Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Stand Your Ground Law Lets Violent Criminals Walk Free

Stand Your Ground Law Lets Violent Criminals Walk Free

+2
no stress
Sal
6 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Sal

Sal

Surprise!

Maurice Moorer is not the kind of person lawmakers had in mind when they gave Florida the broadest self-defense law in the nation in 2005.

State legislators sold "stand your ground" as a legal protection for law-abiding Floridians who were forced, through no fault of their own, to defend their family and property.

But the day Moorer killed his ex-wife's boyfriend in 2008 capped two years of violent behavior that had landed Moorer in jail multiple times and left his wife living in fear.

Still, prosecutors set Moorer free, saying Florida's "stand your ground" law prevented them from pursuing murder charges.

A Tampa Bay Times analysis of "stand your ground" cases found that it has been people like Moorer — those with records of crime and violence — who have benefited most from the controversial legislation. A review of arrest records for those involved in more than 100 fatal "stand your ground" cases shows:

• Nearly 60 percent of those who claimed self-defense had been arrested at least once before the day they killed someone.

• More than 30 of those defendants, about one in three, had been accused of violent crimes, including assault, battery or robbery. Dozens had drug offenses on their records.

• Killers have invoked "stand your ground" even after repeated run-ins with the law. Forty percent had three arrests or more. Dozens had at least four arrests.

• More than a third of the defendants had previously been in trouble for threatening someone with a gun or illegally carrying a weapon.

• In dozens of cases, both the defendant and the victim had criminal records, sometimes related to long-running feuds or criminal enterprises. Of the victims that could be identified in state records, 64 percent had at least one arrest. Several had 20 or more arrests.

• Jackson Fleurimon had been arrested for battery, aggravated assault and drug possession. Witnesses said he was in a beef over drug turf when he shot and killed a man in Orange County in 2009. A judge granted him immunity.

• Tavarious China Smith was a drug dealer with multiple arrests who killed a man during an 2008 argument over drug territory in Manatee County. He claimed self-defense and went free. Less than three years later, he was back in front of prosecutors for a different homicide, this one the result of a shoot-out outside a nightclub. Smith once again went free by claiming "stand your ground."

• In Tallahassee, Dervaunta Vaughn had been accused of battery at least six times before police arrested him in a gangland shoot-out that left one person dead in March 2009. After Vaughn invoked "stand your ground," prosecutors struck a plea deal that dropped murder charges and sent Vaughn to prison for eight years for illegally carrying a gun.

• Alexander Lopez-Lima's run-ins with the law began two days after his 15th birthday. His half-dozen arrests include battery, selling and possessing marijuana and strong arm robbery, court records show. In 2011 a judge decided the then-18-year-old Lopez-Lima was standing his ground when he wound up in an armed battle and killed another teen who had come to his house to smoke marijuana.

• Norman Borden, a now-deceased West Palm Beach man, racked up arrests for criminal mischief, disorderly conduct and aggravated assault in the 1980s and '90s before he was acquitted of murder in the deaths of two men who threatened him with bats while he walked his dog.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article1241378.ece

no stress

no stress

http://longwelllawyers.com/2012/06/how-floridas-stand-your-ground-law-works/

Guest


Guest

people who are against personal gun ownership are just spewing the propaganda given to them by their party.

going after this law is just another atempt to restrict personal gun ownership.

The left would have only the wealthy and the politicians armed, the rest of us at the mercy of crooks. Because crooks dont need or care about no damn law.

The stand your ground law has done a lot more good than bad. the left wing communist media only show the sheep what they want them to go forth and spew.

I remember right in my neighborhood in pcola a few years back a elderly woman had to kill a man who was breaking into her house. She got off, and really what a hero she was for ridding the area of another POS.

That vid I posted about the 71 yo taking out those crooks was and is the perfect example how to lower crime.

and its been proven over and over again that crime is lowered when the population is armed.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


When Sal says we can't have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country, he's entirely right. We need sane gun laws; not this out-of-control partisan crap that allows criminals to go free. But every time it's mentioned, all we hear is, "Oh, no...they're trying to take our guns." It's false equivalency...it's the right wing trying to (falsely) define the left.

Plenty of people own guns, both for hunting and for protection. That's as it should be. But a law that is so ambigious that it actually promotes crime should be repealed.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Floridatexan wrote:
When Sal says we can't have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country, he's entirely right. We need sane gun laws; not this out-of-control partisan crap that allows criminals to go free. But every time it's mentioned, all we hear is, "Oh, no...they're trying to take our guns." It's false equivalency...it's the right wing trying to (falsely) define the left.

Plenty of people own guns, both for hunting and for protection. That's as it should be. But a law that is so ambigious that it actually promotes crime should be repealed.

Sals article examples suck...most of those were criminals not law abiding citizens and the last one was justified...People have been killed with a baseball bat...the data is flawed from the start to prove anything other than desperation in finding an example of the laws weakness.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
When Sal says we can't have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country, he's entirely right. We need sane gun laws; not this out-of-control partisan crap that allows criminals to go free. But every time it's mentioned, all we hear is, "Oh, no...they're trying to take our guns." It's false equivalency...it's the right wing trying to (falsely) define the left.

Plenty of people own guns, both for hunting and for protection. That's as it should be. But a law that is so ambigious that it actually promotes crime should be repealed.

stand your ground doesnt promote crime. thats insanity to say that.

stand your ground allows people to protect themselves from criminals who come to harm them. In the past before stand your ground innocent people were either afraid to protect themselves or they would be punished for protecting themselves.

as with anyyyyyyyy law, there are always going to be exceptions to the rule. The problem we have with the left gun haters club, is they will always focus on these exceptions to take liberties away from everyone else.

no stress

no stress

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
When Sal says we can't have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country, he's entirely right. We need sane gun laws; not this out-of-control partisan crap that allows criminals to go free. But every time it's mentioned, all we hear is, "Oh, no...they're trying to take our guns." It's false equivalency...it's the right wing trying to (falsely) define the left.

Plenty of people own guns, both for hunting and for protection. That's as it should be. But a law that is so ambigious that it actually promotes crime should be repealed.

Sals article examples suck...most of those were criminals not law abiding citizens and the last one was justified...People have been killed with a baseball bat...the data is flawed from the start to prove anything other than desperation in finding an example of the laws weakness.


Very true. Even on Ricks blog where this is also posted a commenter made a post about how lopsided this article is. It;s a given that I am biased in favor of pro gun laws but, in order to have a debate on laws pertaining to gun ownership you need to begin with an article that is not biased in either direction. Clearly this article is anti gun.

NaNook

NaNook

Floridatexan wrote:
When Sal says we can't have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country, he's entirely right. We need sane gun laws; not this out-of-control partisan crap that allows criminals to go free. But every time it's mentioned, all we hear is, "Oh, no...they're trying to take our guns." It's false equivalency...it's the right wing trying to (falsely) define the left.

Plenty of people own guns, both for hunting and for protection. That's as it should be. But a law that is so ambigious that it actually promotes crime should be repealed.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

NaNook wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
When Sal says we can't have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country, he's entirely right. We need sane gun laws; not this out-of-control partisan crap that allows criminals to go free. But every time it's mentioned, all we hear is, "Oh, no...they're trying to take our guns." It's false equivalency...it's the right wing trying to (falsely) define the left.

Plenty of people own guns, both for hunting and for protection. That's as it should be. But a law that is so ambigious that it actually promotes crime should be repealed.

So we need a run for your life and get shot in the back law ?...Great old people and women need your input !...DUH !

NaNook

NaNook

Gun ownership doesn't promote crime. The CDC says violent crime dropped 4% between 2010-2011. . Go to the CDC website... more legal guns....less crime. It's there in Black and White.

Can I reload now?????

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
When Sal says we can't have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country, he's entirely right. We need sane gun laws; not this out-of-control partisan crap that allows criminals to go free. But every time it's mentioned, all we hear is, "Oh, no...they're trying to take our guns." It's false equivalency...it's the right wing trying to (falsely) define the left.

Plenty of people own guns, both for hunting and for protection. That's as it should be. But a law that is so ambigious that it actually promotes crime should be repealed.

People should have to go through a psychological exam in order to own a gun so people like Ghandi will never be able to own one and endanger society like the Colorado shooter.

no stress

no stress

Yep, thats what we need. Some shrinks interpretation of your sanity in order to own a gun.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
When Sal says we can't have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country, he's entirely right. We need sane gun laws; not this out-of-control partisan crap that allows criminals to go free. But every time it's mentioned, all we hear is, "Oh, no...they're trying to take our guns." It's false equivalency...it's the right wing trying to (falsely) define the left.

Plenty of people own guns, both for hunting and for protection. That's as it should be. But a law that is so ambigious that it actually promotes crime should be repealed.

So what are some of your ideas for sane guns laws, please explain?

Guest


Guest

Of course the Tampa Bay paper is just slightly oriented to the far left of Obama but I digress. Every law has unintended consequences depending on interpretation at the local LEO and CJS level. It is getting to the point where "justice" has absolutely nothing to do with "right". It all depends on the lawyers and the judges. I still feel the law has merit, I knew a woman years ago here who killed a man in her house at 4:30 in the morning right after her husband left for work. Kids in the house too. The guy advanced on her in the hall and she yelled at him to leave while pointing a gun, he kept advancing. She shot him several times IN HER OWN HOME and was arrested for using "excessive force". Of course the jury let her go but only after months of torment and great expense. Stand your ground was meant to address those cases. Not any more so maybe it needs to be tweaked.

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
When Sal says we can't have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country, he's entirely right. We need sane gun laws; not this out-of-control partisan crap that allows criminals to go free. But every time it's mentioned, all we hear is, "Oh, no...they're trying to take our guns." It's false equivalency...it's the right wing trying to (falsely) define the left.

Plenty of people own guns, both for hunting and for protection. That's as it should be. But a law that is so ambigious that it actually promotes crime should be repealed.

People should have to go through a psychological exam in order to own a gun so people like Ghandi will never be able to own one and endanger society like the Colorado shooter.

they do a background check on you, this includes any mental issues.

Guest


Guest

Chrissy8 wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
When Sal says we can't have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country, he's entirely right. We need sane gun laws; not this out-of-control partisan crap that allows criminals to go free. But every time it's mentioned, all we hear is, "Oh, no...they're trying to take our guns." It's false equivalency...it's the right wing trying to (falsely) define the left.

Plenty of people own guns, both for hunting and for protection. That's as it should be. But a law that is so ambigious that it actually promotes crime should be repealed.

People should have to go through a psychological exam in order to own a gun so people like Ghandi will never be able to own one and endanger society like the Colorado shooter.

they do a background check on you, this includes any mental issues.

No,that's totally false.The only thing they check is your criminal record-no mental health stuff.That is protected by HIPPA.

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:
Chrissy8 wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
When Sal says we can't have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country, he's entirely right. We need sane gun laws; not this out-of-control partisan crap that allows criminals to go free. But every time it's mentioned, all we hear is, "Oh, no...they're trying to take our guns." It's false equivalency...it's the right wing trying to (falsely) define the left.

Plenty of people own guns, both for hunting and for protection. That's as it should be. But a law that is so ambigious that it actually promotes crime should be repealed.

People should have to go through a psychological exam in order to own a gun so people like Ghandi will never be able to own one and endanger society like the Colorado shooter.

they do a background check on you, this includes any mental issues.

No,that's totally false.The only thing they check is your criminal record-no mental health stuff.That is protected by HIPPA.

they ask you if youve ever been mentaly diagnosed. also a police record would show things like baker acts etc.

I think what they have now is suffucient, but I know the utopians probaly dont.

VectorMan

VectorMan

It's a good law. Prevents innocent people from going to jail. Some thugs slip through the cracks.

The drug dealers and gang bangers are killing each other as you read this. Just not fast enough.

Guest


Guest

Chrissy8 wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Chrissy8 wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
When Sal says we can't have a rational discussion on gun ownership in this country, he's entirely right. We need sane gun laws; not this out-of-control partisan crap that allows criminals to go free. But every time it's mentioned, all we hear is, "Oh, no...they're trying to take our guns." It's false equivalency...it's the right wing trying to (falsely) define the left.

Plenty of people own guns, both for hunting and for protection. That's as it should be. But a law that is so ambigious that it actually promotes crime should be repealed.

People should have to go through a psychological exam in order to own a gun so people like Ghandi will never be able to own one and endanger society like the Colorado shooter.

they do a background check on you, this includes any mental issues.

No,that's totally false.The only thing they check is your criminal record-no mental health stuff.That is protected by HIPPA.

they ask you if youve ever been mentaly diagnosed. also a police record would show things like baker acts etc.

I think what they have now is suffucient, but I know the utopians probaly dont.

Are they going to check every police dept. in the country? LOL! They only do an NCIC check-that's it.No mental health stuff.

Sal

Sal

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
Sals article examples suck...most of those were criminals

Ahem. That was sorta the premise of the entire article, brain trust. We used to have criminal shoots another criminal with the result being one criminal going to jail and one dead criminal. Now we get one dead criminal and a killer walking the streets. Thanks, NRA!

Guest


Guest

salinsky wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:
Sals article examples suck...most of those were criminals

Ahem. That was sorta the premise of the entire article, brain trust. We used to have criminal shoots another criminal with the result being one criminal going to jail and one dead criminal. Now we get one dead criminal and a killer walking the streets. Thanks, NRA!

(Rant alert!)

The problem, the way I see it anyway, is that there is no common sense in our system.

To the cops, everybody is a dirtbag worthy of having their face shoved in the dirt and kicked once in the head if they make a peep.

To the Prosecuting Attorneys, everybody is guilty. All they have to do is get a guy/gal convicted... to HELL with any evidence to the contrary.

To the Judges, what's the best thing they can do to get reelected or appointed? Monied clients seem to get preferential treatment.

To the criminals with no record, "It's my first offense. I should get probation, no matter what I did."

To the ACLU, prisons should be places where prisoners have TV, good food, and they don't have to work. No wonder guys get sent to prisons... life is better there than on the streets.

Guest


Guest

Chrissy8 wrote:
they ask you if youve ever been mentaly diagnosed. also a police record would show things like baker acts etc.

I think what they have now is suffucient, but I know the utopians probaly dont.

Chrissy asking if you have ever been diagnosed with a mental illness is not the same as a background check for mental issues. Do you actually think that people that are applying to a gun are going to check the yes box under the mental issue box.

Yep a police record would show such things, but if a person is committed by themselves or a loved one then that would be covered by HIPPA. Being a medical professional, you of all people should know this.

Guest


Guest

So lets say we require a mental evaluation before you are allowed to purchase a firearm. An individual takes the evaluation and fails miserably. What is going to stop that individual from driving down to the hood or some other shady part of town and purchasing a firearm illegally?

Problem with a mental evaluation is the results of an evaluation will be determined by people who will have different ideas of what passes and fails. If you get an anti gun nut grading evaluations then everyone will fail and vice versa.

Guest


Guest

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
Chrissy8 wrote:
they ask you if youve ever been mentaly diagnosed. also a police record would show things like baker acts etc.

I think what they have now is suffucient, but I know the utopians probaly dont.

Chrissy asking if you have ever been diagnosed with a mental illness is not the same as a background check for mental issues. Do you actually think that people that are applying to a gun are going to check the yes box under the mental issue box.

Yep a police record would show such things, but if a person is committed by themselves or a loved one then that would be covered by HIPPA. Being a medical professional, you of all people should know this.

being in the healthcare profession gives me no insight into gun laws. Plus, thats a federal thing you fill out, or I think it was when I had to do it, the Gov has access to everything, even your medical records. If you think they dont, youll be sorely disapointed.

plus in a case like this boy that just shot all those people. he was a upstanding citizen. a future neuroscientist. no one would have denied him a gun. I'm sure he could have passed any test they tossed at him.

oh Happy Birthday btw flower

Guest


Guest

Chrissy8 wrote:
oh Happy Birthday btw flower

Thank you.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Stand Your Ground Law Lets Violent Criminals Walk Free

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum