Hi 17° | Lo -8°

Letter: Leave state’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ alone

As a direct result of the rantings of race-baiting loudmouths like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, there will be a resurgence of racial hatred and unrest.

Those who want to overturn the decision in the George Zimmerman case made by a legally chosen jury appear to want a return to the old west and vigilante justice. Why bother with trials and juries, right? When some group or individual, on either the left or the right disagrees with the findings of the jury in any legal trial, does that mean the trial findings should be scrapped? Should we re-try the case until everyone, everywhere agrees with the verdict?

I would also strongly urge the New Hampshire Legislature to leave the “Stand Your Ground” issue alone. We don’t want our lawmakers doing a single thing with regard to citizens’ rights to defend themselves whenever they feel their lives, or those of their loved-ones, are at risk.



Legacy Comments17

Castle doctrine and Self defense laws allow us to protect ourselves anywhere. After all, 50 states have concealed carry laws. The guns aren't for dress; they are for someone who perceives a threat. The problem with stand your ground laws is that they don't require you FIRST to attempt a retreat from a dangerous situation. If there is no chance of retreat then deadly force is legal under laws other than the crazy vigilante styled SYG laws.

Mark O'Mara was Zimmerman's defense attorney. ======= "Orlando, FL -- Mark O'Mara says even if Florida didn't have a Stand Your Ground Law on the books, George Zimmerman would still have been found not guilty in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. "This is not a Stand Your Ground case, never was, it was traditional self defense," O'Mara said Thursday in his first one-on-one interview with a Tampa television station since Saturday's verdict. "We never mentioned the words 'Stand Your Ground' in our defense presentation or in our arguments," O'Mara told 10 News Reporter Preston Rudie. "In any one of our states, this verdict would have been the same." ========== Well, O'Mara ought to know. At issue, however, might be what uninformed opinions the non-lawyer jurors might have had following the judge's (improper and confusing, I think) inclusion of SYG instruction prior to the juror's delibrations. But is *that* cogent reason to lobby for nationwide repeal of SYG, whatever other reasons there might be?

There is an old saying - "you cant fix stupid" This liberal rag is the reason why democrats are known as "Low information voters" - Today I say goodby to ignorant liberal democrat Americans and I can only hope they soon find Truth and Facts to lead them away from their wayward path in life. Goodby and thanks to the faithful conservatives here that take it upon themselves to try and educate this wayward segment of the population.

FACT: Since it became law in 2010, Stand Your Ground has not been an issue in a single court case.

TCB, with all due respect to you, get your facts straight and correct before you post comments.

gdni, with what issue, do you disagree? That SYG was after passed after going through our legislative process?

Governor Lynch vetoed the bill. He did not sign it. The veto was overridden by the house. Now before you jump all over me as an anti, I am no such thing, just someone who knows how SYG went in to law. People don't look too smart when they misstate the facts.

Thank you for the correction. My basic premise still stands. A majority of our elected representatives passed this into law. That could not have happened if the issue had no support, as Tillie contend. In parallel, why do communities form neighborhood watch groups?

gdn1...over the past three decades, and following the Florida law passed in 1987, all states have adopted concealed carry laws over some public objections such as 'blood flowing in the streets'. Result has been a decrease in gun violence (see FBI's UCR). 'Stand your ground' has been an extension of citizen's rights. And, without knowing how many times SYG has been used, and successfully, making decisions based on an emotionally packed high profile case such as Trayvon Martin's, may do more damage than good !!

James, Great ideal world thoughts. Here are few more; 1) Why did the citizens as for SYG legislation? Why did the majority of our legislators pass and our governor sign SYG legislation? Was it because citizens enjoyed too much safety for themselves, families and property? Similarly, who do communities ask for or form neighborhood watches? Is it because they too enjoyed an excess of safety and security in person & property? These laws were requested and passed because citizens were being robbed, injured, raped and killed and despite best effort, the police could not do enough. Retreat says you - how does that go for the disabled and old? Are only the able-bodies entitled to protection under law when forced to defend themselves? What hobbling SYGs laws effectively does is to put citizens, who are forced to defend themselves, in legal/economic peril because some criminal whines, He pointed a weapon at me". This is after being imperiled by having to face violent criminal. Why do you want to see more criminals, rapists and murders have more power over citizens? Why on earth do you see law-abiding citizens as more of a problem than assailants, rapists and murderers? Seriously - why?

The governor vetoed this piece of legislation, the house overrode the veto, thus it became a law. No one asked in this state for this but ALEC proposed this along with many other hot button issues in order to serve their corporate interests.

There are loudmouths on all sides. Look at Michele Bachmann, a true dolt. I am for no more stand your ground laws. Its only a matter of time before the law is repealed in NH. I think the Castle Doctrine is just fine. One can use deadly force if NO RETREAT IS POSSIBLE. Zimmerman was guilty of a minimum of manslaughter. Second degree murder charges were an over-reach legally but fitting morally. With Castle and self-defense laws one can't initiate a conflict like Zimmerman did and get away killing someone. I hope he is charged in federal court but its doubtful. We just have to get rid of the redneck gun nut laws and have universal background checks. is it that you know GZ was guilty of manslaughter, if the jurors didn't??

@Walter: James was simply expressing his opinion that the jury made a mistake. He is entitled to that opinion.

Nice post! I agree with you--the traditional Castle Doctrine has served us well. SYG is a 'solution' in search of a problem. It is an ALEC/far right/gun lobbyists--inspired dream that traffics in fear, designed to turn the nation into an armed camp and unravel the bonds that unite communities. Closing loopholes on gun sales and requiring universal background checks are modest reforms that do not infringe on 2nd Amendment 'rights'. I'd also like to see the insurance industry do more to encourage/reward better gun safety practices, and discourage the gun fetishers/wanna-be-Rambos who have militarized gun ownership with their mock assault rifles by increasing the costs for owning such weapons. Make the price of gun ownership reflect its true costs to society.

Bruce, You said, "castle doctrine has served us well." This would imply, if faced with an criminal assailant, we can only legally defend self/family in our home. It would also mean, out on the street, where more assaults, rapes & murders occur, committed, we are fair game for predators?

What streets are you routinely walking on where "assaults, rapes & murders occur" and where you are "fair game for predators"? Your description of "street" does not comport with reality, nor does your response.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.