The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 17, 2013, 02:44 AM   #1
Dixie Gunsmithing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 847
Eric Holder denounces ‘stand your ground’ laws.

In the Washington Post, "Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. strongly condemned “stand your ground” laws Tuesday".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...c=al_comboPN_p
Dixie Gunsmithing is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 02:55 AM   #2
JimmyR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 1,012
In an attempt to prevent getting this closed as a drive by...


The article relates Holder's speech to the NAACP, one of the groups pressing Holder to persue Federal Civil Rights charges against Zimmerman. That will be an interesting case, if the DOJ decides to go there.

The article is at least honest in that Zimmerman did not invoke the Stand Your Ground statute as his defense, but they try to work it in through jury instructions.

A few questions though:

Will DOJ look at the decision and decide not to follow through with Civil Rights charges?
JimmyR is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 03:33 AM   #3
Dixie Gunsmithing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 847
I hope to try to not let the case in question stop the part about what Holder said, and we can leave the case, and defendant out of it, as they don't want it posted on here, so I carefully worded it. Please, only reply about Holder, himself.
Dixie Gunsmithing is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 05:55 AM   #4
Dixie Gunsmithing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 847
Here is an update from the Washington Times, that I thought was pertinent:

"Most states have some form of a “stand your ground” reasoning in common and case law if not explicitly in a state statute, said Hans A. von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

“This is not something new. The Supreme Court first laid out the doctrine that you're entitled to defend yourself and stand your ground in a case back in 1895 called Beard v. United States, and this was emphasized again back in 1921 by the very famous Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,” said Mr. Spakovsky. “I don't see that states are going to retreat from that, to use a pun, any more than when the president tried to push through new gun control laws.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...examine-state/
Dixie Gunsmithing is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 07:38 AM   #5
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
This is just a case of Holder having absolutly no understanding of what actually happened in the case he is crying over. In the end it had nothing to do with stand your ground.

Something that blows away holders argument is this article I stumbled on today and posted over in the Tampa Bay Times thread.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/bl...rtionate-rate/


Holders claims that somehow stand your ground is racist or unfair to minorities is proven wrong in that African Americans make use of and are exonerated by stand your ground in Florida more often than whites as a percentage of population.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 08:07 AM   #6
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 1,977
This is just another case of ignorance swaying the Obama administration. Why Holder cannot feel somewhat limited by states rights is beyond me, but this is likely top down like many of his mistakes. It is like they don't understand the constitution and choose not to read it...
Nathan is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 08:20 AM   #7
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,109
The vast majority of states with "stand your ground" laws will not change those laws to placate Holder or any other anti-self defense advocate.
thallub is online now  
Old July 17, 2013, 08:24 AM   #8
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,937
Moved to Law & Civil Rights.

And a reminder: no matter the genesis of Mr. Holder's remarks, we are not rehashing the Zimmerman trial in this or any other thread. I've deleted a couple of posts -- further posts along those lines will have negative consequences.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 08:27 AM   #9
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
What's frightening is that this might not be simple grandstanding.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 08:33 AM   #10
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,220
I don't think Holder is talking about changing "State" laws. I think he is talking about using his power and the Federal Government to investigate, prosecute and intimidate those that would be forced to defend with deadly force.
steve4102 is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 08:38 AM   #11
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
I don't think Holder is talking about changing "State" laws.
There are many ways to skin a cat. A simple way, in this case, is to tie federal funding of one sort or another (for example, Medicaid funding) to whether a state has a stand your ground law in place. This would be, naturally, defended/justified upon the doctrine of "public safety."


Quote:
I think he is talking about using his power and the Federal Government to investigate, prosecute and intimidate those that would be forced to defend with deadly force.
I certainly agree with this piece of your post. Even if the feebs have no case to speak of, they can bankrupt virtually any citizen of this country merely by filing an indictment.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 11:28 AM   #12
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,396
Quote:
In the Washington Post, "Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. strongly condemned “stand your ground” laws Tuesday".
It's a political goldmine, and an "I told you so" moment, for gun-control advocates. The Brady Campaign wasted no time jumping on board.

They're still bitter over their post Sandy Hook loss. After all, they thought that one would be a slam-dunk. They learned that there aren't the votes there on the federal level, so they focused their efforts on a state-by-state war of attrition.

They've been successful in New York, Maryland, Connecticut, and Colorado. An attack on "shoot at will" and "make my day" laws may be effective in many areas, especially now that the law itself is being portrayed in racist overtones. Add in Mayor Bloomberg's money, and I can see this happening.

The various SYG laws passed in most places between 2005 and 2008. If you have an elected official who supported them in your state, now would be a better time than later to get in touch with him.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 11:34 AM   #13
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102
I don't think Holder is talking about changing "State" laws. I think he is talking about ABusing his power and the Federal Government to investigate, prosecute and intimidate those that would be forced to defend with deadly force.
Fixed it for you

Quote:
Originally Posted by csmsss
What's frightening is that this might not be simple grandstanding.
Agreed. Recent administrations seem to bring their own Antichrists. First Cheney, now Holder.

In any event, given the famous Holmes quote, and the fact that "longstanding" is an attribute so beloved of the Supreme Court, what might be the odds that a law declaring SYG to be illegal would survive SCOTUS review?
speedrrracer is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 11:46 AM   #14
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,396
Quote:
what might be the odds that a law declaring SYG to be illegal would survive SCOTUS review?
You don't need a new law. All you need is to gut or subtly re-word existing law.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 01:03 PM   #15
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
Holders claims that somehow stand your ground is racist or unfair to minorities is proven wrong in that African Americans make use of and are exonerated by stand your ground in Florida more often than whites as a percentage of population.
+1. Furthermore, after reading several of the relevant SCOTUS cases, I would argue that the primary impetus underlying SYG is that the concept of a duty to retreat (which I'll call DTR for short) is far too inherently subjective.

Real-world situations are too fluid, fast-moving, and subject to poor witness recollection and second-guessing for DTR to be applied in any sort of legally consistent manner. (The Oliver Wendell Holmes quote regarding an uplifted knife summarizes the problem perfectly.) Since almost any given self-defense claim can be undermined using DTR, the outcome of many self-defense cases would likely be decided based on the character and perception of the people involved in the incident, rather than on an objective reading of the law.

The irony is easy to see. One of the foundations of the American civil rights movement is the notion that laws should be objective and that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under those laws. Even a casual student of American history realizes which racial groups have historically wound up on the losing side when deliberately ambiguous and subjective laws are enacted. It boggles the mind that members of those same racial groups would support a return to this system under the guise of racial justice.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; July 17, 2013 at 01:07 PM. Reason: minor edit...
carguychris is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 02:37 PM   #16
Wreck-n-Crew
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,386
I am glad the NRA respond to holders statements....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/17/nra-blasts-holder-for-attacking-stand-your-ground-laws-after-zimmerman-verdict/[/URL]

Good to know a responsible organisation that supports the 2nd ammendment has the back of responsible gun owners when that right is threatened.

What more can I say about Holder other than his obvious stance and his lack of surprise in his moves towards achieving his politcal goals? Not much without trading on thin ice and I would prefer to remain on fair ground.

Where was Holder 3 years ago in the Cortez Waller case? I am sure he (waller ) was thankful for stand your ground and that Holder had not accomplished his goal prior to feb 2010.
__________________
If you ever have to use a firearm, you don't get to pick the scenario!
Wreck-n-Crew is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 03:30 PM   #17
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
The most disturbing thing to me is that the highest attorney in our nation seems to be either completely uneducated on the genesis/basis of Stand Your Ground laws and how they actually apply (he seems to think that they authorize deadly force, exclusive of the normal standards) or he is intentionally misleading everyone who doesn't know better.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 03:48 PM   #18
KMAX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,069
Eric Holder has an agenda which is the survival of Eric Holder. I think he will say whatever he thinks most of what any of his supporters want to hear. It is called politics.
__________________
This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine.

I'm not old. I'm CLASSIC!
KMAX is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 04:50 PM   #19
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,736
Perhaps some of you didn't read
Quote:
Moved to Law & Civil Rights.

And a reminder: no matter the genesis of Mr. Holder's remarks, we are not rehashing the Zimmerman trial in this or any other thread. I've deleted a couple of posts -- further posts along those lines will have negative consequences.
__________________
Posts have been deleted and infractions given. Continuing to do so might lead to stronger actions.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old July 17, 2013, 05:06 PM   #20
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,240
I condemn Eric Holders lies and illegal activities. He needs to be held accountable for his actions.
rebs is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 05:14 PM   #21
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,396
If there is a push to repeal the SYG laws (and I think that's coming), it won't come from the federal level. It'll be a state-by-state effort. As such, I can't see what real authority Holder will have in the matter.

This battle will likely be taking place in the various state legislatures.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 05:56 PM   #22
Dixie Gunsmithing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 847
Tom,

I would say that if Holder showed up in many states, especially ones with castle law, he would probably be shown the door. It's funny that he preaches what he does, when in Ohio, a castle law state, we have none of the problems he likes to preach about, and as a matter of fact, myself and my neighbors look at it as a great crime deterrent. I would say that there are several states that he wouldn't want to venture into with that attitude, and try to change the way things are done. I wouldn't mind being a spectator if he went to Texas.
Dixie Gunsmithing is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 05:57 PM   #23
dajowi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 979
What the AG and majority of people screaming over the Zimmerman case really want...is for self defense laws to be re-written, (legislated). Left to them, any civilian using a firearm for self defense would be subject to jail time.
dajowi is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 06:44 PM   #24
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,432
Is it y'alls understanding that SYG and Castle Doctrine laws are being treated as the same here?
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old July 17, 2013, 06:54 PM   #25
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Is it y'alls understanding that SYG and Castle Doctrine laws are being treated as the same here?
In the uproar, no one seems to be making any sort of distinctions. Ask me, they are going after the entire notion of legal self-defense.
csmsss is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13672 seconds with 7 queries