Bloomberg launches attack on ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws
[Bloomberg
launches attack on ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws by Dave Workman] "...Bloomberg
announced his campaign Wednesday during an event at the National Press Club in
Washington, D.C. He is calling the effort “Second Chance on Shoot First.”
“It’s now clear: the NRA’s ‘shoot first’ laws that have passed in 25 states have
undermined the integrity of the justice system, and done serious harm to public
safety,” said Mayor Bloomberg in a press release. “They have sown confusion in
police departments about when to make arrests, made it more difficult for
prosecutors to bring charges in cases of deadly violence and, most importantly,
they have been responsible for a major increase in so-called ‘justifiable
homicides.’ These laws have not made our country safer; they have made us less
safe and it’s why we’re launching a nationwide campaign to reform or repeal
shoot first laws. The NRA’s leaders weren’t interested in public safety. They
were interested in promoting a culture where people take the law into their own
hands with a gun and face no consequences for it...” Full text:
Bloomberg launches attack on ‘Stand Your Ground’
Does Bloomberg know Zimmerman's state of mind? Has he
decided that Zimmerman's actions were not justifiable?
I think that's why he says "so-called".
What happened to the presumption of innocence?
Response to comment [from a
Christian]: "I said from the very beginning that this isn't about a dead negro
teenager or the "white Hispanic" shooter, it's about the politics of gun
rights."
It's about what
the Left
wants it to be about (Eccl
10:2)--gun rights or lack thereof (Lk
11:21),
the politics of division (Ac
17:26),
mob rule, lawlessness, poisoning the jury pool, etc. (Isa.
3:5–8; Gal.
5:13, 14; 2
Pet. 2:10–19; Jude
8–13; Deut.
12:8; Judg.
17:6; 21:25)
Whatever they need
--this is what's important.
"Never let a crisis go to waste." ~ Rahm Emanuel
Response to comment [from a pagan]:
"For what it's worth, my father is a member of the NRA and thinks these laws are
ridiculous. I agree that the law already has rules about self-defense, and I
don't see why those aren't good enough. Call me crazy but I don't think a man
stealing your car stereo is a sound reason to chase him down and kill him."
Have you ever
been in fear for your life?
Response to comment [from a
Christian]: "Has anyone really considered the full implications of how the law
is applied? In almost all the cases cited what matters is only who is left
standing. In most cases, by the time it comes to the physical confrontation both
participants would feel threatened and be "legally" justified defending
themselves. If Martin would have taken the gun from Zimmerman and shot him dead
with it he would have been able to use the same defense, only more justifiably.
If the man at the bar had dodged the bullets, then slit the bouncer's throat, he
would have been able to use the defense as well. If the twin who had been
followed avoided being shot when confronting his pursuer, then drug him out of
the car and repeatedly bashed his head into the pavement until he died, he would
have similarly been justified by the law. If two guys in a bar decided to "take
it outside", only to find that both had guns in their belts, they could have a
wild-west shootout with neither having to fear legal ramifications for their
actions. It's the "last-man-standing" law, not stand-your-ground."
That sounds
terrible.
It's like the wild west.
Men will put bounties on other men's heads.
They'll post
"Wanted Dead or Alive" pamphlets--and the Attorney
General will have nothing to say about it.
Isa.
3:5–8; Gal.
5:13, 14; 2
Pet. 2:10–19; Jude
8–13; Deut.
12:8; Judg.
17:6; 21:25
Bloomberg
launches attack on ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws