Disney World Boycott?

[Lewisc]

How about the statistical data from our own Department of Justice that shows that a certain subset that comprises about 13 percent of the US population is responsible for nearly 65 percent of violent crimes in this country??

That's something that the media doesn't want to report, but hey why confuse things with the facts? Cry about the stand your ground law, not about why it's needed. Certain "groups" should take a look at their own and ask why their people are responsible for so many crimes beyond their representation inn the population. But we know that will never happen. We have to have affirmative action justice in this country.

The media reports this on a regular basis, just not the way you want. Profiling, relying on statics on a group of people to justify an action on a specific individual, is wrong. It might even be illegal if it's being done by law enforcement.

 

[Me!Thatswho]

No, we're talking about the law which says you can use deadly force even if the threat isn't real and even if you could have safely retreated from or evaded from the situation.

Sorry, that is not what the statute says. So for educational purposes, here it is:

"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."

Notice what I put in bold. To use stand your ground as a defense, you have to be both acting lawfully and attacked. So much for "you can use deadly force even if the threat isn't real." Please stop posting on this issue, as it is clear you no idea what you are talking about.

Or better yet, boycott Disney on the first week in December so I can get on Space Mountain a minute or two quicker.

 

[Me!Thatswho]

Profiling, relying on statics on a group of people to justify an action on a specific individual, is wrong.

Agreed. That's why Trayvon should not have profiled Zimmerman.

 

[Kristibo42]

Yes people boycott Disney the first week in December. I want no crowds!!!!

 

[lilmomma00]

Makes no sense! But I hope they boycott when I go.lol

 

[NateNLogansDad]

So, nobody boycotts Disney for their prices, but they will boycott for this?

 

[Lewisc]

Sorry, that is not what the statute says. So for educational purposes, here it is:

"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."

Notice what I put in bold. To use stand your ground as a defense, you have to be both acting lawfully and attacked. So much for "you can use deadly force even if the threat isn't real." Please stop posting

I don't need your permission to post. The question is if the vigilante is at risk of death or great bodily harm. The standard isn't if the risk is real. The person who can give the other side of the story is dead. I'll stick with my summary. The risk of death or great bodily harm doesn't have to be real and the fact the vigilant could have walked away is irrelevant.

Agreed. That's why Trayvon should not have profiled Zimmerman. :

Really.

 

[Robbi]

I don't need your permission to post. The question is if the vigilante is at risk of death or great bodily harm. The standard isn't if the risk is real. The person who can give the other side of the story is dead. I'll stick with my summary. The risk of death or great bodily harm doesn't have to be real and the fact the vigilant could have walked away is irrelevant.





Really.

The jury said not guilty so they believed Zimmerman's story.

 

[hoff41]

Obviously this has gotten political. Maybe a moderator should close it?

 

[Flrancho]

People are getting so up in arms over this and its getting rediculous. He was found not guilty by a jury and people need to get over it.

Being a Floridian myself, the state law pretty much stays that you just have to be in fear for your life or of great bodily harm. This fear could be real or it could be perceived. Technically under Stand Your Ground you could feasibly have someone defend themselves with deadly force and have no injuries whatsoever (example: someone kicking the door in on your house, or someone simply threatening you with a gun in a park or something). As long as your reasonably afraid for your life, have a legal right to be where you are when the incident happens, and are not committing a crime you can legally defend yourself under Stand Your Ground. (example: walking around your neighborhood and being jumped by someone who then threatens you and/or it progresses to the point that you fear for your life is a reasonable defense under Stand Your Ground as long as you, at minimum perceive that your life is in danger or will suffer great bodily harm; breaking into someone house to steal the tv and shooting at the homeowner when they go to investigate the noise would not be a defense under Stand Your Ground because the person was in the commission of a crime at the time and had no legal right to be where they were. You also have to "stand your ground" in a Stand Your Ground defense, if you leave the scene and come back with a weapon to confront whoever, you haven't "stood your ground" and that defense is no longer applicable; I mention this only because a lot of people are having a fit over a black woman that claimed a Stand Your Ground defence against an abusive ex husband here in Florida and lost her case and got incarcerated for 20 years. However, she left the scene of the incident, went outside the home where it occurred, went to her car, got her gun and came back and shot at her ex. She lost her case because she didn't stand her ground, she left and came back and confronted her ex; so the defense here wasn't plausible.

Its also important to note that the Stand Your Ground defense was never used in the Zimmerman trial. The defense in this case claimed self defense law, a nationwide law in the US, which is different than Stand Your Ground. That being said, self defense law or Stand Your Ground, I think Zimmerman would have won the case on either defense.

As for people boycotting the parks; all I can say is get over it and if you won't do so and decide to boycott anyway, good! Shorter lines for me!

 

[jperrot1]

I still do not see a link to Disney on this.

 

[ffcheff]

I thought we were boycotting because disney served sugary drinks.

 

[Lewisc]

Obviously this has gotten political. Maybe a moderator should close it?

Good point. I posted since some posters didn't understand the boycott is intended to reduce business meetings/convention bookings in the state of FL. I wouldn't expect individual bookings would have any impact. People thinking the boycott will lead to empty parks at the time of their visit are either joking (99% sure) or, if serious, are living in Fantasyland.

OJ was found not guilty in a criminal trial. Doesn't change the fact that many people thought he was guilty and a civil court later supported that opinion.

I agree comments regarding the actual issue doesn't belong in this thread. I apologize for getting "sucked" in and responding.

 

[Son of Gadsden]

No, we're talking about the law which says you can use deadly force even if the threat isn't real and even if you could have safely retreated from or evaded from the situation.

If someone tries to commit a crime against you, you should have the right to stand your ground. The 2nd Amendment invokes the right of self defense. That was the intent of ratification on that amendment. Having a law that says you should just let them take what they want and run away is a law that assists the wrongdoer.

But instead of decrying angry mobs and " media" (which is the problem...but not from the angle you seem to indicate)...I would suggest you look at the statistical data on these types of laws.

I'm not telling you what to think... That's your call. But it should be an informed opinion.

If I've learned anything from my statistics classes in college, it's that you can't base an informed opinion on statistics, and the best way to formulate an opinion is 80% situational and more like 20% statistical. Statistics will show what the creator wants them to show, and are distorted by changes in variables that the statistics may ignore, whether on purpose or just an error. Because of this, statistics don't make much of a difference to me. Yes, it would be foolish to completely ignore statistics, but anyone who uses them as the sole, or even a strong component to an argument is making an argument largely based on speculation.

 

[Me!Thatswho]

I don't need your permission to post.

Didn't say you did, only that your posts in this issue are foolish and off base with the facts of the case. Thus, annoying.

The question is if the vigilante is at risk of death or great bodily harm. The standard isn't if the risk is real.

Zimmerman wasn't a vigilante. He was in a place where he had a legal right to be, and responded with deadly force only after he was punched in the face and had his head pounded into the curb.

The person who can give the other side of the story is dead.

As a result of his own violent and aggressive actions.

I'll stick with my summary. The risk of death or great bodily harm doesn't have to be real and the fact the vigilant could have walked away is irrelevant.

Talk about fantasyland?

Really.

RE: Creepy a** cracker, which, according to Rachel Jeantel, involved an implication that Zimmerman was a homosexual following Trayvon in order to rape him.

But, as the actual facts have nothing to do with Disney, I agree this thread should be closed.

 

[Paging Tom Morrow]

I was going to post something here but realized I would only be branded racist if I posted in favor of Zimmerman or naive if I wasn't. Since I am neither, I'll just say that this thread should be closed and locked forever.

 

[patrickpiteo]

i was going to post something here but realized i would only be branded racist if i posted in favor of zimmerman or naive if i wasn't. Since i am neither, i'll just say that this thread should be closed and locked forever.

 

[Acklander]

So, nobody boycotts Disney for their prices, but they will boycott for this?

They aren't boycotting Disney, but boycotting the state of Florida. It isn't about money, but about safety. So the price of tickets has nothing to do with the decision to boycott.
After watching the news about the woman who was raped in Dubai and when she reported it, was arrested for adultery. As a woman, I wouldn't feel comfortable visiting Dubai knowing that the local laws will not protect me. Some feel that the local laws in Florida won't protect them.
Florida relies on tourism - so, yes - those who have businesses in Florida have a vested interest in laws that discourage tourism in the area.

 

[BlackMagicWoman]

Didn't say you did, only that your posts in this issue are foolish and off base with the facts of the case. Thus, annoying.


Zimmerman wasn't a vigilante. He was in a place where he had a legal right to be, and responded with deadly force only after he was punched in the face and had his head pounded into the curb.


As a result of his own violent and aggressive actions.


Talk about fantasyland?


RE: Creepy a** cracker, which, according to Rachel Jeantel, involved an implication that Zimmerman was a homosexual following Trayvon in order to rape him.

But, as the actual facts have nothing to do with Disney, I agree this thread should be closed.

It's a reasonable assumption. If a man were following me, I would assume he planned on assaulting and/or raping me. Getting followed is pretty scary.

Anywho I will agree, this thread should be locked forever and a day. I know people who whole heartedly support boycotting Florida. I am not one of them. I don't think that it would be effective and honestly, I think the people who are the poorest would be hurt the worst. Not fair IMO.

 

[Robbi]

Trayvon was at the house where his father was staying.
He left and went back up the sidewalk to confront GZ.
SYG was not used in Zimmerman's case. The lawyers used self defense which every state and most countries in the world recognize.
The jury found Zimmerman not guilty.

SYG is a variation of self defense and 30+ states have a form of it as either SYG, the Castle Doctrine, etc. In some states, like California, it's legal to pursue the person you feel threatened you.

Basically this law is in place because in some instances, someone broke into a house and threatened or caused harm the homeowner.
The homeowner defended themselves and either hurt or killed the criminal.
The criminal or the criminal's family sued the homeowner.
The law is to prevent things like this from happening.