TexasCHLforum.com

Just saw a documentary on the current channel (215 on dish network) about the Stand your ground law. I think this law high widely misinterpreted. I missed the first 20 minutes, but did see them talk to a man who had shot, did not kill, an how it changed his life. He still carries, but pretty much lost it all! Comes on again Sunday at 2:30am ( thank God for DVR). With the Martin case starting and Zimmerman using this as his defense, it could be worth following.

Current TV was founded by Al Gore and recently sold to Al Jazeera. I would not watch anything on that network.

Imposing a duty for the victim to retreat often puts the victim in greater danger.

paperchunker wrote:Current TV was founded by Al Gore and recently sold to Al Jazeera. I would not watch anything on that network.

Seriously??

Cjwglock19 wrote:

paperchunker wrote:Current TV was founded by Al Gore and recently sold to Al Jazeera. I would not watch anything on that network.

Seriously??

Yes. Current is a progressive media company that was owned by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt and was sold to Al Jazeera in January. It will soon take on the name Al Jazeera network. Please, watch on and support the terrorist television network.

RX8er wrote:

Cjwglock19 wrote:

paperchunker wrote:Current TV was founded by Al Gore and recently sold to Al Jazeera. I would not watch anything on that network.

Seriously??

Yes. Current is a progressive media company that was owned by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt and was sold to Al Jazeera in January. It will soon take on the name Al Jazeera network. Please, watch on and support the terrorist television network.

Well then someone delete this thread!! In the mean time I will be blocking this station!

If I was your Moma, I'd wash your eyes out with bleach to teach you a lesson.

Panda wrote:Imposing a duty for the victim to retreat often puts the victim in greater danger.

It also might save lives. References:
http://www.chron.com/life/mom-houston/a ... 591544.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both of these characters claimed some form of self-defense. I don't believe the first one, but I the second had what I thought would be a valid claim, at least based on the court transcript.

Don't mistake my references as support for requiring a duty to retreat, I'm just saying that if either of those people would have *thought* that they had a duty to retreat and followed it, others would alive today. And in neither case was a "bad guy" killed.

The down side is that a duty to retreat would open up lawsuits for all sorts of circumstances where a real bad guy was involved...

On top of all that, Glen Beck was interested in buying the network from that low life and they wouldn't even consider selling it to his group.

cb1000rider wrote:

Panda wrote:Imposing a duty for the victim to retreat often puts the victim in greater danger.

It also might save lives. References:
http://www.chron.com/life/mom-houston/a ... 591544.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Violence between people chasing each other in cars is not a good argument against "Stand Your Ground" laws.

The key that I think people forget is that maybe you can legally stand your ground but is it the moral thing to do? Sometimes it is better to retreat.

texanjoker wrote:Sometimes it is better to retreat.

That's true, I think it should be legal to retreat if the person with boots on the ground thinks that's the best course of action. I also think it should be legal to hold position if they think that's the best course of action. I like that the law allows us the latitude to make the decision that's appropriate for the individual situation.