Across Florida
What's happening on other political blogs?


Sparse crowd as ‘Stand Your Ground’ meeting begins

by Dara Kam | June 12th, 2012

LONGWOOD _ There were plenty of satellite trucks and television cameras from national news outlets at a mega-church near the site where neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot and Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, in February.

But just a handful of people showed up for Gov. Rick Scott’s “Citizen Safety and Protection Task Force” meeting – the first where the public will be allowed to speak – so far.

Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll, the panel’s chairwoman, spoke with reporters before the meeting began at 9 a.m.

She said the task force’s mission is not to revisit the Trayvon Martin shooting or Zimmerman’s case. Zimmerman, who was charged with second degree murder in the shooting, claimed he shot Martin in self-defense, shining a spotlight on Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law that allows people to use deadly force when they feel threatened.

Carroll said the first task force meeting is being held to near Sanford to give residents “closure” in the aftermath of the shooting. National civil rights leaders were outraged that Zimmerman was not arrested for weeks. Special prosecutor Angela Corey, appointed by Scott, filed charges against Zimmerman two months after the Feb. 26 shooting. Accusations of racism because Zimmerman is a white Hispanic and Martin was black heightened racial tensions in the Central Florida community on the outskirts of Orlando.

“Because this task force was borne out of the concerns during the Martin-Zimmerman situation, we felt it would be a good thing to number one come to this area to give some closure,” Carroll, who is black, said. “There may be some people that have not had an opportunity to air their concerns during the time of all the situation going on a few months ago. So it gives an opportunity for the citizens to come and share what their issues, concerns, suggestions may be and have some closure to them having access to their public officials and individuals that may be making decisions based on what we heard throughout our public testimony and the information received on our website as well.”

The meeting begins with a presentation from Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Krista Marx, who is giving an overview of the “Stand Your Ground” law and a seminal Florida Supreme Court ruling related to it. Law enforcement officials and lawyers will also speak this morning before the public is allowed to weigh in this afternoon. Martin’s parents are scheduled to hold a rally during the lunch break and deliver more than 300,000 petitions to the task force asking that the law be changed.

The panel is holding meetings throughout the state and will make recommendations to the state legislature about whether the law should be changed.

Tags: , , , , ,

17 Responses to “Sparse crowd as ‘Stand Your Ground’ meeting begins”

  1. Ken Says:

    Spare crowd? Nice proofreading. I guess it’s only the headline though..probably easily missed.

    There appears to be a sparse amount of editing going on at the PB Post.

  2. Tea Lady Says:

    The Constitution of These United States gives every citizen the Right to protect him/herself, loved ones, and property!

    Let’s not make it so that only CRIMINALS can protect themselves. ={

    Remember, CRIMINALS are against laws that allow citizens to protect themselves and fight back!

  3. STOP THE PURGE Says:

    @Tea Lady,

    It has been shown repeatedly that you don’t know the first thing about the U.S. Constitution.

    You didn’t even understand that the Constitution gives us a FEDERAL right to vote and that voting in Federal elections is actually a function of the FEDERAL Constitution.

    Honestly.

    How bout you learn the basic fundamentals of your own country!

    Ever thought of that?

    Your lies are getting more and more desperate.

  4. Andrew Says:

    @stop the purge.
    You must be one of the criminals that fear the thought of well meaning, constitution loving citizens being legally armed to defend themselves against people like you.

  5. Mark Says:

    If George Zimmerman is a “white Hispanic” does that make our President a “white African”?

  6. STOP THE PURGE Says:

    Andrew,

    Where in the Constitution does it say that someone has the right to kill another because they thought the person was a threat?

    All I see is a right to bear arms, which I support.

    Please answer the question.

    Where SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution does it say that someone has the right to kill another because they thought the person was a threat?

    I look forward to your reply. Thanks.

  7. Repubtallygirl Says:

    @StopthePurge Where SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution does it say that I have to buy health insurance?

  8. STOP THE PURGE Says:

    It’s called the Commerce Clause.

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

    [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

    Any other questions?

  9. frankD Says:

    Where SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution does it say that someone has the right to kill another because they thought the person was a threat?

    you mean it was UNconstitutional to kill saddam hussein ?

    so then shouldn’t cheney/dubbya go to jail JUST LIKE zimmerman ?

    just sayin

    frankD

    .

  10. Repubtallygirl Says:

    Federal Judge Rejects Commerce Clause Argument, Finds PPACA Health Insurance Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional
    Posted byCheryl Keely
    RICHMOND, Va. — (Mealey’s) A Virginia federal judge on Dec. 13 held that the individual mandate contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is unconstitutional and severed it from the rest of the act; the judge denied the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief (Commonwealth of Virginia Ex Rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II v. Kathleen Sebelius, No. 10-188, E.D. Va.).

    In finding the minimum essential coverage provision unconstitutional, U.S. Judge Henry E. Hudson of the Eastern District of Virginia held in the commonwealth’s challenge to the act that “[n]either the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

    By enacting the provision, Congress exceeded the powers granted to it under the Constitution, Judge Hudson said.

    Further, because an individual’s personal decision to purchase health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution does not provide sanctuary, Judge Hudson said.

    The necessary and proper clause grants Congress broad authority to pass laws in furtherance of its constitutionally enumerated powers, and the minimum essential coverage provision is “neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution,” Judge Hudson said.

    The judge also rejected the alternate argument that the provision is a valid exercise of Congress’ independent taxation power under the general welfare clause of the Constitution, saying “the notion that the generation of revenue was a significant legislative objective is a transparent afterthought. The legislative purpose underlying this provision was purely regulation of what Congress misperceived to be economic activity.”

    http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/emergingissues/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rejects-commerce-clause-argument-finds-ppaca-health-insurance-individual-mandate-is-unconstitutional.aspx

    The Supreme Court will throw it out. The Commerce Clause argument is NOT applicable. Next.

  11. Repubtallygirl Says:

    @Frank: Congress approved of Iraq.

    Next.

  12. frankD Says:

    .

    @Frank: Congress approved of Iraq.

    BUT was it UNconstitutional to kill saddam hussein simply because he was a “threat” ?

    congress has approved a lot of legislation that subsequently were declared UNconstitutional – no ?

    likewise the seminoles NEVER signed a peace treaty with the US – if we killed them would it be constitutional ?

    if the NRA says its okay then it’s constitutional (not my personal position BUT it is the way this nation is – period)

    frankD

    .

  13. frankD Says:

    .

    and let’s not be UNrealistic

    the NRA is the one calling the shots here (pun intended)

    what the NRA wants it will get – period

    the NRA is currently taking a position to protect the ownership of a shoulder held gun that is capable of taking down an airplane

    the NRA has already made it illegal for a doctor / guardian / caregiver / service provider to ASK a child about the presence of a gun in the home when assessing the safety of the child in that household

    the NRA rules

    frankD

    .

  14. STOP THE PURGE Says:

    Third Federal Judge Upholds Health Care Law; Score Now 3-2

    In a victory for the Obama administration, a federal judge tonight has upheld the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s health care law.

    U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, of the District of Columbia, wrote that Congress “was acting within the bounds of its Commerce Clause power” when it mandated that individuals buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.

    [...]

    “There is nothing extraordinary about Congress’ use of its Commerce Clause power,” she wrote, “to rein in the price of health insurance policies.”

    She rejected any claim that an individual’s choice not to enter the health insurance market place was akin to “inactivity.” The law’s critics claim that while Congress can regulate economic activity, it cannot regulate “inactitvity,” such as an individual’s choice not to buy health insurance.

    [...]

    “Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not to do something,” she wrote. “There are two sides to the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/third-federal-judge-upholds-health-care-law-score-now-3-2/

    “To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.”

    But but but….. ignoring reality is YOUR EXPERTISE ReptilianLoser!

  15. Dulcie Robards Says:

    I like your site and I really enjoyed your article. Keep up the good work, your an excellent writer.thanks,

  16. Serrano Says:

    We have the right to defend ourselves,our famlies and country from any foe foreign or domestic.I don’t see why not.A wise man told me if good guys don’t have guns then only bad guys will.

  17. pit-37 wzór Says:

    I agree with the other two comments. You can not just start banning dog breeds. I have a german shepherd and people consider that to be a dangerous dog but he’s not because he has been trained. ITS NOT THE BREED!!! Its the people raising the dog who is ultimately responsible for how their dogs behave. Are we going to start banning people, because if you want to start banning breeds your going to need to start banning people who are the real reason for dog attacks.

Florida political tweeters
Video: Politics stories
Categories
Archives