I'm with Timoney
When even the former top cop has a problem with Florida's law, you know it's wrong
I'm with Timoney
I believe a person has a right to defend himself against an imminent threat to his safety.
I believe a person needs to feel safe in their home (which should actually be a 'home' and not an undefined area beyond the front door)
I believe that anyone who shoots in self-defense needs to prove that there was a real, and not simply a subjective, "I really felt like I was in danger" sense that their bodily integrity was threatened.
I believe that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, per Heller.
I believe that there are limits to that right, just as there should be limits to the right to abort a child (and as per Planned Parenthood v. Casey, there can be, thank God...few rights are absolute)
I believe that the law in Florida is an exceptionally bad one, and that there is no justification for such a broadly-written mandate to "stand your ground"
And now, I'm glad to see that John Timoney believes it too.
I wish he were still here.
Comments (43)
I was about to respond to lport on the previous Blog. It works just as well here.
lport, please accept what I say here at face value. You and I differ in our political views. As long as we can share them honestly, no harm and possibly some good comes from that.
It seems we have no difference of opinion in terms of self defense within the home.
When I am out in public and I am with those I care about or even alone, I want to stay alive in the face of a threat to my life or to the lives of those for whom I care. So, if confronted with a real and obvious threat to life and limb, I will defend. It is as simple and straight forward as that. Saying, "Please don't," is simply not enough for me. Now as to my skills with a weapon to hit the proper target and to not harm others, that is my responsibility.
I do not see where FL law or PA law makes a distinction between perceived threat to my life in the home or outside, far away from home. Now I grant to you that someone who has invaded the perimeter of my home has made a clear and obvious invasion of property.
Is that the rub here, where we differ. And if so, how do I still legally defend on the street.
Surely waiting until after the attacker has fired his gun or his knife has slashed me is not going to help me that much. But as I reply to you, I CAN NOW SEE (possibly see) WHERE YOU AND CHRISTINE ARE COMING FROM. I DO NOT YET AGREE I NEED THE LAW ON MY SIDE ON THE STREET AS WELL AS IN THE HOME.
As for Zimmerman, it is my personal opinion that he should never have pursued Martin, whether or not it was legal to do so. When you carry a weapon you have assumed a greater responsibility for your actions than otherwise. Again, that is my personal view and I believe it is also the view of the law. We are all responsible for ourselves, our actions and our words. That includes Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama.— PlumberJoe
Errata.
A punctuation mark is missing. It should read- I DO NOT YET AGREE. A major difference in statement.
And, Chief Timoney, just how do I retreat when a gun or knife has been stuck in my face????? Or I am surrounded by a crowd of hoodlums barking out threats.— PlumberJoe- The kid was unarmed. How this Zimmerman guy felt threatened, i'm not sure.— palmyra21
Well "I believe" your prior blog post was grossly inaccurate and biased. Digging your heels over the (inapplicable) Stand Your Ground Statute will not salvage that regrettable lynch mob article.
Moreover, you ignored this weeks most compelling tragedy. Warning: truly "haunting smile" of a real child victim enclosed:
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/03/21/exclusive-by-elie-wiesel-the-tragedy-in-toulouse/
Additionally, shouldn't we start speaking the truth about the segment of our society that overwhelmingly creates the need for gated communities and town watch patrols?— retour- retour, there are people dying every day, unnecessarily, tragically and for a great variety of reasons, many preventable. The Martin tragedy is but one among them.
Clearly the Martin uproar is a campaign against guns. And it is also a part of the orchestration to distract from the failures of Obama and keep him in office.
The FL stand your ground law does not apply or protect Zimmerman.
Timoney aside, he is no more an expert than many others. He has no solution for the circumstance when all that remains to protect your life on the street is your own skill and your own weapon and you have no choice but to stand your ground. In fact, at those times it is impossible to run.
The FL stand you ground law does not make pursuit legal. Nor does it permit you to defend against an insult, an outraged motorist, a bump from someone in the crowd, a dirty look.
As you have advocated numerous times, the ultimate solution is to rid the streets of felons. Until then, there will be many, many needless, tragic deaths.
— PlumberJoe - I guess the "Mob" was wrong about what happened in Florida. Seems that the police were correct in not arresting Zimmerman, because apparently the 6'3" 170 kid was standing over and beating Zimmerman when he was shot by a single round.— Crazybrave1
- Duke Case- rush to judgment.
Sanford Case- rush to judgment? Well, maybe yes.
An eye witness is reported as saying, "The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said. "When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
Stay tuned. This case is just warming up. Has the president acted "stupidly?" Time for another beer summit.— PlumberJoe - Plumber: The Martin uproar is also intentionally anti-white. You cannot ignore the large majority of the articles which misrepresent that Zimmerman is white and/or "a white Hispanic", both descriptions being obvious factual distortions.
CrazyBrave: I don't know how long you have been reading CF's columns, but she has in the past expressly defended vigilantism. Whether she does or not seems to depend on her emotional sympathy at the time, as opposed to any rational analysis of the evidence. I concur that it is disturbing for the author to have joined the Sharpton Lynch Mob.
No one should watch Inside Story today for any reason whatsoever. Reason number One: The show is on ABC the network that shows Good Christian B----es. Join the boycott. Secondly, until Chris formally apologizes for her Nancy Grace-Zimmerman article, no point in further following her PC racial antics.— retour - retour, I am going to lay out the pertinent facts which at this point are more than alleged, although we do not yet have any legal findings by a jury or grand jury.
A man claiming to be an eye witness saw Martin fighting and on top of Zimmerman on the ground, with Zimmerman calling for help
Martin is dead, shot by Zimmerman.
The police arrived immediately afterward, questioned Zimmerman and found no cause to arrest him.
The nation is now up in arms. The usual suspects, like Sharpton, are screaming their usual racial taunts.
Some people, including lawyers, claim the FL law to be too lenient, but they have not produced their version of what the law should say.
At present there is a mixture of people OPPOSED to the FL law and FOR the FL law.
The DOJ, who sues states like Arizona and puts border guards in jail for doing their job, legally, is now investigating for violation of civil rights. The same DOJ who refused to look at the civil rights violations that occurred at the Philly polls. The president has already mouthed off during an investigation, a very unbecoming act, possibly a criminal act.
lport has answered my question as to why the FL law is stupid. lport, with respect, your reply contains no legal explanation, only biased opinion. The intent to protect a citizen engaged in a lawful act of self defense is correct and commendable. If you have superior wording, then please share it with us.
AND, AND, AND the FL law DOES NOT PERMIT pursuit. Pursuit is the complaint of CF and lport. There is no basis for their complaint. Strike their complaint from the record AND LET THEM SUPPLY A BETTER SET OF WORDS. THE LIFE I MAY NEED TO DEFEND ON THE (PHILLY) STREETS, SHOULD THEY BE IN MY COMPANY, MAT BE THEIRS.— PlumberJoe - PJ: If you are licensed to carry a concealed firearm and you or a companion are put in danger of serious bodily harm or death while on the street I have no problem with you protecting yourself and another under the law of self defense. I too once was licensed to carry a firearm and gave it up voluntarily. Even though the Florida law does not allow pusuit I believe it gives some individuals the idea that they can on their own decide when they can stand ground and use the firearm in a situation that may not rise to self defense. When I was trying cases as a prosecutor and a defense lawyer I tried dozens of self defense cases and the letter of the law can be quite different than the application of the law to the facts in a Courtroom. I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I own a couple of firearms as does my son whom I taught to respect the power of a firearm when he turned 18.
My problem with the NRA is that they will not concede that sensible controls and regulations should apply to firearm ownership when virtually all of law enforcement and most citizens think otherwise and that our legislatures pander to the NRA. One other thing you mentioned. The alleged civil rights violations you refer to in Philly amounted to 2 dumb-looking individuals who set up outside a predominantly African-American voting location. Were they trying to influence African_Americans from voting for President Obama? Come on.— lport -
Plumber: In regard to this over-hyped Florida self defense shooting, my above post at 7:25 PM, 03/24/2012 asks: "...shouldn't we start speaking the truth about the segment of our society that overwhelmingly creates the need for gated communities and town watch patrols?" That is what I see as the broader underlying issue in this case. (On the other hand, the absurd/gratuitous insertion of the author's abortion beliefs above is utterly irrelevant to this case.) Flowers has repeatedly indicated she is unwilling to honestly address the real issues surrounding race and crime. Accordingly, I am unwilling to further endure this unserious blog. Enjoy your Sunday.— retour - Just to be clear on this, aren't there already enough laws on the books about self-defense? As Timoney said in his article, in any community, you learn how to navigate around dangerous situations and not confront them head on. One night a drunk mistakenly thinking he had the right house, tried to open my front door. Lucky for both of us, the door was locked. At other times, it might not have been.
I was naturally terrified. I had no real means of self defense if he had entered, except maybe to throw things at him.
So I called 9/11, just as Zimmerman started to do.
I also banged on the window. The man, still lifting the beer bottle to his lips left my doorsteps and fled.
If I had had a gun, should I have opened my door and pursued him?
The police came and took a description. They surmised as I did later, that he was just trying to enter the wrong house.
We cannot go off half cocked every time we perceive a threat.
Timoney is right.— Magistra - Oh my, so many good people to respond to.
lport, it is a fine line that you and I are drawing.
If I am confronted on the street with genuine threats to my life, for which I have no choice but to defend and I do, then I do not want some overzealous prosecutor or judge or rabble rouser like Sharpton stirring up at my trial.
IN FACT I DO NOT WANT TO GO TO TRIAL FOR JUSTIFIABLY DEFENDING MY LIFE.
The very least I want is a law that gives me a fighting chance to not be convicted when only executing my right to self defense and not executing the one who truly threatened me.
That is a long way of saying IF YOU WANT THE FL LAW CHANGED, at the very least PRESENT a compromise of words that makes it clear that pursuit is not legal, but preserving ones life is.
And if you cannot do that, then leave the law alone. That FL law is legal protection for all the legal grief that is sure to follow a legal defense of ones life.— PlumberJoe - Magistra, you should have opened your door for the drunk. Given him some coffee and entertained him with your profundity of anecdotes. When sober, he would have thanked you and left. Isn't that a much better story to tell?— PlumberJoe
- Yes, retour, it is always the right time to speak the truth.
The gated communities, the home alarms, the lies told daily by the media, the divisiveness purveyed by our president, etc. are all symptoms of the egregious cancers on out society. Cancers must be excised. We cannot live long with them.
We can vote out one of them. The others are more challenging.— PlumberJoe
Popular Posts
About this blog
See Christine Flowers on Channel 6's "Inside Story" Sunday at 11:30 a.m.
Christine M. Flowers
Daily News Columnist
Email Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com Reach Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com.
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: