Eric Holder denounces ‘stand your ground’ laws.

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?
 
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.
 
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/2013/jul/16/attorney-general-holder-says-he-will-examine-state/
 
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/b...and-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I don't think Holder is talking about changing "State" laws.
Click to expand...
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."


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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
In the Washington Post, "Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. strongly condemned “stand your ground” laws Tuesday".
Click to expand...
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.
 
steve4102 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you

csmsss said:
What's frightening is that this might not be simple grandstanding.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
+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. :eek:
 
Last edited:
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.;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Perhaps some of you didn't read
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.
__________________
Click to expand...

Posts have been deleted and infractions given. Continuing to do so might lead to stronger actions.
 
I condemn Eric Holders lies and illegal activities. He needs to be held accountable for his actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top