Obama strengthens Stand your ground laws in Illinois...

Well it seems that then Senator Obama was all for just ratcheting up the violence, letting people get away with reacting violently rather than encouraging people to be victims.
 
I've been waiting all day for this one...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...port_a_stand_your_ground_law_in_illinois.html

The Illinois Review makes a find that's been bouncing around conservative social media all day. "Nine years ago," argue the authors, "then-State Sen. Barack Obama actually co-sponsored a bill that strengthened Illinois' 1961 'stand your ground' law." If true, this would render hypocritical or null so much of the presidential palaver about the NRA-supported gun law. Wouldn't it?

Oh, you can probably guess the twist. Illinois' 2004 SB2386 was passed by a unanimous vote in the state Senate. It amended a self-defense law first passed in 1961. Alarm bells should be ringing at this point, because Florida was pretty famously the first state to pass a "stand your ground" law, a year after this Illinois bill. Have reporters been blowing that story? No: "Stand your ground" is substantively different than what Obama backed in Illinois. He backed a tweak to the "castle doctrine," which reads like this:

A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with her real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.

"Stand your ground" takes the concept of the castle doctrine and turns it into a traveling force field of sorts. Here's Florida's language:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

It's a pretty obvious difference, which probably means that the "Obama used to support this" theory is essentially trolling. "Stand your ground" isn't actually in any danger in Florida; David Freddoso makes the impolitic but worthwhile argument that "if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed," the law would have applied to him. He wasn't in his house or on his own property, and neither was George Zimmerman when he confronted him. But our current political contretemps is over the president and Democrats and some celebrities suddenly attacking "stand your ground"—I guess this odd theory has developed to tamp it all down.
Click to expand...
 
Howey said:
I've been waiting all day for this one...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...port_a_stand_your_ground_law_in_illinois.html
Click to expand...

4vLJk.gif
 
Mott the Hoople said:
LOL You should! LOL Howies pwned you! LOL LOL LOL
Click to expand...


Howey pwned no one.....

Obama is shown to be a hypocrite on this and a few other issues on things he said president...

the spin that the article is trying to bullshit us with is "a distinction without a difference"....

Question:
Does Illinois have a “stand your ground” law, like the one in Florida?

Answer:
Yes. Article 7 of the Illinois Criminal Code includes a law that is similar to Florida. It’s a “self-defense” that can defeat both criminal and civil liability.
The three main parts of the Illinois law apply to the use of force: “in defense of person,” “in defense of dwelling,” and “in defense of other property.”
The “force” the law refers to is force applied to other people, and comes in 2 different levels: regular or deadly.
For any force to be ok for self-defense, you must “reasonably believe that such conduct is necessary.” It’s not self-defense if you are over-sensitive, over-react, or overdo it. You must act reasonably.
To defend yourself or someone else, regular force is OK to defend against the “imminent use of unlawful force.”
To defend a dwelling, regular force is OK to prevent or stop someone’s “unlawful entry into or attack upon the dwelling.”
To defend “other property”—real property that’s not a dwelling, or personal property—regular force is OK to prevent or stop someone’s “trespass on or criminal interference with” that property.
“Deadly force” means “force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm.” When you’re defending yourself or someone else, deadly force is OK only if you reasonably believe it’s necessary “to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to yourself or another.
When you’re defending yourself or someone else, or stopping that “trespass on or criminal interference with” other property, deadly force is also OK to prevent “the commission of a forcible felony.”
When it’s used to stop someone’s “unlawful entry into or attack upon” a dwelling, deadly force gets harder to justify. It’s justified to prevent “an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to” yourself or someone else in the dwelling, but only if the deadly force is used against someone whose “entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner.” It’s also OK to prevent “the commission of a felony in the dwelling.”
In 1953, our Supreme Court said they had “repeatedly held” that someone “put in apparent danger of his life or of great bodily harm need not attempt to escape but may repel force with force, even to the taking of an assailant's life, if necessary or apparently so, to prevent bodily harm.”
A judge or a jury decides if the force was right. It’s your job to prove it was.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
Howey pwned no one.....

Obama is shown to be a hypocrite on this and a few other issues on things he said president...

the spin that the article is trying to bullshit us with is "a distinction without a difference"....Question:
Does Illinois have a “stand your ground” law, like the one in Florida?
Click to expand...

Noone ever said it didn't. Obama didn't create it. It's from 1961.

Dumbass.

another pwn!
 
Superfreak said:
I also have to point out you waited seven minutes to ask the above... So yes, you have yet again proven you truly are a dumbass Ohioan
Click to expand...

a. It wasn't a Stand your Ground law, it was a Castle Doctrine.

b. It was a tweak to the law.

c. You're an idiot.
 
Howey said:
a. It wasn't a Stand your Ground law, it was a Castle Doctrine.

b. It was a tweak to the law.

c. You're an idiot.
Click to expand...

Again howey... He strengthened the existing law... Saying he 'tweaked' it, is your pathetic attempt to spin.

But please explain the differences you see in SYG and the castle doctrine...
 
Superfreak said:
But please explain the differences you see in SYG and the castle doctrine...
Click to expand...

You don't know?????

YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW??????????????????????????????????????


Are you for real?

From the article above which you obviously didn't read.

A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with her real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.

"Stand your ground" takes the concept of the castle doctrine and turns it into a traveling force field of sorts.
Click to expand...
 
Howey said:
You don't know?????

YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW??????????????????????????????????????


Are you for real?

From the article above which you obviously didn't read.

[/SIZE][/B]
Click to expand...

Lmao... So, like desh, you are incapable of using your own words? In other words, you are simply hoping that article makes the point you think it does and in reality you have no idea what it all means. Which is why when asked what the difference is to you, you are unable to respond other than to point to a link.
 
Superfreak said:
Lmao... So, like desh, you are incapable of using your own words? In other words, you are simply hoping that article makes the point you think it does and in reality you have no idea what it all means. Which is why when asked what the difference is to you, you are unable to respond other than to point to a link.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should type bigger and use more of the same punctuation marks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top