisco Bay Area in the third night of demonstrations in California over George Zimmerman's Florida acquittal in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

[muddywings]

So what your saying is that if you are going to be attacked and killed by a dog it will most likely be a pit bull. But the chances of that are not what one would say is high...

yeaaaahhhh...sounds about right. I'm good with that.
I'll also say that I give no more validity to my site than that of the other site. I'm sure we all here know plenty about how statistics really 'work.'

Luckily I was pretty quick and nimble as a 7 y/o and was able to jump a neighbors fence when a pitbull or pb/variant came after me on the way home from school. Some pudgy kid wasn't as fast and nimble 3 days later when he got his leg mauled up pretty good. I guess the doggy went for a long nap.

Will freely admit I have a thing against the breed.

[Ronin13]

Will freely admit I have a thing against the breed.

There are no bad breeds, just bad owners... that said:

[muddywings]

There are no bad breeds, just bad owners... that said:

Very true.....damm...my bad!

[davsel]

Couldn't agree more.
Nugent makes sense - again.

From: http://rare.us/story/nugent-zimmerma...-self-defense/

Here’s the lesson from all this, America: Teach your children to not attack people for no good reason whatsoever. Conduct yourself in a responsible, civil manner, and everything will be just fine. Try to kill someone and that someone just may be exercising his or her Second Amendment rights and you could get shot. It’s called self-defense, and it is the oldest, strongest and most righteous instinct and God-given right known to man.

[mtnhack]

That dickhead Holder is calling for the repeal of all "Stand Your Ground Laws".


So my question is, why do we need SYGLs? Have there been cases of self defense where the attacked victim was convicted of a crime because he supposedly "could have run away", but instead defended his life by injuring or killing an attacker?



In my mind, GZ exhibited self defense from Martin's attack and didn't need the SYG law. That is why he did not go through a special SYG hearing, right?



Holder's bs presser is just another attack on our 2A rights and is just using the uproar from the idiot masses to gain a "common sense" starting point from which to attack and remove us from our right to bear arms.

[davsel]

Before SYG, some states had a "duty to retreat" clause before deadly force could be used against an aggressor.

My questions are, why do we need a NAACP? Why is the USAG speaking at a NAACP conference? Why do we have a Congressional Black Caucus?
I thought it was illegal to divide on race within our govt.

ETA: Zimmerman was found Not Guilty based on Self Defense, not SYG. It was not a part of this trial. Comments by the media and even the juror who has spoken up are incorrect when they inject SYG into the Zimmerman case.

[muddywings]

That dickhead Holder is calling for the repeal of all "Stand Your Ground Laws".


So my question is, why do we need SYGLs? Have there been cases of self defense where the attacked victim was convicted of a crime because he supposedly "could have run away", but instead defended his life by injuring or killing an attacker?

In my mind, GZ exhibited self defense from Martin's attack and didn't need the SYG law. That is why he did not go through a special SYG hearing, right?

Holder's bs presser is just another attack on our 2A rights and is just using the uproar from the idiot masses to gain a "common sense" starting point from which to attack and remove us from our right to bear arms.

From my understanding, yes, they didn't go through SYG hearing because it didn't apply. It's tough to 'stand your ground' when you are on your back getting pummelled.
Also, while CO has a Castle Doctrine:
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

It does not have SYG so you should retreat here in CO to the max extent possible. 18-1-704 does not have a subsection such as 704.5 where it would apply anywhere beyond your home.
18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined insection 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or

(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.

From my understanding and need for further research, CO does (or at least used to) lean towards a SYG in a de facto sense. I personally wouldn't test it and would try to escape and evade (in public...in my house, you a dead mofo) to the max extent possible.