Stand Your Ground Law

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
This is irrelevant.

I disagree with you in terms of Justice; but, in terms of the trial it was irrelevant. The Jury reached the correct verdict as GZ acted in self defense (or one can reasonably presume he did so based on the preponderance of the evidence).

Trayvon's history is relevant to the Black community and the citizens of Seminole County (Sanford Florida) because it adds to Trayvon's likely intent that night concerning the altercation with GZ.

Please don't misunderstand me here as this is not a race issue. There are a lot of white "punks" living around Sanford Florida with a similar or worse background than Trayvon. If these types of individuals engage in a physical altercation with an armed Citizen (legal right to Carry) then I expect the same outcome to occur.

(If Trayvon had been an honor student and devoid of any previous problems I would seriously doubt GZ's version of the events that night)

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty

GZ was not innocent that night in February 2012. He made some poor decisions and knew that any altercation with Trayvon could result in his death. GZ was armed and that emboldened him to confront (in order to detain or question) Trayvon. GZ should have stayed in his vehicle.

I wish that GZ had two pure bred Dobermans with him plus the gun that night because I think the outcome would have been very different.
Trayvon would NOT have engaged GZ in any physical altercation in that scenario.

The Jury did the right thing in Acquiting GZ tonight; but, Mark O'Mara wanted them (if possible) to declare GZ's innocence. That is something the jury would likely not have done.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with you in terms of Justice; but, in terms of the trial it was irrelevant. The Jury reached the correct verdict as GZ acted in self defense (or one can reasonably presume he did so based on the preponderance of the evidence).

Trayvon's history is relevant to the Black community and the citizens of Seminole County (Sanford Florida) because it adds to Trayvon's likely intent that night concerning the altercation with GZ.

Please don't misunderstand me here as this is not a race issue. There are a lot of white "punks" living around Sanford Florida with a similar or worse background than Trayvon. If these types of individuals engage in a physical altercation with an armed Citizen (legal right to Carry) then I expect the same outcome to occur.

(If Trayvon had been an honor student and devoid of any previous problems I would seriously doubt GZ's version of the events that night)

Zimmerman had a past of a domestic violence charge and aggravated assault. His past is questionable too.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
21-texas-gun-ad.jpg

I don't understand what guns have to do with it. I have no problems with guns.
 
Zimmerman had a past of a domestic violence charge and aggravated assault. His past is questionable too.

GZ was wannabe cop. This is why he tried to question or detain Trayvon. GZ may have had anger management issues which is why he disobeyed the 911 Operator's request that he not follow Trayvon.

GZ is not innocent here. But, the preponderance of the evidence suggests he acted in self defense. The Manslaughter charge was the one I thought the prosecution had a 50/50 chance of getting GZ found guilty on.

GZ was fortunate to be found not guilty on that lesser charge as the Judge would not have been lenient on him. I am surprised the Prosecution didn't emphasize the racial profiling of this case. GZ may not be have been a racist but he likely used Racial Profiling to suspect Trayvon as a possible burglar. (young Black male was identified as a burglar in previous break-ins).
 
Pretty disappointed in the FB posts from some of my well educated black friends. Already one saying they'd be happy to see GZ killed. I'd like to chalk it up to ignorance, but one is a state criminal defense lawyer :|
 
Zimmerman had a past of a domestic violence charge and aggravated assault. His past is questionable too.

Let's change this case:

GZ is a 29 year half black/half Hispanic male. 5'7" 204 pounds. He is the neighborhood watch Captain. There have been reported burglaries in his neighborhood by a white male (age 16-25).

Trayvon Martin is a White Male age 17 weighing 155 pounds 5''11". The same series of events unfold from here.

The Ass. DA/DA does a background check of Trayvon and finds out about his likely burglary, drugs and suspension from school.

My bet is that the half black GZ never even gets charged with a crime and the media doesn't report the incident.
 
Pretty disappointed in the FB posts from some of my well educated black friends. Already one saying they'd be happy to see GZ killed. I'd like to chalk it up to ignorance, but one is a state criminal defense lawyer :|

Very Sad. The preponderance of the evidence backs up GZ's self defense claim. Trayvon had a checkered past. The Jury made the right decision.
 
Very Sad. The preponderance of the evidence backs up GZ's self defense claim. Trayvon had a checkered past. The Jury made the right decision.

Why do you keep bringing this up? It is debatable and irrelevant. Of course, I agree the jury made the right decision.
 
Regardless of opinions on whether Zimmerman was guilty or not, I just wish people weren't so ignorant. My social media is blowing up with completely ignorant opinions right now.

I'm especially tired of people saying he wasn't guilty because Trayvon Martin was black. Race should have nothing to do with the verdict.
 
400 posts ago you were telling us this is no longer a racist nation because we elected a black guy, but I still disagree.

At least when we go to major sporting events there aren't sections of the crowd making monkey chants and throwing bananas at players like all those "civilized" European countries. Yet somehow WE'RE the country with the problem with racism.

That said, will we ever not have a racist nation? Is there such a thing as a non-racist nation anywhere?

Racism will end when things like fear and ignorance and poverty and jealousy end: I'm not exactly holding my breath. (Not saying we shouldn't be continually working on such things).

I think Zimmerman is an idiot and put himself into a situation he shouldn't have been in, but without being able to prove that his version of events isn't true, you can't really convict him.
 
At least when we go to major sporting events there aren't sections of the crowd making monkey chants and throwing bananas at players like all those "civilized" European countries. Yet somehow WE'RE the country with the problem with racism.

That said, will we ever not have a racist nation? Is there such a thing as a non-racist nation anywhere?

Racism will end when things like fear and ignorance and poverty and jealousy end: I'm not exactly holding my breath. (Not saying we shouldn't be continually working on such things).

I think Zimmerman is an idiot and put himself into a situation he shouldn't have been in, but without being able to prove that his version of events isn't true, you can't really convict him.

:thumbup:
 
At least when we go to major sporting events there aren't sections of the crowd making monkey chants and throwing bananas at players like all those "civilized" European countries. Yet somehow WE'RE the country with the problem with racism.

That said, will we ever not have a racist nation? Is there such a thing as a non-racist nation anywhere?

Racism will end when things like fear and ignorance and poverty and jealousy end: I'm not exactly holding my breath. (Not saying we shouldn't be continually working on such things).

I think Zimmerman is an idiot and put himself into a situation he shouldn't have been in, but without being able to prove that his version of events isn't true, you can't really convict him.

I agree with all that. I certainly feel that there's less racism in the US, and that racism is a lot less socially acceptable, than in most other countries.


The correct verdict was reached, not guilty. And despite the race-baiting media's handwringing about how people would react, and scattered stupidity on Twitter, there have been no riots, beatings, burning police cars, or looted stores. That too says something positive about our country.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
This case should have never been about race or even worse, politics. Reading this thread I see people's political make-up helping form their opinions on the case. IMHO that is pretty shameful. It was a case where one life was lost and another's freedom was at stake. I wonder why republicans are always easily baited into an anti-minority position, and then we wonder why they call us racist.
 
It took a Florida jury just two hours to acquit a retired US Army lieutenant colonel who invoked a controversial self-defense law to explain his decision to kill his wife's lover.

Jurors decided, after two days of testimony, that Ralph Wald, 70, was justified in killing Walter Conley when Wald arrived home one night to find Conley, 32, having sex with Wald's wife, Johnna Lynn Flores. Wald testified he shot Conley in the head and chest because he thought the younger man was an intruder who was raping the 41-year-old Flores.

Wald's attorneys successfully argued that their client's case fell under the jurisdiction of the Stand-Your-Ground law, a self-defense plea used by defendants who witness a situation where someone appears to be in harm's way and the only option is to intervene with deadly force. Nearly half of the fifty United States have some form of the law.

Wald claimed he did not recognize Conley, one of Flores' former boyfriends, when he found the two having sex on the living room floor at roughly 3:00 am on March 10, 2013. The couple had been married for under five months at the time.


Prosecutors argued that Wald, who suffers from erectile dysfunction, murdered Conley in the midst of a jealous rage.


"It's a personal insult to conduct that kind of activity in a man's home, his castle. It cuts to the quick. It's brazen," Assistant State Attorney Chris Moody said in his closing argument. "That kind of deep and personal insult, when you find another man having sex in your living room and you can't, would make you want to lash out. And he did."


On the witness stand, Flores claimed she was "black-out" drunk and unable to remember much about the night in question. Flores and Wald were married only weeks after Conley was arrested for shooting at Flores, whose home he had been staying at for several weeks in October of 2012.


"I am absolutely elated," Wald told the Tampa Bay Times on the way out of the courtroom. Flores was also ready to celebrate, telling reporters "Because my husband puts me first, he's taking me to Waffle House."

In the courtroom Wald's attorney, Joe Episcopo, said Wald is "the kind of American who has made this country great."


Detectives said that when Wald phoned 911 he said he shot a man who had been "fornicating" with his wife, failing to ever mention the word "rape."


"If the same thing happened again, I would do the same thing," Wald said on the stand. "I didn't think I did anything wrong. I had a problem, I found someone raping my wife. I took care of it. I got a gun and I shot him."

The case has, perhaps inevitably, been sensationalized in the Florida tabloids. The trial has also been called a warm-up for the media firestorm that will descend on Orlando, Florida when the George Zimmerman trial begins later this year.

Zimmerman, a Hispanic neighborhood watch coordinator, is charged with second-degree murder for killing Trayvon Martin, an African-American teen. Zimmerman is expected to plead not guilty by way of Stand-Your-Ground, maintaining the disputed defense that the 17-year-old attacked him and the only way to save his own life was to use deadly force.
 
This case should have never been about race or even worse, politics. Reading this thread I see people's political make-up helping form their opinions on the case. IMHO that is pretty shameful. It was a case where one life was lost and another's freedom was at stake. I wonder why republicans are always easily baited into an anti-minority position, and then we wonder why they call us racist.

The Lawyers know every Juror brings his/her "political make-up" into the jury room. A Smart lawyer uses that to select the juror. No human being is without bias or opinions.

This is why when we select a Supreme Court justice the political ramifications are so high. That Justice may use their position to push for their agenda regardless of the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Justice may be blind but it isn't deaf or stupid.
 
I agree with you. White people are either scared of blacks or just don't like them way too often. I've seen it first hand here in the South. While I don't agree wth it people can and do judge based on race.

But, your shirt tucked in, regular dental work and a nice hair cut certainly helps a lot of borderline white people feel more comfortable (again this refers to strangers who don't know you).

But, the vast majority of Southerners value all human life and wouldn't take a person's life easily. GZ looks Hispanic/Mexican and would not be viewed as a white guy by most People.
GZ likely experienced some discrimination in his life as well although not likely to the degree of a Black American.

Being Back in America has a lot of negatives but society has progressed significantly in terms of racial justice and equality. There is more work to be done but the progress since MLK has been astonishing.

We need a color blind society but right now all we have is a color blind Judicial system where everyone is equal under the law.

That is why the jury must acquit GZ.

A COLOR BLIND JUDICIAL SYSTEM would really be one where the jury has no idea who the plaintiffs/defendants are and what they looked like. Wouldn't you agree? Kinda like a randomized double blind study?

No matter what we think, there's always an inherent bias brought on by knowing a little about the cases on trial via the media/online/other people/seeing the plaintiff/defendant in person etc for any juror. Black/white/female/male etc.

I don't buy that no person has not prejudicial tendencies whatsoever. That's BULL****. We all do to some extent and that influences our daily lives. Some are just more extreme than others. In our comfortable circles/privacy of our own homes we say inappropriate things about other races. We all do it. We may not use racial slurs such as the N word but we may say something referring to the other race in a negative way when upset, annoyed, etc by someone of that other race. Anyone who denies this is a liar.

I had a Mexican friend of lighter hue and no accent whatsoever. He looked Caucasian. He was a nurse, educated funny, personable etc. Lots of friends. Many times when he met people, they initially they had no idea he was Mexican. He heard a lot of racial insults, slurs against Mexican people from Caucasians he was hanging with. Sometimes he would tell them he was Mexican, sometimes he would walk away. The looks on their faces and the way they would try to backtrack though was priceless according to him.

I disagree with you that had the roles been reversed TM would have been immediately arrested. And that is why it wouldn't have made headline news. That's the reality of being a minority in America. And whether GZ looks Hispanic or not, with a name like Zimmerman and not Lopez, he does have an advantage. Don't you know white males that look like Zimmerman?

However on this story, reasonable doubt was created and I knew that he wouldn't get convicted for murder. Surprised though that he didn't get the manslaughter charge because wasn't he reckless when he continued following TM, fully armed, even though he was told not to by the police? The fact that the police found TM face down and were the first to try and render aide. And why didn't HE call the police after shooting him? Rubs me the wrong way.
 
Last edited:
A COLOR BLIND JUDICIAL SYSTEM would really be one where the jury has no idea who the plaintiffs/defendants are and what they looked like. Wouldn't you agree? Kinda like a randomized double blind study?

No matter what we think, there's always an inherent bias brought on by knowing a little about the cases on trial via the media/online/other people/seeing the plaintiff/defendant in person etc for any juror. Black/white/female/male etc.

I don't buy that no person has not prejudicial tendencies whatsoever. That's BULL****. We all do to some extent and that influences our daily lives. Some are just more extreme than others. In our comfortable circles/privacy of our own homes we say inappropriate things about other races. We all do it. We may not use racial slurs such as the N word but we may say something referring to the other race in a negative way when upset, annoyed, etc by someone of that other race. Anyone who denies this is a liar.

I had a Mexican friend of lighter hue and no accent whatsoever. He looked Caucasian. He was a nurse, educated funny, personable etc. Lots of friends. Many times when he met people, they initially they had no idea he was Mexican. He heard a lot of racial insults, slurs against Mexican people from Caucasians he was hanging with. Sometimes he would tell them he was Mexican, sometimes he would walk away. The looks on their faces and the way they would try to backtrack though was priceless according to him.

I disagree with you that had the roles been reversed TM would have been immediately arrested. And that is why it wouldn't have made headline news. That's the reality of being a minority in America. And whether GZ looks Hispanic or not, with a name like Zimmerman and not Lopez, he does have an advantage. Don't you know white males that look like Zimmerman?

However on this story, reasonable doubt was created and I knew that he wouldn't get convicted for murder. Surprised though that he didn't get the manslaughter charge because wasn't he negligent when he continued following TM, fully armed, even though he was told not to by the police?


I agree with you on most of your post. I work in an operating room with lots of minorities including Blacks, Mexicans, South Americans, Jews, Muslims, etc. The place spans the spectrum of races, cultures and religions. I've heard comments about every race, religion, etc from everyone. The good part is that we all know everyone talks some trash about everyone else. This is the reality of the world. If anything we all see that no one is above these biases and we can all get along just fine without any malice. In fact, we work well together.

GZ didn't intend to kill anyone that night Black or White. He was trying to be a good watchman by questioning Trayvon. He never intended to get into a fight with TM or shoot him. But, regardless of race, religion or nationality if someone is bashing your head into the concrete self defense becomes a priority.
 
The Lawyers know every Juror brings his/her "political make-up" into the jury room. A Smart lawyer uses that to select the juror. No human being is without bias or opinions.

This is why when we select a Supreme Court justice the political ramifications are so high. That Justice may use their position to push for their agenda regardless of the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Justice may be blind but it isn't deaf or stupid.

Yes but as a political strategy the conservative movement needs to recognise the baits set by the other side. The Liberal strategy is to solidify their hold on minority votes by baiting conservatives into an antagonist position on even the most unrelated issues. With hispanics they use immigration, with blacks social justice, and for women some mythical "war on women". As a consequence, all these groups are on the brink of choosing a permanent side and guaranteeing the democrats a near permanent seat at the white-house.

By the way, if they continue to solidify their hold on those groups, they could potentially be on a 16 year straight run in the white house and a sweep of the supreme court.How is that smart strategy for the GOP? This is why I was so disappointed when I saw the high-five environment on foxnews yesterday after the verdict, and Shawn Hannity reporting on how this was the 'right' decision. Where the hell did this become a political issue that needed a conservative commentator's opinion? But we keep falling for it.
 
Last edited:
GZ didn't intend to kill anyone that night Black or White. He was trying to be a good watchman by questioning Trayvon. He never intended to get into a fight with TM or shoot him. But, regardless of race, religion or nationality if someone is bashing your head into the concrete self defense becomes a priority.

That's not being a good watchman, most of these organizations are told to observe and report. Do not approach. Do not follow. Do not attempt to detain. See something, call it in, end of duty. The overwhelming vast majority of these organizations work closely with, and are welcomed by the overwhelming majority of local police services.

While I agree with the verdict based on the current reading of the law, I do take issue with the law in and of itself. I vehemently disagree with being able to claim self defense if you put yourself in the situation to begin with. Zimmerman should have never exited the vehicle. As the favorite saying goes, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
 
That's not being a good watchman, most of these organizations are told to observe and report. Do not approach. Do not follow. Do not attempt to detain. See something, call it in, end of duty. The overwhelming vast majority of these organizations work closely with, and are welcomed by the overwhelming majority of local police services.

While I agree with the verdict based on the current reading of the law, I do take issue with the law in and of itself. I vehemently disagree with being able to claim self defense if you put yourself in the situation to begin with. Zimmerman should have never exited the vehicle. As the favorite saying goes, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I like the Laws in Florida and would not want to prove self-defense as I would have to do in Ohio.

Florida Stand Your Ground law will stand as is.

GZ didn't break any laws that night on February 2012. Being stupid isn't a crime.
 
Yes but as a political strategy the conservative movement needs to recognise the baits set by the other side. The Liberal strategy is to solidify their hold on minority votes by baiting conservatives into an antagonist position on even the most unrelated issues. With hispanics they use immigration, with blacks social justice, and for women some mythical "war on women". As a consequence, all these groups are on the brink of choosing a permanent side and guaranteeing the democrats a near permanent seat at the white-house.

By the way, if they continue to solidify their hold on those groups, they could potentially be on a 16 year straight run in the white house and a sweep of the supreme court.How is that smart strategy for the GOP? This is why I was so disappointed when I saw the high-five environment on foxnews yesterday after the verdict, and Shawn Hannity reporting on how this was the 'right' decision. Where the hell did this become a political issue that needed a conservative commentator's opinion? But we keep falling for it.

You are probably right here. Recently, I saw a Bumper Sticker here in Florida on a $75,000 BMW which read: 'Save Medicare- Vote Democrat'

I believe the GOP has real issues winning national elections going forward as this nation has shifted left.
 
I like the Laws in Florida and would not want to prove self-defense as I would have to do in Ohio.

Florida Stand Your Ground law will stand as is.

GZ didn't break any laws that night on February 2012. Being stupid isn't a crime.

But it shouldn't be a viable defense either.

And just to clarify, I realize Zimmerman didn't break the law. I said the verdict was appropriate. My concern is with the law itself (or the broad interpretation of it anyways).
 
But it shouldn't be a viable defense either.

And just to clarify, I realize Zimmerman didn't break the law. I said the verdict was appropriate. My concern is with the law itself (or the broad interpretation of it anyways).

The majority of registered voters in Florida like the laws as written. We the people plan on keeping them that way.
 
I agree with all that. I certainly feel that there's less racism in the US, and that racism is a lot less socially acceptable, than in most other countries.


The correct verdict was reached, not guilty. And despite the race-baiting media's handwringing about how people would react, and scattered stupidity on Twitter, there have been no riots, beatings, burning police cars, or looted stores. That too says something positive about our country.

Actually, some folks in Oakland, CA vandalized a police car in protest. But in that town, I guess that would make it a normal day.
 
Actually, some folks in Oakland, CA vandalized a police car in protest. But in that town, I guess that would make it a normal day.

Lol, that's considered a peaceful rally in Oakland. No one was shot or stabbed, that's actually more peaceful than usual.
 
This case has determined future behavior. In potential altercations, in which one is approached by an unknown person who may be hostile, your options are:

1.) Have gun at the ready to shoot and kill before the other person is able to shoot*

2.) Overcome them with lethal physical force FAST before the other person is able to shoot*

*Assume everyone has a gun

Martins only chance against Zimmerman was to shoot him or double leg grab/lift in order to bounce his head off the concrete hard enough to kill him AS SOON as he was walking up on him in a way he perceived as hostile. Anything short of that and he would still be dead.

The sad truth is to only fight for what you're willing to kill for; and, if you're attacked (or feel threatened) kill the other person as fast as you can.
 
This case has determined future behavior. In potential altercations, in which one is approached by an unknown person who may be hostile, your options are:

1.) Have gun at the ready to shoot and kill before the other person is able to shoot*

2.) Overcome them with lethal physical force FAST before the other person is able to shoot*

*Assume everyone has a gun

Martins only chance against Zimmerman was to shoot him or double leg grab/lift in order to bounce his head off the concrete hard enough to kill him AS SOON as he was walking up on him in a way he perceived as hostile. Anything short of that and he would still be dead.

The sad truth is to only fight for what you're willing to kill for; and, if you're attacked (or feel threatened) kill the other person as fast as you can.

Martin had over 4 minutes to walk back to his house, which was within viewing distance. He doubled back and jumped Zimmerman, evidence supports this.
 
This case has determined future behavior. In potential altercations, in which one is approached by an unknown person who may be hostile, your options are:

1.) Have gun at the ready to shoot and kill before the other person is able to shoot*

2.) Overcome them with lethal physical force FAST before the other person is able to shoot*

*Assume everyone has a gun

Martins only chance against Zimmerman was to shoot him or double leg grab/lift in order to bounce his head off the concrete hard enough to kill him AS SOON as he was walking up on him in a way he perceived as hostile. Anything short of that and he would still be dead.

The sad truth is to only fight for what you're willing to kill for; and, if you're attacked (or feel threatened) kill the other person as fast as you can.

In States with significant amounts of Concealed Carry Permits any altercation with Physical violence may result in a shooting. If you try to "beat my ass" then get ready for a .38 hollow point round in your chest.
 
Florida Update: Concealed Carry Permits Up, Violent Crime Down
Written by Bob Adelmann



Florida Update: Concealed Carry Permits Up, Violent Crime Down



The recent report from ABC News that in Florida, where there are more concealed weapons permits than anywhere else in the country, violent crime has dropped to the lowest point in history, delighted Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry, Inc. “We’re happy to have facts and statistics put into these debates, because every time they do, we win,” he said.

Firearm-related violent crimes in Florida have dropped by one-third in just four years, 2007 to 2011, while concealed carry permits jumped by 90 percent in that period. Further, violent crime of any kind dropped almost as much, 26 percent.

There were naysayers, but their voices are becoming muted as more and more states have adopted “shall-issue” carry laws and have seen their own crime rates drop as well. One of the naysayers was Gary Kleck, a Florida State criminologist who calls himself “as liberal as they get.” He said the link between more permits and less crime might just be a coincidence. He said that nationally, crime has been falling steadily since 1991 and Florida’s numbers might just be part of that trend. He warned against drawing too hasty a conclusion that one statistic caused the other. "The real problem there in drawing conclusions is that you’re guessing why that decline or change in gun violence has occurred," he stated.

In a backhanded support of Kleck’s warning, Arthur Hayhoe, the executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said “It’s difficult to attach gun control to the reduction of crime, and vice versa. We don’t know what works. We can’t prove that gun control works because we don’t have gun control laws.”

Kleck has authored numerous books and articles over the last 20 years, but none garnered as much national attention as his 1994 National Self-Defense Survey which, based on a survey of 5,000 households, concluded that there were far more incidents where gun owners defended themselves against potentially violent crime than there were actual crimes involving the use of guns. This outraged liberals who thought Kleck would find something that would support their typically anti-gun posture. One such was Marvin Wolfgang, another liberal Florida criminologist who described himself as being “as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among all criminologists in this country.” He said,

I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns — ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck … The reason I am troubled is that [he has] provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator … I do not like [his] conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault [his] methodology….

Such a report from Florida must encourage Professor John Lott, who in 2000 authored the groundbreaking book More Guns, Less Crime. Lott never intended to become the lightning rod for the anti-gun forces. He began the study initially because he saw that much of what passed for valid statistical analysis in the field was poorly done, and he saw an opportunity to correct and update it. What it did was change his life, and not necessarily for the better. In his recent update to the book, Lott wrote,

Ten years have passed since the second edition of this book. During that time, both the argument and the data have been hotly debated. This debate has often been unpleasant, vociferous, and even disingenuous. To say that my career has suffered as a result is something of an understatement.… And yet … within the scholarly community [my] research has withstood criticism and remains sound. Further, the additional ten years of data provide continued strong support for [my] arguments.…

When Florida passed the first “shall-issue” law requiring authorities to issue concealed weapons permits to qualified citizens upon request in 1987, critics warned that the Sunshine State would soon become the “Gunshine” State, with predictions of differences being settled by gun fights in the streets, and crime soaring. The exact opposite happened. As Guncite.com noted, “homicide rates dropped faster than the national average [and] through 1997, only one permit holder out of over the 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide.”

That was then. This is now. Lott provided an update on right-to-carry laws for the Maryland Law Review last October in which he noted that there are now more than 912,000 permit holders in Florida, many of whom have had their permits for years. Across the country, as some 40 other states have joined Florida in its decision to allow “shall-issue” permits to its citizens, the number of permit holders has reached nearly eight million, and is still climbing. And Lott is getting support for his once-controversial view by recent studies showing similar declines in violent crime. Wrote Lott:

There have been a total of 29 peer reviewed studies by economists and criminologists, 18 supporting the hypothesis that shall-issue laws reduce crime, 10 not finding any significant effect on crime … and [one] paper … finding that right-to-carry laws temporarily increase one type of violent crime: aggravated assault.

He noted that the predicted disasters following passage of such laws never happened. In fact, despite more and more states adopting them, not a single one of those laws has been repealed. As Lott noted,

One simple measure of how well these laws have worked is a political one: despite states adopting right-to-carry laws as long ago as the 1920s, there has never even been a legislative hearing held to rescind these laws.

In that paper, Lott took delight in debunking so-called studies by anti-gun groups that have distorted the data to prove a different, and less favorable, conclusion:

A June 2010 analysis of the gun control groups’ claims examined those groups’ claims for Florida: the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center portray Florida as Ground Zero for problems with concealed handgun permit holders.

They boldly assert that seventeen Florida permit holders have “killed” people with their guns over the past three years [from May 2007 to May 2010] and that this one state by itself accounts for seventeen of the ninety-six “killer” permit holders nationwide.

Yet even though a newspaper reported on the shooting, seven cases were such clear-cut cases of self-defense that no one was even charged with a crime, three cases involved suicide, and two of the other cases, including one involving a police officer, actually didn't involve permit holders. [Emphases added.]

That means that, following Lott’s rigorous refutation of those inflated statistics, just five out of more than half a million permit holders were involved in a criminal case in that three-year period.

That latest information from Florida just confirms what Lott had discovered years ago: Carrying reduces crime. Wrote Lott: "Armageddon never happened … in state after state when right-to-carry laws have been adopted, the entire debate quickly becomes a non-issue within a year."

The time is almost here when carrying a concealed firearm is so commonplace that it won’t even be worth commenting on. Florida and Professor John Lott have led the way.
 
I think the real question here is whether or not we as a nation are going to stand up to the media for their total lack of ethics in reporting biased garbage that seems DESIGNED to induce panic at every turn.
 
I think the real question here is whether or not we as a nation are going to stand up to the media for their total lack of ethics in reporting biased garbage that seems DESIGNED to induce panic at every turn.


Firearm-related violent crimes in Florida have dropped by one-third in just four years, 2007 to 2011, while concealed carry permits jumped by 90 percent in that period. Further, violent crime of any kind dropped almost as much, 26 percent.
 
I think the real question here is whether or not we as a nation are going to stand up to the media for their total lack of ethics in reporting biased garbage that seems DESIGNED to induce panic at every turn.

Until the media is willing to report the real Trayvon and the facts of that night the racial tension will remain high.

We do know what the preponderance of the evidence suggests happened the night Trayvon Martin was killed for trying to bash a Hispanic male's head into the concrete.

The background of Trayvon and why he was even in Sanford that night is totally relevant for the national discussion.


Teenagers make bad choices as well all know and Trayvon made a life altering one that night.
 
Martins only chance against Zimmerman was to shoot him or double leg grab/lift in order to bounce his head off the concrete hard enough to kill him AS SOON as he was walking up on him in a way he perceived as hostile. Anything short of that and he would still be dead.

Come on, don't be ridiculous.

All Martin had to do was say "Hey, what do you want? [...] Dude, I live here, leave me alone" ... and none of this would have happened.
 
Come on, don't be ridiculous.

All Martin had to do was say "Hey, what do you want? [...] Dude, I live here, leave me alone" ... and none of this would have happened.

GZ; Stays in his vehicle, Doesn't follow Trayvon

TM: Uses the 4 minutes to go home, Answers GZ's questions about who he is and where
he lives


If any of these 4 things happen (just one) then there is no tragedy that night
 
GZ; Stays in his vehicle, Doesn't follow Trayvon

TM: Uses the 4 minutes to go home, Answers GZ's questions about who he is and where
he lives


If any of these 4 things happen (just one) then there is no tragedy that night

Two dumb people met in the dark. There are 1,000 ways a butterfly could've flapped his wings leading up to this, altered the encounter, and changed the outcome.

But to say that Martin's only chance was to pre-emptively kill the stranger following him is, well, ridiculous.
 
Two dumb people met in the dark. There are 1,000 ways a butterfly could've flapped his wings leading up to this, altered the encounter, and changed the outcome.

But to say that Martin's only chance was to pre-emptively kill the stranger following him is, well, ridiculous.

I doubt that the take away message here to Blacks is shoot the cracker first then ask questions later. Clearly, avoiding any physical altercation is the take home message as well as de-escalate the situation (both parties) whenever possible.

Engaging a stranger with your fists and intent to harm may be legally countered with deadly force.
 
I think the real question here is whether or not we as a nation are going to stand up to the media for their total lack of ethics in reporting biased garbage that seems DESIGNED to induce panic at every turn.

Are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?
 
Until the media is willing to report the real Trayvon and the facts of that night the racial tension will remain high.

We do know what the preponderance of the evidence suggests happened the night Trayvon Martin was killed for trying to bash a Hispanic male's head into the concrete.

The background of Trayvon and why he was even in Sanford that night is totally relevant for the national discussion.


Teenagers make bad choices as well all know and Trayvon made a life altering one that night.

I'm not just stopping at this case, media as a whole is absolutely out of control. At what point can they be held criminally liable for their blatant disregard for factual dissemination of news?


Are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

That actually sends shivers down my spine. It's eerie how your statement resonates and just how much truth there is to it.
 
Zimmerman is not a murderer or even a bad guy IMO. My impression of Zimmerman is the traditional fake tough guy carrying a gun to compensate for lack of other abilities. If not, explain to me how a grown ass man can get his ass handed to him by a 17 year old to where his only choice was to shoot the kid.

Even GZ's mama testified that the voice crying for help on the audio tape was her son getting his ass kicked by a 17 year old kid. I am sure it was a little embarrassing for her to go "yep! that's my George screaming for help". He might be free but he just officially dropped out of the man club.
 
Last edited:
explain to me how a grown ass man can get his ass handed to him by a 17 year old to where his only choice was to shoot the kid.

Even GZ's mama testified that the voice crying for help on the audio tape was her son getting his ass kicked by a 17 year old kid. I am sure it was a little embarrassing for her to go "yep! that's my George screaming for help". He might be free but he just officially dropped out of the man club.

It is exactly this kind of machismo and 'man club' posturing that leads to fights in the first place.
 
Firearm-related violent crimes in Florida have dropped by one-third in just four years, 2007 to 2011, while concealed carry permits jumped by 90 percent in that period. Further, violent crime of any kind dropped almost as much, 26 percent.

JAMA March 6, 2013
"A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicide and homicides individually... Further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association".

I think we owe the Obama administration big kudos for lifting the INCREDIBLY HEINOUS, CYNICAL, NRA DRIVEN ban on CDC research into gun violence. More than 30,000 gun deaths a year and our politicians don't have the balls to stand up to the NRA to look into how to reduce unnecessary death. This is g*****n embarrassing.
 
Top