SYG favors the shooter regardless of race.

[hack89]

I got to thinking about the impact of SYG laws in Florida. There are many that think that they disproportionately impact blacks and allow whites to get away with killing young black men.

That didn't make sense because murder is primarily an intra-racial phenomena - whites kill whites, blacks kill blacks - so there should be very few white on black SYG cases. So I did some digging and this is what I found:

In Florida to date there have been 61 white on white SYG cases. There have been 11 white on black, 10 black on white and 26 black on black cases.

The results:

For white on white: 32 justified, 25 convicted, 4 pending

For white on black: 6 justified, 1 convicted, 4 pending

For black on white: 4 justified, 2 convicted, 4 pending

For black on black: 16 justified, 6 convicted, 4 pending

Notice that there are just as many black on white SYG cases and it would appear that black shooters "get away with murder" just like white guys do.

It would appear that in Florida, the true impact is that all races get the benefit of the doubt in SYG cases. The proper lesson is that SYG favors the shooter regardless of race.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases

[NYC_SKP]

1. These numbers don't account for a number of important factors.

For example, what was required for shooting cases to even get to trial with a SYG defense? Are blacks as likely as whites to even get that far.

I am skeptical, I think there are a lot of factors that need to be considered beyond these numbers.

[hack89]

2. Yet the Florida legal system, once at trial, treats the races equally

don't you find that significant?

[NYC_SKP]

4. How did that work out for Trayvon, that equal treatment?

White counsel, judge, and jury.

It's an unfair world going into trial and coming out, especially if you're poor, young, and especially if you're black.

As SYG played out in Zimmerman's case, I can't support it whatsoever.

Not one bit. Even if it's applied equitably, there needs to be a much greater accountability for people who chose to own and carry, much greater when not in your own home.

[hack89]

8. SYG didn't really playout in this case

Z said he could not retreat because TM was on top of him pounding the crap out of him. SYG implies he could have retreated.

[gejohnston]

13. white judge that made reversable errors

in favor of the State. State prosecutors committing discovery violations. As usual, the media got it wrong.

SYG had nothing to do with case. The facts are uncontested by the State and the Martin family:
Trayvon pounded his fists in George's face and bounced his head off the sidewalk for 45 seconds based on the length of the screams for help in the 911 calls until the gun shot. Eye witnesses saw Trayvon beating the shit out of George. Nobody disputes that. Martin family lawyer Daryl Parks told Piers Morgan that George should be held liable because he should have endured until the cops got there.

What you think you know about the case is wrong. I'm here, watched the whole thing live stream in my office. I saw what the jury saw, and a lot that they didn't.
Between Prosecution witness John Good telling who was beating the shit out of whom and the prosecutor's closing argument "don't go with the evidence, listen to your heart", and three hours of fact free bullshit. The verdict was no shock to me.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/15/2534/37292/crimenews/Lawyers-Reacting-to-Zimmerman-Verdict

[COLGATE4]

56. You and I have disagreed on some 2A issues

but I have to tell you that your summary of the problems with the Martin case as reported in some venues and misunderstood by many is absolutely spot-on correct.

[gejohnston]

57. Thank you

I owe it to watching the the thing live stream and reading a couple of good legal blogs.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. What the hell does your physical location logically have to do with it?

The law is worded around any place you have the lawful right to be.

Functioning as intended, the bar is reasonable fear for your life, while not engaged in criminal shenanigans. Pretty simple bar.
To ask the question another way, why would you LOWER the bar in someone's house? After all, you don't know how the other person got there. Maybe they were invited. Maybe it was a drug deal gone bad? Etc.

[rdharma]

5. I don't think that claim passes the smell test! nt

[hack89]

9. Feel free to present some hard numbers like I did so we can compare.

not that I am holding my breath - facts are not the deciding factor for you when it comes to guns.

[rdharma]

31. Going on your figures, it's plain to see that race matters in these SYG cases.

Check your math.

white on black 17% conviction of shooter

black on white 50% conviction of shooter

[hack89]

32. Do you understand the statistical validity of extremely small sample sizes?

We are talking about difference of a single conviction. Three total convictions and that is what you are using to prove that SYG favors white shooters?

The larger samples show that SYG favors the shooter regardless of race. The smaller samples tell us nothing one way or the other.

My point is all we can say is that the evidence points towards SYG favoring the shooter regardless of race and saying nothing in regards to intra-racial shootings.

Answer this question for me. There are four pending cases in the white on black category. If one of them is deemed not justified and there is an equal number of convictions, does that prove that SYG is racially neutral? If two of them are deemed not justified, does that prove that SYG favors black shooters?

[rdharma]

34. You were the one touting the figures. nt

[hack89]

36. And the figures support my contention

look at every possible combination of shooter/victim. In every case the SYG laws favor the shooter regardless of race.

My point is that the data does not support the notion that Blacks are convicted at a higher rate than whites - you cannot make that case when there are only three total convictions to go by.

The larger data sets support the notion that SYG supports the notion that the shooter gets the advantage.

[hack89]

33. Black shooters are acquitted of shooting white victims at a pretty high rate

how is this possible if SYG and Florida courts are biased against blacks?

[rdharma]

35. Go check your numbers again!

white on black 17% conviction of white shooter

black on white 50% conviction of black shooter

[hack89]

37. The difference is one conviction out of a sample size of 3

are you really trying to tell me that is significant? That is your proof that SYG is racist?

[gejohnston]

38. so compare that to

common law and DTR. How do those statistics compare?
The only way to actually measure it correctly is to have a disinterested third party go through each case, like evidence and trial transcripts, and do a tally.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Assertion without evidence is opinion, not argument.

So if you do have any hard evidence to counter the OP's claim, now would be
the time to produce it...

[gejohnston]

11. most are intra race.

inter race are less than 15 percent.
In Florida self defense cases, SYG or not, there has to be probable cause that it wasn't self defense. Of course, investigation continues. If the evidence starts to indicate otherwise, that is when an arrest is made. Unless of course, Rick Scott sends Angela Corey to shut down the grand jury and order an immediate arrest. Guess how that went.

[digonswine]

22. How do you make out this incident?

How do you explain to yourself how this went down where GZ is not the least bit culpable?
I have yet to hear an explanation that makes any sense.
If one can claim self-defense, there is NO WAY to prove otherwise. No way. The clear case of proving a negative.
What evidence would prove to you that this kid was murdered?
I have experienced reasonable discussions with you in the past-but your pro-gun agenda, I think ,has warped your common sense.
Please help me to interpret this event in a way that does not offend my sense of what reality is.

[gejohnston]

29. The evidence was overwhelming.

Last edited Thu Jul 18, 2013, 02:46 AM - Edit history (2)

I watched the entire trial livestream in my office. In fact, a lot of Floridians did, white, black, Asian, and Native American did or knew someone who did. That is why the demonstrations are in Oakland and not here.

I saw everything the jury saw. I actually saw hearings that the jury didn't. It is the State's job to prove that it wasn't self defense. All of their experts and witnesses did the exact opposite. The evidence supporting self defense was overwhelming.
Forensic and eye witnesses clearly proved Trayvon pounded GZ in the face and beat his head on the sidewalk for 45 seconds while the neighbors called 911 but didn't help. He fired the shot only after getting the shit beat out of him by someone who was larger and stronger than he. The Trayvon in pictures is was when he was 11 or 12 years old. It was put out by the same PR firm the family lawyers hired to smear GZ as a control freak and racist.
When he died he was five ten and very athletic shape.
Those facts are not in dispute by the State, Jury, Defense, and even the Martin family. A couple of days after the verdict. I saw Daryl Parks, one of the family lawyers, basically telling Piers Morgan that GZ should be held liable because he should have let Trayvon beat the shit out him until the cops got there.

But don't take my word for it. The Youtube channel "thecount" has a complete archive. The liberal legal blog Talk Left covered it very well.
That is the short answer. Assuming there was a conviction, it would have been overturned. The judge committed enough reversible errors and the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense. IOW, it wasn't supposed to be fair trial. It was a Rick Scott political show.
If it offends your "sense of what really is" I can't help it. That is the reality.
Not being held culpable? Being falsely accused of being murderer and a racist, vigilantes, and having a contract out on him. Add that to the head trauma and legal expenses. I'm sorry, he was held more than culpable. Much more than he should have. Defending yourself from death or grave bodily injury is a natural human right, like water and food.
Common sense has no place in the court room. Politics has no place in the rule of law. Political and media pressure tried to turn this tragedy into a travesty.
One of the bloggers for Talk Left but it best:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/14/145748/759/Colo_News/The-Legacy-of-the-George-Zimmerman-Trial

The legacy of this case will be that the media never gets it right, and worse, that a group of lawyers, with the aid of a public relations team, who had a financial stake in the outcome of pending and anticipated civil litigation, were allowed to commandeer control of Florida's criminal justice system, in pursuit of a divisive, personal agenda.
snip
The problems of racial disparity and arbitrary enforcement of our criminal laws are real, systemic and need to be addressed. Criminal defense lawyers see it and fight to correct it every day. From charging decisions to plea offers to sentences, the system is not fair and everybody knows it.

But this case has never been representative of those problems. And perhaps most unfortunate of all, as a result of the false narrative created by the lawyers for grieving parents who tragically lost their son -- a narrative perpetuated by a complicit and ratings-hungry media -- any attempt at meaningful reform is likely to fall on deaf ears for years to come.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/11/22341/3139/crimenews/Benjamin-Crump-Who-Screamed-Doesn-t-Matter
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/15/2534/37292/crimenews/Lawyers-Reacting-to-Zimmerman-Verdict

[digonswine]

39. I guess I do not see starting a fight and shooting an unarmed teen as a human right-

Here is what I do not understand.
You, like some others, seem to go out of your way to defend the right to carry and use guns. I am not sure that you celebrate, as some do, but it is certainly a big thing for you.
I can admit, I may have you confused with a couple of others here. I have had good experiences discussing some gun stuff with you and a few others here. Generally real-reasoned and not fraught with insults, etc.
BUT-I simply do not get it. I do not get your mindset.
Why come to the defense of this guy? Is this really a case of a reasonable use of deadly force? I do not think so.
I must admit-anyone(around here) who sees the need to carry a gun makes me feel less safe.
I bike with a guy who has said that he feels vulnerable in the middle of nowhere and would like to carry a ceramic(?) pistol(might be for the weight). I don't want to bike with this guy knowing this.
You can consider this a personal prejudice, but it is real. This idea is just plain nuts.

I would think that anyone who values he right to carry arms would look critically on this case and see it as an irresponsible use of deadly force.
Instead, you defend it and make excuses for it.
We simply will never see eye-to-eye on this, and I have the benefit of knowing that my position would have resulted in no dead people.

[gejohnston]

40. There is no evidence that he started the fight.

That is what has been speculated, but not proven. There is some evidence to suggest otherwise. But you missed the basic point:

Why come to the defense of this guy? Is this really a case of a reasonable use of deadly force?

If you are pinned down by someone larger and stronger than you, pounded your head in the sidewalk before beating your face with their fists and try to smother you, for 40 seconds. During that 40 seconds, you cry for help and struggle to escape but you can't and no one does. The only thing happens is John Good yelling he's calling the cops. Like I said, those are facts that have been proven in court that not even the Martin family disputes.
Remember, that kind of head trauma can cause internal bleeding leading to death or permanent physical impairment. What would you do? If you agree with Thom Hartman and Ramsey Clark that people should not be allowed to defend themselves, that's your choice, but don't force it on me.

"Unarmed" is a misnomer. How many people are murdered with bare hands in the US every year? According to the FBI, 810 in 2011. That is 40 more than all UK homicides combined. That is 3.5 times more than "assault weapons", 31.5 Sandy Hooks every year.

If some ambulance chaser like Ben Crump can smear a mixed race Democrat, with an African American business partner, as some "out of control racist and child molester" to profit from a wrongful death suit, everyone should have a problem with that. Everyone should have a problem with media and politics interfering with the justice system. It could happen to anyone.

Like I said, I listened to the cops, experts, EMT that treated him at the scene. Watched the hearings on the Brady hearings, which was about sanctions against the State playing hide and go seek with evidence. It isn't about being for or against Zimmerman or Martin. It is about the evidence and the facts. No more no less.
Jimmy Carter, who might still own guns, and Alan Dershowitz, who wants an amendment to repeal the 2A, are saying the same thing I am. It isn't a gun issue. If Zimmerman had a knife, it would be the same issue.

[digonswine]

41. Appeal to authority means doodly squat-

Cherry-picking numbers does the same.
This could not "happen" to anyone. That is dishonest at best.
Sometimes things are just as they seem. Defenders of GZ, like you, tie themselves in knots to make this seem OK.
I think-THINK, it is to assuage the knowledge that gun nuts are normal.
They are not. Most people do not carry weapons on their person-this is abnormal. It really is.
Call me a bigot-I do not trust a person who feels the need to do this. By the way-I am not a bigot.
You are a fringe minority.
You use a lot of data-you shouldn't.
I have yet to see a reasoned and sensible explanation of why this case is OK.
Not a legal one-I get that, even if I disagree.
I mean one that would make a sentient being think that what happened is OK.
This is what people have a hard time with. We all knew he could be found innocent-no shocker. I would like an explanation that would make me feel it was reasonable.
Please do not respond with nonsense saying I am asking to be placated.
Dead kid-yes-there is some explaining to do.

[gejohnston]

42. Those are the facts of the case

and the basic reality of the situation. Either way, one or the other would have probably been dead. It sounds like you expect others to die or suffer grave bodily harm for what you believe in. That's pretty presumptuous don't you think? Ultimately it comes down to individual decisions in specific situations. Hopefully neither of us will face that choice.

It isn't about any one individual be it Zimmerman or anyone else. It is about basic principles I described that transcend ideology or politics. If you can't grasp that, there is nothing else I can say.

[Eleanors38]

43. If I may, you have accepted the narrative of Z as evil incarnate,

and anyone who agees with the verdict as a "Defender of Zimmerman," and consequently condemn by extension millions of gun-owners who carry. You seem to be adopting the culture war "stigmatization" model of debate adopted by the extreme controller/banners in DU.

Zimmerman was foolish to act in lieu of law enforcement; he was not a Neighborhood Watch volunteer since they are unarmed. He appears to be a cop wanabe, and violated a top principle if civilian concealed-carry practice: Avoid confrontation. THAT is what I condemn him for. But was there a law broken by his following Martin? No. The rest is court record.

The vast majority of gun-carriers act responsibly, if data concerning crime numbers by CCW-holders are any indication. You say they are not "normal," and appear to use it as a moral bludgeon, hiding your own prejudice behind "minority" statistics.

[digonswine]

44. Not really-

I actually CAN understand the concept that there may have been not enough evidence to convict. I get that.
What I do not get, though, is how a thinking person can look at this situation and feel that either, 1)Zimmerman did nothing wrong, or 2) that he has been held accountable for what he has done wrong by way of being slandered, slightly wounded, etc.

I have no problem with those that think the jury decided based on evidence. Some guilty people do get off that way.
I have a problem with those who think he did nothing wrong. This is a major difference of viewpoint.

"Zimmerman was foolish to act in lieu of law enforcement; he was not a Neighborhood Watch volunteer since they are unarmed. He appears to be a cop wanabe, and violated a top principle if civilian concealed-carry practice: Avoid confrontation. THAT is what I condemn him for. But was there a law broken by his following Martin? No. The rest is court record. "

When I see this stuff, I see, "Well, Zimmerman acted like a doofus, and, yeah, a kid was killed due to his actions unnecessarily, but, oh well, they couldn't convict him so i guess that's done."

I don't know if is meant that way by you, but that is what I see.

Please don't tell me what I have or have not accepted(first sentence)--you will most likely be wrong.
Also, there must ACTUALLY BE a difference in the thought processes between those that carry and those that don't.
The thing is, those are not two equal positions in any case.

[Eleanors38]

45. Respectfully, the problems with your position...

Zimmerman fucked up. You and I both agree, right?

Zimmerman wasn't convicted due to lack of evidence. You and I both agree, right?
____________

What are you trying to say, then? You have some ax to grind about this affair, and seem to be taking it out on Johnston, concealed-carry people, or somebody out there. Who is the enemy or culprit and why? Can you be more specific?

People who carry generally do so for self-protection. There are folks who do not carry for self-protection. There are those who do not carry and do not want others to do so. There are folks who do not carry and have no objection to those who do. Of course there are different thought processes, but you couched the difference in terms of "normality." That is a loaded expression.

"When I see this stuff, I see...."

You seem to have no problem expressing negative and morally-charged criticisms of others on this topic, yet I see very little clarity in just what your sense of injustice is. I can't even figure out what you imply with your characterization of what I said, nor what your objection is to that characterization.

I guess this goes into that popular and large file drawer: "They just don't get it, do they?"

Or that other one: "Compassion trumps all fact, data, reasoning." A really big one on DU.

[digonswine]

48. Look-

I am not trying to take it out on anyone--
Zimmerman, even if we can take his word for it, made big mistake after big mistake. At each point in time he caused the problem. His actions resulted in a death. I, frankly, do not believe he was held down. It is VERY difficult to hold someone down.
I worked in a treatment center for teens. Occasionally, it would be necessary to restrain a kid. Let me tell you, if I(biggish, fit, agile, trained) guy had a hard time holding down a child half my size, Zimmerman being captive to Martin smells. funny.

OK--that is sort of beside the point right here.

The problem I had with that other poster was that he said that Zimmerman had suffered enough for his actions.
That seems ridiculous to me. I do not see it being immoral, necessarily.

The mentality and respect human life and whatnot is relevant here, but is a far broader topic than would make sense to delve into. That would need to be a LOOOONG conversation.

I will accept your point that "normal" is a loaded term and will try to be more precise.

[Eleanors38]

51. I appreciate the civil discussion....

The topic of respect for human life is a worthy one. For now, it's not the length of conversation that is so daunting (you're certainly right about that), but the volatile tone that has been set in DU. I have been H'd so many times in the last 3 weeks that I cannot serve on a jury. The threads are full of bait, and should one make a spirited defense or comment with just a fraction of the feeling expressed by those who want to control guns or call out so-called "Zimmerman defenders," you get popped. Even some of the jurors who have refused to go along with the charade have pointed it out. I would like to express some other thoughts about this, but even if expressed in a civil way, doctrine and hegemony have been fixed, and I would probably be PPR'd or MIRTED. The fix is in.

[gejohnston]

53. Zimmerman being captive to Martin smells. funny.

So you are saying John Good lied? I can't remember the other witnesses' name but she saw the same thing. Zimmerman was pinned down getting the crap beat out of him. They were both prosecution witness. There is the physical evidence to corroborate that. All of the evidence corroborates Zimmerman's version. That is why the prosecution was such a joke.
You are ignoring basic facts of the case proven in court. The physical evidence and eye witnesses support that Martin was committing.
Most of what you think you know is based on speculation or simply not true.

The problem I had with that other poster was that he said that Zimmerman had suffered enough for his actions. That seems ridiculous to me. I do not see it being immoral, necessarily

What actions should he suffer for? Being Hispanic and armed? Even the neighborhood watch coordinator said in court he didn't do anything wrong. Another prosecution witness. He committed no crime. Nothing he did deserved being a victim of criminal battery and attempted murder. Zimmerman acted out of self preservation legally and morally. What you are saying amounts to "she shouldn't have been wearing that dress."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. Pardon the intrusion

When I see this stuff, I see, "Well, Zimmerman acted like a doofus, and, yeah, a kid was killed due to his actions unnecessarily, but, oh well, they couldn't convict him so i guess that's done."

I don't see that Zimmerman "acted like a doofus" and unfortunately a kid was killed. I see Zimmerman as having done two basic things very wrong:
- First, he witnessed activity that he judged as suspicious as evidenced by his call to 9-1-1.
- Second, he then pursued the suspicious individual on foot; he knew of should have known that such pursuit could become confrontational.
- Third, he took these actions while armed with a deadly weapon.

By stepping away from his vehicle and pursuing an allegedly suspicious person, he (IMHO) accepted the responsibility for any subsequent altercation. In some localities, it is not self-defense if you start a fight and at some point, decide you're losing, and then pull a gun and shoot.

I understand that Zimmerman did not enter an SYG defense but I believe that in states where such a defense is accepted, it should also fairly be a crime to start a fight or confrontation and then escalate the fight into a homicide. I don't think such a crime fits aggravated manslaughter but it definitely strikes me as criminal.

[digonswine]

50. I mostly agree-

I am not sure of the appropriate charge-not being in the profession.
The initial quote from me was my characterization of the statement of that DU'er, not of all others-right or not.

[gejohnston]

54. under any law in the US

Nothing Zimmerman did is a crime nor provoked the attack. Why should he be liable for a noncrime other than for ideological purposes.

[digonswine]

58. It is true-

he can not be held liable for anything now. He certainly provoked the attack-though not in a legal sense as the jury saw it.
I was pretty certain the verdict would be as it was.
If justice is defined in legal terms, I suppose it was done. That is not how I see it, though.
I would like him to be held responsible for his bad decisions-I know this can't happen now, but it is what I would like.
That is not the point.
You stated that Zimmerman had suffered enough-whether through public opprobrium or slander.
I don't think so-and I do not see how you think so.
I may have mistook what you meant-that does happen, especially in the written word.
Ideologically-he made a series of very bad choices which resulted in a death. These were caused by his actions.
To some-like me-this is a big deal.
I am not asking now for his head-but acting like he has paid a suitable price is not realistic to me.
There is a bigger over-arching theme about guns in this country.
As I said in another post in the thread-it is a much bigger conversation than would be sensible to get into too deeply in this thread.
Do you really think that Zimmerman has been held accountable? I will admit up-front, that I will probably disagree. But I might not.
It is not your job to justify your opinions, I know, but I truly would like to understand those with whom I disagree.

[gejohnston]

59. his only bad choices as I see it

he got out of the car to answer a operator's question.
He believed in the system
He actually thinks the media would be honest

Trayvon made the only choice that was illegal and immoral.

[digonswine]

60. I really(really) do not want to get into particulars of the case-

it stinks and gets us nowhere.
I mentioned in another post in this thread how his being held down by a kid he outweighed would be next to impossible.
Anyone who has wrestled or has been involved in the martial arts would see this as a big sticking point.
I do not see how you can characterize the actions of Martin as being immoral. I do not get it.
My mind says that if a person is armed, he or she needs to be level-headed and act in a sensible manner. He or she needs to be the one to make the good decisions. Wielding deadly force comes with responsibilities.
I am not anti-gun, I am anti-using guns to solve problems that can be solved in another way. The responsibility lies with the one who carries.
He did not do this.
Your characterization puts the blame on Martin. Why?
You say Trayvon made the immoral choice--how so?
I don't get you at all.
This is why I would say that we have a VERY different way of looking at the world.
Unfortunately, those who think like you are the ones carrying. Can you not understand that this seems irresponsible to others?
I am not talking about morality or ethics--just a completely different mindset. But you are the ones carrying guns.
That is a big difference, at least to me.
AS I have said, I have had decent conversations with you and GreenStormCloud(?) and I get you confused sometimes. I am pretty sure it is both of you with whom I don't always disagree.
Zimmerman is the poster-boy for irresponsible gun use. He is the reason people like me do not trust those carrying. When you defend him, I feel like it is reflexive-I HOPE it is reflexive, otherwise, I have to accept that you think that way.
Some have said that he was not a responsible gun owner. I would agree. Defending him puts you automatically into the group I don't trust.
Some uses of guns for personal protection are completely justified. Defending this guy is a black eye to those espousing gun rights--at least to me.
Please-if you respond-do so like I am a sensible person, and not some gun-grabber typical knee-jerk thoughtless person.

[rdharma]

3. It also favors anybody who is setting up a "legalized" murder! nt

[hack89]

6. How many times has that happened?

any documented cases or this this your dislike for all things guns bubbling up again?

[rdharma]

7. "How many times has that happened?" ........ Who knows?

Dead men (murder victims) tell no tales!

[hack89]

10. You certainly have an active imagination. nt

[rdharma]

12. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? ..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uMlRpN8ANrU

[Lurks Often]

14. Or what wild, unsubstituted theories lurk in your brain n/t

[rdharma]

15. Oh, they all come out!

[ileus]

16. Leveling the playing field for the would be victim...

Odd people would rather you be a willing victim thand defend yourself and remove criminals from circulation.

[rdharma]

17. It's even better if you have a buddy to vouch for the "legalized" murder.

He lunged at me...... right, Billy Bob?

Sure nuff did, Cleatus! I seen it! He was gonna' kill you!

Like I said....... legalized murder!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. Is your name...

...really Cleatus?

[rdharma]

19. No. But that's a great name, eh?

Sometimes spelled "Cletus" like Cletus Spukler.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Oh yeah!

I think one a them fellers on Duck Dynasty ought ta be named Cleatus.

BTW I think the Walmart is havin' a sale on them there wife beater shirts.

[rdharma]

23. Duck Dynasty - Aren't they the guys from ZZ Top in camo?

Lucky for those Duck Dynasty dudes, that ducks don't have a good sense of smell!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. I'm not exactly sure...

I think they all have beards... 'cept maybe the women folk.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. Actually...

...some of those women are down right attractive.

Which reminds me of...

[Eleanors38]

46. "They say that looks don't count for much, well there goes your proof." Great line.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. Now and then...

...someone truly has a revelation about attitudes or some such social changes. Joe Jackson, in this case, happened upon the triple conjunction of ugly men paired with pretty women and an articulate and humorous description thereof.

[Eleanors38]

52. Passes for more meaningful social commentary that most of what's touted out there. nt

[ileus]

21. The problem most have is SYG favors those that are supposed to be the victims.

When the perp is removed (disabled or killed) it screws with their stats.

I find it odd before now the argument has always been SD shootings are rare and thus we can absorb a few deaths here and there to keep firearms from polluting society. Now it's SD shootings are too plentiful and SYG laws must be to blame, it's back to victim status for you.

[rdharma]

25. SYG favors the "survivor". Victim can't testify. nt

[hack89]

27. Same for non-SYG self defense

we don't convict people without evidence in America. I know that is an unreasonable standard when it come to gun owners but it is what it is.

[rdharma]

28. Be sure to rehearse your prepared statement.

I was in fear for my life because.............

[COLGATE4]

55. You gave it a good try

but none so deaf as those who don't want to hear.