Dayton on record AGAINST 'STAND YOUR GROUND'

[coltpython123]

Dayton on record AGAINST 'STAND YOUR GROUND'

Of course he vetoed 'defense of person and dwelling' last time but he decided to chime in today on SYG now that there is a little hysteria.

What is with this guy? Does he have a 'Borderline Personality'? ......meaning on the borderline of being 'non functional' Someone saw him at a campaign event 'popping pills'



http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 ... -video.php

Is this guy 'Heavily Medicated'.....he sure looks goofy but once elected all he has to do is show up for a certain number of events and he's fullfilling his job. Does he spend most of his time Drooling in his bedroom. Is he a 'mental case' Son of a Billionaire who can buy some really cool jobs like Senator / Governor?

The Minnesota primary has only just ended, but the state Republican Party is already out with an attack against the Democratic nominee, former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton, slamming him for his performance in Washington — and his personal demeanor.

“He was absolutely positively, one of the worst Senators in America,” the announcer says, referring to an “honor” that was bestowed on Dayton and several other Senators by Time magazine in 2006. “And Mark Dayton agrees — Dayton gave himself a failing grade. Time magazine called Dayton ‘erratic’ after he closed his office, fearing a nonexistent terrorist threat. Dayton’s behavior was called ‘a strange aberration,’ ‘perplexing,’ ‘panicky.’”

This ad is mostly true. The Time cover with Dayton’s photo and the word “erratic” is a mock-up, but otherwise it’s fairly accurate. In the years since he left office, Dayton has openly discussed his struggles with alcoholism, saying that he had relapsed before the end of his Senate term, and has also disclosed that he has been medicated for depression.

Yea hes heavily sedated theres videos of him where he looks like he's stoned out of his mind, ive heard he's addicted to pain killers.

[darkwolf45]

You either have a right to be in a place or you don't. Requiring someone always try to run away (as Holder has said) isn't just unreasonable, it is asinine.

That is not a call for the immediate use of lethal force. It does seem reasonable that you need to establish a role as an unwilling participant where extreme force is necessary. But making the default response to run at the first sign of trouble is a recipe for disaster on many levels, both immediate and long term.

For one thing, can you be certain you can outrun your attacker? If not, can you be certain you can now fight your attacker off after he has tackled you from behind? If he has tackled you, what are the odds he will discover your conceiled weapon? This is just off of my head.

Always teach people to deescalate. Always. This is difficult for people like Holder or big O to understand because their mentality is to always, ALWAYS escalate until you get what you want, but again it is necessary that people learn to deescalate. This is markedly different from a default expectation you retreat. I am not a fan of idiots who live in gated homes with round the clock armed security limiting tactical options for people who have a legal and natiral right to be in a public place.

[river_boater]

If Heffay had any real life experience, like what Zimmerman went through, he would understand that NO law abiding American citizen should have to turn and run from a criminal. Stand your ground.

Trayvon was a criminal before he laid a hand on Zimmerman? Interesting. What made Trayvon a criminal?

Illegal possession of drugs (marijuana), possible illegal possession of a handgun, stolen goods (womens jewelry) found on his possession...for starters.

So this made him fair-game? A permit, even a Florida one, does not give you the right to shoot "criminals."

[hkrada]

He made himself "fair game" when he decided it was a good idea to physically engage GZ causing a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. It's pretty simple, the bad guys take their lives in their own hands when committing violent crimes. If they die as a result of it then it should be their problem not anyone elses. If someone would have shot that dumb ass girl in Forest Lake while committing a fake kidnapping then it should have rightly been her fault. Yes it would have been a "tragedy", but it would have been her fault for doing something monumentally stupid and no law abiding American should suffer for some one elses poor decisions.

[Heffay]

He made himself "fair game" when he decided it was a good idea to physically engage GZ causing a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. It's pretty simple, the bad guys take their lives in their own hands when committing violent crimes. If they die as a result of it then it should be their problem not anyone elses. If someone would have shot that dumb ass girl in Forest Lake while committing a fake kidnapping then it should have rightly been her fault. Yes it would have been a "tragedy", but it would have been her fault for doing something monumentally stupid and no law abiding American should suffer for some one elses poor decisions.

So, why do we need SYG again? None of this is any reason that the existing self defense laws aren't sufficient.

SYG is a solution looking for a problem.

[darkwolf45]

He made himself "fair game" when he decided it was a good idea to physically engage GZ causing a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. It's pretty simple, the bad guys take their lives in their own hands when committing violent crimes. If they die as a result of it then it should be their problem not anyone elses. If someone would have shot that dumb ass girl in Forest Lake while committing a fake kidnapping then it should have rightly been her fault. Yes it would have been a "tragedy", but it would have been her fault for doing something monumentally stupid and no law abiding American should suffer for some one elses poor decisions.

GZ could have also not inserted himself into a situation where he was provoking TM. I don't know to what level GZ was provoking, but he is far from blameless in the whole debacle. That does not excuse a physical attack by TM, not in the least, but again, as a gun owner GZ has an obligation to behave responsibly in regards to conflicts with others. Prior to being physically attacked, it seems he may not have been taking that responsibility seriously.

I am not going to cheer the death of others, even if they have been involved in semkind of crime. The situation may arise where lethal force is necessary, but that action comes at the price of some of our soul. We don't engage in it because they deserve it, we engage because it is necessary.

[jshuberg]

So, why do we need SYG again? None of this is any reason that the existing self defense laws aren't sufficient.

I already explained that to you. Try to keep up.

[jshuberg]

GZ could have also not inserted himself into a situation where he was provoking TM. I don't know to what level GZ was provoking, but he is far from blameless in the whole debacle. That does not excuse a physical attack by TM, not in the least, but again, as a gun owner GZ has an obligation to behave responsibly in regards to conflicts with others. Prior to being physically attacked, it seems he may not have been taking that responsibility seriously.

Zimmerman was a complete and absolute moron. He should never have gotten out of his car. He should not have approached Martin, talked to him, or engaged him in any way. He should not have talked to police, gave multiple interviews, or staged a walk-through without legal representation present. These things make him guilty of being an idiot, but none of these things are unlawful. There is a very large grey area between what is stupid, and what is criminal - and that's exactly how it should be. Stupid people stumbling into trouble aren't criminals, they're just plain stupid.

Zimmerman may have been the instigator of a stupid but lawful encounter, but it was Martin who was the instigator of an unlawful violent encounter. The jury saw this, and ruled in accordance with the law.

[darkwolf45]

GZ could have also not inserted himself into a situation where he was provoking TM. I don't know to what level GZ was provoking, but he is far from blameless in the whole debacle. That does not excuse a physical attack by TM, not in the least, but again, as a gun owner GZ has an obligation to behave responsibly in regards to conflicts with others. Prior to being physically attacked, it seems he may not have been taking that responsibility seriously.

Zimmerman was a complete and absolute moron. He should never have gotten out of his car. He should not have approached Martin, talked to him, or engaged him in any way. He should not have talked to police, gave multiple interviews, or staged a walk-through without legal representation present. These things make him guilty of being an idiot, but none of these things are unlawful. There is a very large grey area between what is stupid, and what is criminal - and that's exactly how it should be. Stupid people stumbling into trouble aren't criminals, they're just plain stupid.

Zimmerman may have been the instigator of a stupid but lawful encounter, but it was Martin who was the instigator of an unlawful violent encounter. The jury saw this, and ruled in accordance with the law.

I agree.

[MasonK]

Zimmerman was a complete and absolute moron. He should never have gotten out of his car. He should not have approached Martin, talked to him, or engaged him in any way. He should not have talked to police, gave multiple interviews, or staged a walk-through without legal representation present. These things make him guilty of being an idiot, but none of these things are unlawful. There is a very large grey area between what is stupid, and what is criminal - and that's exactly how it should be. Stupid people stumbling into trouble aren't criminals, they're just plain stupid.

While I normally share the same opinions as you, I'm going to disagree on this one. I'd like a little more color on why you think he was a complete moron.

If I see a van in my cul-de-sac and a person I've never seen at the wheel watching the neighborhood kids is it moronic of me to approach them and ask them their business in the area? Sure, I can call the police and watch them from my window, but how long will it take for them to arrive? What if they snatch a kid wile I'm waiting? Chances of that are low, but the point is this- why should I have to let police handle a problem which can easily be addressed by a private citizen, especially when a crime has not yet been obviously committed?

In security jobs you aren't a sworn officer but if you see something suspicious (let's use something very innocuous... like people loitering) you don't call the police- you just ask them their business and probably tell them to move along. Same goes if you jockey a register at the Holiday.

I don't agree with this notion that only the police can handle our problems. I'm not saying to look for a fight by any means, but if I see something amiss, I reserve the right to look into it- especially when it requires attention now...not in 10 minutes when the police arrive, but now.

[Heffay]

If I see a van in my cul-de-sac and a person I've never seen at the wheel watching the neighborhood kids is it moronic of me to approach them and ask them their business in the area? Sure, I can call the police and watch them from my window, but how long will it take for them to arrive? What if they snatch a kid wile I'm waiting? Chances of that are low, but the point is this- why should I have to let police handle a problem which can easily be addressed by a private citizen, especially when a crime has not yet been obviously committed?

Nothing wrong with going up to the van and asking him if everything is ok. The problem is if the guy flips you off and drives away, do you chase after him?

The answer will determine whether you're a moron or not.

[Hmac]

GZ could have also not inserted himself into a situation where he was provoking TM. I don't know to what level GZ was provoking, but he is far from blameless in the whole debacle. That does not excuse a physical attack by TM, not in the least, but again, as a gun owner GZ has an obligation to behave responsibly in regards to conflicts with others. Prior to being physically attacked, it seems he may not have been taking that responsibility seriously.

Zimmerman was a complete and absolute moron. He should never have gotten out of his car. He should not have approached Martin, talked to him, or engaged him in any way. He should not have talked to police, gave multiple interviews, or staged a walk-through without legal representation present. These things make him guilty of being an idiot, but none of these things are unlawful. There is a very large grey area between what is stupid, and what is criminal - and that's exactly how it should be. Stupid people stumbling into trouble aren't criminals, they're just plain stupid.

Zimmerman may have been the instigator of a stupid but lawful encounter, but it was Martin who was the instigator of an unlawful violent encounter. The jury saw this, and ruled in accordance with the law.

I agree with all of that, but I'm a little off track...this seems like part of a different thread and discussing things that we've already hashed out. Where does the Zimmerman-Martin saga intersect stand-your-ground laws in Minnesota?

[MasonK]

Nothing wrong with going up to the van and asking him if everything is ok. The problem is if the guy flips you off and drives away, do you chase after him?

The answer will determine whether you're a moron or not.

Fair assessment, but if they return and attack me several minutes later am I still in the right for approaching them or do I lose my standing because they decided to perpetrate a sneak attack after I asked them if everything as OK and they ran off?

[Heffay]

Nothing wrong with going up to the van and asking him if everything is ok. The problem is if the guy flips you off and drives away, do you chase after him?

The answer will determine whether you're a moron or not.

Fair assessment, but if they return and attack me several minutes later am I still in the right for approaching them or do I lose my standing because they decided to perpetrate a sneak attack after I asked them if everything as OK and they ran off?

Did you chase them off?

Then you're a moron.

[20mm]

Zimmerman was a complete and absolute moron. He should never have gotten out of his car. He should not have approached Martin, talked to him, or engaged him in any way. He should not have talked to police, gave multiple interviews, or staged a walk-through without legal representation present. These things make him guilty of being an idiot, but none of these things are unlawful. There is a very large grey area between what is stupid, and what is criminal - and that's exactly how it should be. Stupid people stumbling into trouble aren't criminals, they're just plain stupid.

Zimmerman may have been the instigator of a stupid but lawful encounter, but it was Martin who was the instigator of an unlawful violent encounter. The jury saw this, and ruled in accordance with the law.

Zimmerman really didn't do anything that stupid. During the trial they had an eyewitness that didn't want to be on the stand testifying that Zimmerman was on the ground and that he thought he was crying for help. Having the prosecution even bring this to trial was the most stupid thing to occur.