Just turn yer hearing aid down.  The escalation of a situation will lead to one of three places, the jail, hospital, or funeral home.

 Sounds like a non compromising bighead to me. Would it be worth it to me to kill someone and spend time in jail because I don't like the music someone else likes? Idiots like this needs to just stay home!

I read a little abut this case a while ago. I don't remember, did he claim the 'stand your ground' defense? Will every case of murder be blamed on the law by the ones who don't agree with it? How long have we had the 'self defense' law and how many times has it been used, rightfully or wrongfully? I guess we should toss it too.

I am not opposed to conceal carry or the stand your ground laws.  Dip wads are dip wads, whether they force you to listen to their version of music, or excessivly loud exhaust on a vehicle.  Just because it sounds good to me doesn't mean that you want to hear it. Evidently they did not find a gun in the victims vehicle, the shooter should get the needle.

It's crazy. Why would a person confront someone over loud music, loud talking, looking at them 'wrong' etc, in a place they will be leaving in a couple of minutes anyway? If they're not bothering/harassing the person, not bothering or harassing others, leave them alone. Yes, loud music can be considered a bother, but unless they have to be there with it for a long time, instead of a couple of minutes, a rational person should be able to 'stand it'.

___

You did not read enough.  Here is the skinny on "stand your ground" in the Michael Dunn case:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...nd-yo_b_4821223.html

ABC news says otherwise; that "stand your ground" had no bearing on the case.

When a Florida jury deadlocked on the first degree murder charge against software developer Michael Dunn, the state's controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" was once again hoisted into the media spotlight.

Dunn was convicted on four other charges in the case, in which he fired 10 times at an SUV after an argument with the teens inside about how loud their music was, and will likely be sentenced to a minimum of 60 years behind bars.

As in the case of George Zimmerman, acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin, the public outrage was often directed or misdirected, at the Florida law.

Many, including legal commentators who should know better, repeatedly citing the statute as a crucial issue in both cases.

And yet neither defendant invoked the controversial aspects of Florida's law. In fact, both defendants argued basic self defense law that would have been similar in just about every state in the nation.

The relevant portion of the law of self defense in Florida reads: "A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself"

The controversial section of that law relates to the fact that there is no "duty to retreat," meaning that in non-stand your ground states one must, in most cases, first attempt to get away if he or she can.

In Florida, however, there is no such requirement and the shooter may "stand his or her ground" when firing in self defense.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/flori...es/story?id=22543929

Dunn's defense attorney, Cory Strolla, explicitly pointed to Stand Your Ground in his impassioned closing argument:

His honor will further tell you, that if Michael Dunn was in a public place where he had a legal right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.

I knew Zimmerman hadn't used 'stand your ground' as his defense even though many tried to make it so, and didn't think this man had either, but I wasn't sure. That's two cases where the law was blamed and attacked.

what part of 'his defense attorney explicitly pointed to 'stand your ground''.. is so hard for you people to understand?

The ABC legal analyst's opinion:

Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin was pummeling him and Dunn that he had a shotgun pointed at him by a young man saying "I'm going to kill you." If Dunn's account were true -- and it was contradicted by other witnesses -- then retreat hardly seems like an option.

Regardless of what one thinks of the defenses (and because of Zimmerman's injuries and the testimony of eyewitnesses, his defense was far stronger legally than Dunn's claim, which was only supported by his own testimony) the controversial aspect of the law was hardly the issue.

____

There is a density there, Crash, that is truly difficult to understand!  It is a density somewhere between that of  depleted uranium and a black hole..

Why do people want to put the stand your ground law on trial every time someone gets shot.  Trayvon martin got what was coming to him when he went back to " teach that cracka a lesson". Hopefully, dunn will get his for being a hot head.  But if someone in the suv did point a stick resembling a gun at him he should get less time. 

I wish it was legal to shoot at those thumping cars. 

___

Hey, mad, the trial is OVER.  Dunn has "got his," not "for being a "hot head," but for "FIRST DEGREE MURDER".  As I showed you above, Dunn's own lawyer cited the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine.

The judge and jury were not impressed, and neither should you be.  The "Stand Your Ground law was not on trial here.   Laws do not go on trial; murderers do. This murderer was found  GUILTY.

__

So, then, do you covet the opportunity to join Mr. Dunn at the Graystone Hotel?

How about other nuisances that you might encounter in public?  Do you wish it were legal to fire away at every person who behaves in some boorish way?

Someday you might wish to gravitate to something closer to a normal state of mind.  

No thanks bitternpoo I'd rather hang out with illegitimate children and their thumping cars than with their daddies in prison. 

But idiots that think law abiding citizens should put up with crap from thugs put the stand your ground law on trial at every opportunity. And yes, Dunn got what was coming to him. I have no problem with the verdict. I do have  a problem with yahoos that want to take away the stand your ground defense where it is justified, as in the Martin case. That was a case of self defense.

___

You have a point insofar as what is permitted under the the Stand Your Ground law is concerned, but the "duty to retreat" legal principle is essentially negated in the minds of certain gun-toting persons who, when they could safely retreat, decide instead to stand their ground and fire away.

Death--including unnecesssary death--and controversy inevitably attend such a law as Stand Your Ground.

______________________________________________________________

 I believe the reason for the "stand your ground laws" is that there have been a few past examples of people who clearly were victims of "duty to retreat" laws. I remember an example of a woman chased through her house with her child or children (I believe 35 years ago.) and she was convicted of shooting her assailant because she had another door to run through. How much retreating is enough?

As for me, I would rather slowly try to disengage; both to prevent the altercation and also work my way toward a better bullet stop and cover. Even if a shooting is justified at best it is necessary evil thing to do and probably a great way to live the Chinese curse " May your life be filled with lawyers!".

Personally I would choose to not engage at all.  But if someone is on my property trying to steal from or rob me, as a law abiding citizen I should be able to use whatever force is necesary to stop the thief or robber.  Picking a fight cause someone is playing thier music too loud, dumbass.

______

Careful there.  If someone is stealing property from you. you can not legally shoot or otherwise use deadly force on them  them purely on the basis that you are protecting your property. If such a person is unarmed, you put yourself at  risk of prosecution, should you kill or injure them.

Here is some info on this topic:

https://www.justia.com/crimina...lcrim/3400/3476.html

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

"The defense of justification would fail, for example, if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not commit robbery and who did not appear to be a physical threat. However, the owner or lawful possessor of property has a privilege to use any degree of non-deadly force necessary to protect his possession or recover his property, regardless of no physical threat to his person."

I understand the way the law reads. I am saying that deadly force should be legal to protect property. That is why there is so much theft going on. The crooks have nothing to fear. At the present time, if you catch someone stealing your car, you can't use enough force to stop the theft. Thiefs are just murderers in training.

Because someone tries to use the stand your ground law means nothing unless they can prove the law applied, so the attacks on the law are silly. What's the point? To do away with the law? Why? There are plenty of cases where the law is valid, but again, just because someone claims it doesn't automatically mean they will be successful.

Best, it seems to me, just an opinion, that people that may commit crimes, or have relatives that commit crimes are the main ones objecting to stand your ground laws. 

===================

I agree. To, I don't think anyone should be held liable for any injury a person receives on their property. Unless they were tied and dragged onto the property they have zero 'legs to stand on' imo.

____

On this one, YOU have no legs to stand on. The laws are clear on this issue.  There are MANY circumstances in which a property owner can be held liable for injuries sustained by others coming onto his property.. Insurance companies routinely  include insurance for this kind of liability within property insurance policies. What you "think" on this matter is not worth thinking about.

==================

Good grief, you're getting worse than bill. You don't seem to be able to read or comprehend a post. Read it again. It is my opinion, which I am entitled to have, that UNLESS you drag someone by force, against their will, onto your property, they should not be able to sue you for any injury, and most certainly not while they are there to rob, vandalize, or do any other 'nasty deed'. I know you lefties think people should be sued for looking at someone wrong. Not just sued, but ruined, but I don't think that way. Buy your own d*** insurance to cover your clumsy self or stay off other's property. If you choose to go somewhere you are the one taking the risk, and should bear the responsibility.

___

You simply do not know how to make yourself clear. Your first sentence read thusly:

"To[sic], I don't think anyone should be held liable for any injury a person receives on their property."

"anyone"  anybody?  That kind of all-subsuming language covers more than instances of attempted robbery and the like.  You would not have had to 'splain yourself later if you had not posted such an all-comprehending statement as that.

You simply do not know how to make yourself clear. Your first sentence read thusly:

"To[sic], I don't think anyone should be held liable for any injury a person receives on their property."

"anyone"  anybody?  That kind of all-subsuming language covers more than instances of attempted robbery and the like.  You would not have had to 'splain yourself later if you had not posted such an all-comprehending statement as that.

--------------------

Yes professor, I posted to instead of too. If you have such a problem comprehending when someone makes a simple mistake maybe you shouldn't be running around attempting to correct other folks. Remember too, you make plenty of mistakes. What I posted was easy to understand, and clear as day, and your silly nit picking does not make you look smart, it makes you look foolish.

____

The fact that you fail to recognize your obvious error is clear evidence that you are incapable of

understanding why your wording was ill-chosen and why you are probably  incapable of making appropriate adjustments in future postings.  What is it that impedes your understanding of that little word "any"? It is a tiny word, but it embraces much when used as you used it. You made the generic statement,:

"To[sic], I don't think anyone should be held liable for any injury a person receives on their property."

Then you proceeded to describe one situation to which it would, in your opinion, apply"

"Unless they were tied and dragged onto the property they have zero 'legs to stand on' imo."

Your intended "Too" means "in addition to the foregoing", but it does not negate the scope ("any") contemplated  of your first sentence.  This is all about clear writing, Best, and your grade here is at best a D-.

Back to Remedial English 100 for you.  It is a non-credit course, but will prepare you for the real thing.

I see you're still deflecting. I don't think I'll go running back to class on your suggestion. Clean up your own house before you start on others.