End Stand Your Ground

Bet that got your attention. I ran into this while visiting CNN. This sums up the anti pretty well.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...ound-laws-are-invitation-to-kill/?hpt=hp_bn13

I'm no Bible scholar, but I always understood "turn the other cheek" to mean doing so once, and not at the detriment of your life. I also have always understood that to voluntarily relinquish your life, when not advancing the Christian religion by martyrdom, was some sort of mortal sin. And that "rendering unto Caesar" did not go beyond precisely what was due into some sort of langinape.

Way back in the Olden Days us commoners were not permitted to stand our ground against our "betters" - those lords and knights and Saumari and such. But after 1776 there, at least theoretically, have been no "betters" in the USA. And Florida, last time I looked, was in the USA. There should never have been a concept of a duty to retreat, but since there will always be some weenies that want proof beyond all doubt (not just reasonable doubt) that deadly force was not employed only as the last resort, we got that "duty to retreat" stuff.

So far nobody has offered evidence that Zimmerman was not allegedly being allegedly beaten by Martin. At best there is a lot of noise about whether or not physical evidence of injuries to Zimmerman were discernable when viewing some videotapes taken over 30 minutes after the incident. (Did Zimmerman receive any medical care at the scene? Yes!) But presuming that the scenario offered by Zimmerman has some basis in fact, there is reason to allow a presumption that he could not retreat and that he had a reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm.

While I know it will never happen, I wish everybody would shut their traps and stop opining about an incident they have little, if any, factual information about. There is a Special Prosecutor assigned. The investigation is under way. Some sort of picture based on the evidence discovered should emerge within a reasonable amount of time. At that time the Special Prosecutor will either charge, present to a Grand Jury, or announce that there is insufficient evidence to charge.

What bothers me even more is that several individuals and groups are not only encouraging vigilante behavior but making public statements full of false information about where Zimmerman and/or his relatives reside. I just wonder if, should someone take action based on those exhortations and false information, if charges of contributory manslaughter be brought? I will not hold my breath.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

So far nobody has offered evidence that Zimmerman was not allegedly being allegedly beaten by Martin. At best there is a lot of noise about whether or not physical evidence of injuries to Zimmerman were discernable when viewing some videotapes taken over 30 minutes after the incident. (Did Zimmerman receive any medical care at the scene? Yes!) But presuming that the scenario offered by Zimmerman has some basis in fact, there is reason to allow a presumption that he could not retreat and that he had a reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm.

While I know it will never happen, I wish everybody would shut their traps and stop opining about an incident they have little, if any, factual information about. There is a Special Prosecutor assigned. The investigation is under way. Some sort of picture based on the evidence discovered should emerge within a reasonable amount of time. At that time the Special Prosecutor will either charge, present to a Grand Jury, or announce that there is insufficient evidence to charge.

What bothers me even more is that several individuals and groups are not only encouraging vigilante behavior but making public statements full of false information about where Zimmerman and/or his relatives reside. I just wonder if, should someone take action based on those exhortations and false information, if charges of contributory manslaughter be brought? I will not hold my breath.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I have decided not to decide on Zimmerman, I wasn't there, I don't know what happened and most definitely do not trust the press on this.

I do feel that the far left is using for nothing but furthering there agenda and I find it very disturbing and that is why I posted it.

stand your ground

I'm not as familiar with 'turn the other cheek' as I am with Luke 22-36:

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Contrarian said:

I'm not as familiar with 'turn the other cheek' as I am with Luke 22-36:

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Click to expand...

Yep. I believe the "Turn he other cheek" applies to being persucuted for your faith as in some cultures Christians are still tortured and killed for being such. Then ya turn the other cheek (JMO).

Contrarian said:

I'm not as familiar with 'turn the other cheek' as I am with Luke 22-36:

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Click to expand...

Don't forget, have a BUG: Luke 22:38 "The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied."

William Fisher said:

Yep. I believe the "Turn he other cheek" applies to being persucuted for your faith as in some cultures Christians are still tortured and killed for being such. Then ya turn the other cheek (JMO).

Click to expand...

Yep, that is the context of where "turn the other cheek" came from.

I've seen religion used to justify a LOT of things, from gun control to slavery to child molestation to genocide.

It's always fun when some simpleton tries to con me into opposing self-defense on some religious basis. I'm an agnostic...

Deanimator said:

It's always fun when some simpleton tries to con me into opposing self-defense on some religious basis. I'm an agnostic...

Click to expand...

How about when some non-simpleton, a genius polymath perhaps - in any case the opposite of a simpleton, tries to con you into proposing self-defense on some religious basis? Is agnosticism then a good foundation?

skidmark said:

<snip> While I know it will never happen, I wish everybody would shut their traps and stop opining about an incident they have little, if any, factual information about. <snip>

Click to expand...

Interesting....running your trap to encourage others to shut their trap.

Deanimator said:

I've seen religion used to justify a LOT of things, from gun control to slavery to child molestation to genocide.

It's always fun when some simpleton tries to con me into opposing self-defense on some religious basis. I'm an agnostic...

Click to expand...

Most Christians would be well advised not to try and debate religious principal with me. I generally have knowledge than the average bible thumper as well as a better understanding of the bible.

I try not get into such debates, I feel it is really not my place to tell others how to live. But I expect the same courtesy.


Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

hermannr said:

Yep, that is the context of where "turn the other cheek" came from.

Click to expand...

My understanding of the "turn the other cheek" came from a visiting speaker at a church I attended many many years ago (long before I converted to Druidism). He held a doctorate in theology and an advance degree in history focused on the Roman empire. He contended that the laws of the Roman Empire allowed for a backhand slap of a Roman citizen/subject but an open handed palm slap was restricted to slaves only. He believed that "turn the other cheek" meant that you should use the laws to your advantage rather than retaliate, of course I doubt that applies to life/death situations.

...[snip]One can only be shocked at this law’s idiocy. It is, simply, an invitation to kill.

Under the “stand your ground” law, any liar who kills someone and can concoct a reasonably plausible story cannot be arrested by the police or even taken in for questioning. Lest one think the Martin case is exceptional, justifiable homicide/self-defense claims have tripled since the law’s adoption, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

The law also places police officers in a difficult situation; the killer’s story often cannot be contradicted because the person in the best position to challenge it is in no position to do so. That individual is dead – silent and cold.

That many people, including the legislators who authored the Florida legislation, have said the facts, as they emerged later, suggest that Zimmerman may not have acted in self-defense changes nothing.

The problem with the law is that, absent the outcry that followed, the facts would not have emerged. Unable to arrest and question the killer and to pursue the case, police find themselves in a situation where they are prevented from gathering the facts.
...[snip]

Click to expand...

The author of this piece makes many assumptions:

1 - it's not an invitiation to kill; you can't just claim 'stand your ground' to be immune from investigation.

2 - the author immediately implies if you use 'stand your ground' you're a liar. (and this guy is an ethics dude)

3 - policeman are placed into a difficult position because the individual is dead - silent and cold? Holy Cow, I guess he is implying the police are incompetent to gather physical evidence.

4 - the facts haven't emerged? I think there is many facts coming out that paint a different story about Trayvon and Zimmerman...i.e. NBC has reviewed and stated there is physical injuries to Zimmerman.

5 - unable to arrest? Unable to question? Unable to gather evidence? HOLY COW.....does this guy have any credibility? IIRC, Zimmerman was held for 5 hours; his story was validated by the physical evidence and witnesses.

I guess he tried to paint the same picture as MSNBC/CNN in convicting Zimmerman before he has a trial.

I guess facts mean nothing to this guy.

The point of these whinings isn't to actually solve a problem. The point is, at least to the demonic leaders orchestrating them, to give criminals the upper hand again. The mobs of idiots they have who repeat their chants are just that, idiots who may mean well but never think things through.

EDIT: And to be clear, the reason the leaders want criminals to be re-empowered is so that the masses can clamor for the government to "do something!" and we can return to the pre-carry helpless citizenry Nirvana of the 1970's/1980's again.

Another verse from the Bible..

Exodus 22-2, which includes ".. if a thief is found breaking into or undermining a home and is struck in that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him (he who slew him shall not be guilty of murder.)" However, some commentaries by "experts" have the ancient translation applying only in nighttime burglaries, as the light of day would "afford the opportunity for the thief to be identified and apprehended, and made to pay restitution."

One such commentary (Keil and Delitzsch)

Into the midst of the laws relating to theft, we have one introduced here, prescribing what was to be done with the thief. "If the thief be found breaking in (i.e., by night according to Exodus 22:3), and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood to him (the person smiting him); if the sun has risen upon him (the thief breaking in), there is blood to him:" i.e., in the latter case the person killing him drew upon himself blood-guiltiness (דּמים lit., drops of blood, blood shed), in the former case he did not. "The reason for this disparity between a thief by night and one in the day is, that the power and intention of a nightly thief are uncertain, and whether he may not have come for the purpose of committing murder; and that by night, if thieves are resisted, they often proceed to murder in their rage; and also that they can neither be recognised, nor resisted and apprehended with safety" (Calovius). In the latter case the slayer contracted blood-guiltiness, because even the life of a thief was to be spared, as he could be punished for his crime, and what was stolen be restored according to the regulations laid down in Exodus 22:1 and Exodus 22:4. But if he had not sufficient to make retribution, he was to be sold "for his stolen," i.e., for the value of what he had stolen, that he might earn by his labour the compensation to be paid.

Click to expand...