Stand Your Ground law and "Florida Loophole" ignite debate in wake of Martin shooting

Apr 2, 2012 Full story: The Digital Collegian 23

Martin by George Zimmerman ignited a firestorm of debate across the country surrounding "stand your ground" laws and "right to carry" gun permits.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Nov 11

Anderson, IN

#1 Apr 2, 2012
"Goreham also said she generally opposes the greater prevalence of guns outside of the home.

“If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” she said.

I wonder if she would feel the same way if she were raped, robbed, etc. outside the home? I have a hammer and I firmly don't think everything looks like a nail. If she does she needs help!
KeepGitmoOpen

Allentown, PA

#2 Apr 2, 2012
stand your ground law is great! Pa passed something very much like this.
conservative crapola

Whitehall, PA

#3 Apr 4, 2012
And the Governor of Indiana, backed by the NRA, signed into law, a bill giving homeowners the right to shoot police on their property if they feel threatened by the police. How long before for the first chapter of this mistake begins.
KeepGitmoOpen

Allentown, PA

#4 Apr 4, 2012
conservative crapola wrote:
And the Governor of Indiana, backed by the NRA, signed into law, a bill giving homeowners the right to shoot police on their property if they feel threatened by the police. How long before for the first chapter of this mistake begins.
im sure you hate anything the give citizens more rights. Lib loons. You want anyone to be able to enter you home illegally and illegals to vote. Go away no one likes you.

Since: Nov 11

Anderson, IN

#5 Apr 4, 2012
conservative crapola wrote:
And the Governor of Indiana, backed by the NRA, signed into law, a bill giving homeowners the right to shoot police on their property if they feel threatened by the police. How long before for the first chapter of this mistake begins.
Reread the law. You can protect your castle from UNLAWFUL entry. Your paraphrasing of this law may help your agenda but it puts a spin on it that isn't right.(IN Senate Bill 1)
conservative crapola

Whitehall, PA

#6 Apr 4, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>im sure you hate anything the give citizens more rights. Lib loons. You want anyone to be able to enter you home illegally and illegals to vote. Go away no one likes you.
I wouldn't except anything more from a status quo suck-up like yourself. You don't own toothpix so go f yourself. Retro-grade con.
conservative crapola

Whitehall, PA

#7 Apr 4, 2012
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>Reread the law. You can protect your castle from UNLAWFUL entry. Your paraphrasing of this law may help your agenda but it puts a spin on it that isn't right.(IN Senate Bill 1)
So that means when the cops show up for a domestic dispute and bust down a door w/o a warrant, the half-nuts homeowner brandishing his second amendment tirade can shoot them down. Gotcha.
KeepGitmoOpen

Allentown, PA

#8 Apr 4, 2012
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't except anything more from a status quo suck-up like yourself. You don't own toothpix so go f yourself. Retro-grade con.
please try to break in my home ill give you the address.

Since: Nov 11

Anderson, IN

#9 Apr 4, 2012
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
So that means when the cops show up for a domestic dispute and bust down a door w/o a warrant, the half-nuts homeowner brandishing his second amendment tirade can shoot them down. Gotcha.
Again, I say, reread the law. Second ammendment tireade???? Give us a break. Quite the holophobe aren't you?

If a cop shows up for a domestic dispute and has reasonable suspicion that harm has or is coming to someone inside the house that becomes a lawful entry and a warrant is not required. If a suspect they are chasing is seen running into a house and the cops go in after him/her that would become a lawful entry and no warrant is required. If they show up and the occupants state they did not call, there is not a problem and there is no reason to believe that there is a problem and they forcefully anyway they are going to have a problem with an unlawful entry.

This isn't a second ammendment issue it is a fourth ammendment issue. Learn your ammendments and what they pertain to.
KeepGitmoOpen

Allentown, PA

#10 Apr 4, 2012
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>Again, I say, reread the law. Second ammendment tireade???? Give us a break. Quite the holophobe aren't you?
If a cop shows up for a domestic dispute and has reasonable suspicion that harm has or is coming to someone inside the house that becomes a lawful entry and a warrant is not required. If a suspect they are chasing is seen running into a house and the cops go in after him/her that would become a lawful entry and no warrant is required. If they show up and the occupants state they did not call, there is not a problem and there is no reason to believe that there is a problem and they forcefully anyway they are going to have a problem with an unlawful entry.
This isn't a second ammendment issue it is a fourth ammendment issue. Learn your ammendments and what they pertain to.
Doesnt matter what you tell him facts and common sense is lost with that guy.
conservative crapola

Whitehall, PA

#11 Apr 4, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>please try to break in my home ill give you the address.
I doubt you have little of value. Including your ideals. But I wish you luck posturing with your neighborhood illegals.
conservative crapola

Whitehall, PA

#12 Apr 4, 2012
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>Again, I say, reread the law. Second ammendment tireade???? Give us a break. Quite the holophobe aren't you?
If a cop shows up for a domestic dispute and has reasonable suspicion that harm has or is coming to someone inside the house that becomes a lawful entry and a warrant is not required. If a suspect they are chasing is seen running into a house and the cops go in after him/her that would become a lawful entry and no warrant is required. If they show up and the occupants state they did not call, there is not a problem and there is no reason to believe that there is a problem and they forcefully anyway they are going to have a problem with an unlawful entry.
This isn't a second ammendment issue it is a fourth ammendment issue. Learn your ammendments and what they pertain to.
Your response is from the police viewpoint. Not the crazed, gun-toting, protective homeowner who's fed-up with the government or the nearest figure in front of them that they construe as government. Sound familiar? Explain it to them in a tense situation. If you're trying to say this bill will protect police, try again. This is more of a patronization of the teabaggers and the NRA, who, by the way, have donated $12,500 to mitch daniel's campaigns. How quaint.

Since: Nov 11

Anderson, IN

#13 Apr 4, 2012
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response is from the police viewpoint. Not the crazed, gun-toting, protective homeowner who's fed-up with the government or the nearest figure in front of them that they construe as government. Sound familiar? Explain it to them in a tense situation. If you're trying to say this bill will protect police, try again. This is more of a patronization of the teabaggers and the NRA, who, by the way, have donated $12,500 to mitch daniel's campaigns. How quaint.
And Smoke Free America donated to Charlie Brown's campaign, quaint as well, but both have nothing to do with the fourth ammendment.

My response is not from the police point of view. I am spelling out the law, which you paraphrased incorrectly. Much like you paraphrased my comments to imply the law protecting the police, incorrect again. This law ties LEO's hands a bit and they likely don't want them tied. With or without this law "the crazed, gun-toting, protective homeowner who's fed up with the government or the nearest figure in front of them that they construe as government" is going to be an issue. These people, as well as criminals, DO NOT care about laws.

This bill simply protects the property owner and his fourth ammendment rights. The bill is NOT to protect the police.
KeepGitmoOpen

Allentown, PA

#14 Apr 4, 2012
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response is from the police viewpoint. Not the crazed, gun-toting, protective homeowner who's fed-up with the government or the nearest figure in front of them that they construe as government. Sound familiar? Explain it to them in a tense situation. If you're trying to say this bill will protect police, try again. This is more of a patronization of the teabaggers and the NRA, who, by the way, have donated $12,500 to mitch daniel's campaigns. How quaint.
Shall we go over the Obama's donors? As i am the light an you are the roach so make like one and scatter. You know the ILLEGAL FRAUD DONORS. Guess what slappy NRA asks for donations to support my interested so yes when they ask me for a donation to support gun rights it should go to a senator, congressman, or gov who supports gun rights that is how that stuff works... How many anti gun donors do the same for libs? Where is your outrage for that? I dont see you here saying Unions are unfair and donate millions to obama and libs alike using union memeber funds to dontate to a canidate that the union member doesn like. Now that is injustice.
All you commie libs are all they same in one word HYPOCRITE!
conservative crapola

Allentown, PA

#15 Apr 4, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>Shall we go over the Obama's donors? As i am the light an you are the roach so make like one and scatter. You know the ILLEGAL FRAUD DONORS. Guess what slappy NRA asks for donations to support my interested so yes when they ask me for a donation to support gun rights it should go to a senator, congressman, or gov who supports gun rights that is how that stuff works... How many anti gun donors do the same for libs? Where is your outrage for that? I dont see you here saying Unions are unfair and donate millions to obama and libs alike using union memeber funds to dontate to a canidate that the union member doesn like. Now that is injustice.
All you commie libs are all they same in one word HYPOCRITE!
Your underlying issues surface. Bwaaaa. Enjoy Obama's second term.
conservative crapola

Allentown, PA

#16 Apr 4, 2012
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>And Smoke Free America donated to Charlie Brown's campaign, quaint as well, but both have nothing to do with the fourth ammendment.
My response is not from the police point of view. I am spelling out the law, which you paraphrased incorrectly. Much like you paraphrased my comments to imply the law protecting the police, incorrect again. This law ties LEO's hands a bit and they likely don't want them tied. With or without this law "the crazed, gun-toting, protective homeowner who's fed up with the government or the nearest figure in front of them that they construe as government" is going to be an issue. These people, as well as criminals, DO NOT care about laws.
This bill simply protects the property owner and his fourth ammendment rights. The bill is NOT to protect the police.
Daniels:“Law enforcement officers will be better protected than before, not less so."
KeepGitmoOpen

Allentown, PA

#17 Apr 4, 2012
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
Your underlying issues surface. Bwaaaa. Enjoy Obama's second term.
at least you no longer deny it. Best of luck on that 2012 you libs will need it.

Since: Nov 11

Anderson, IN

#18 Apr 4, 2012
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
Daniels:“Law enforcement officers will be better protected than before, not less so."
Daniels also said a business was moving to Indiana as a result of RTW as well. The company threw the BS flag and said RTW didn't play into it. Little Man Mitch is hardly a reliable source now is he?

Have you actually read the law? It doesn't seem you have.
KeepGitmoOpen

Allentown, PA

#19 Apr 4, 2012
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>Daniels also said a business was moving to Indiana as a result of RTW as well. The company threw the BS flag and said RTW didn't play into it. Little Man Mitch is hardly a reliable source now is he?
Have you actually read the law? It doesn't seem you have.
he only reads what is on media matters. That is what he uses as a source for his nonsense.

Since: Nov 11

Anderson, IN

#20 Apr 4, 2012
KeepGitmoOpen wrote:
<quoted text>he only reads what is on media matters. That is what he uses as a source for his nonsense.
Sounds like it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pennsylvania Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pennsylvania Town Votes To Allow 6 Fracking Wel... Aug '14 Welcome Cancer 1
14,000 draft notices sent to men born in 1800s Jul '14 Joe 1
Pennsylvania law targets puppy mills (Oct '08) Jun '14 lady 318
Pa. Lawmaker: Gay State Rep. Shouldn't Have Com... May '14 Holy Guacamole 21
Pennsylvania's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Prob... May '14 Tory II 1
Shell Oil fading in the Pennsylvania Marcellus (Mar '14) Mar '14 Tom Corbett-Sandusky 1
Pets benefitting from vaccines for humans (Mar '14) Mar '14 LIES and GARBAGE 2

Pennsylvania Government People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE