"Justice for Trayvon" mob severely beats Alabama man

[JB Books]

No contemporary stats will disprove anything that happened in 1992.

Dennis, he's right about this.

 

[1shott]

To state that a Black attack on a White does not generate the same media attention and public outrage is just an unpleasant fact. This should be prosecuted as a hate crime. However, to discuss this disparity in attitude is a far cry from using terms like "ghetto culture," ominous warnings about a potential "race war," and use this tragedy as an excuse to vent racist sentiment. If the crowd attacked him because he is White, then they deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including prosecution for hate crimes. I hope that African-American leaders like Sharpton and Jackson have the moral courage to condemn this attack.

Things will not get better until we ALL make a concerted attempt to remove hateful feelings and rhetoric and start trying to make them better. And if this guy had a gun, I think he would have been justified in shooting down as many of his attackers as he had rounds. That's a personal. not legal, opinion.

When that part of the black community stops worshiping the thug and gangster lifestyle, that promotes violent crime, drugs etc, when they show some self respect and respect of others, as well as to stop blaming everyone else for their problems in life, the terms like ghetto culure would go away. To call it what it is is not racist, I am not racist.

When the black community only speaks out when a black person is attacked by a white person, yet they are silent when it is black on black crime or black on white crime. I dont care what color your skin is, un provoked attacks are wrong. To attack anyone based on the color of skin is wrong.

I agree with the last part of your post, things will only get better when ALL make the effort, problem is, not everyone, wants to make that effort.

 

[LightningCrash]

You dont have to be attacked for the law to take affect. Only in fear for your life or that of another as the law reads. If a mob is coming at you are you going to wait until you are overwhelmed (attacked) by the mob before you take action. Like I said you read it differently than I do

The law specifically lists that as one of two conditions for the provisions of (D) to apply.

A person who is :
1) not engaged in an unlawful activity
2) who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be

Then has the rest of the applicable provisions on their side.

I don't believe that. The way I read it is that you can intervene if you are a bystander in the attempt to prevent said bodily harm to another, even if you are not part of it.

Otherwise, you can be driving down the road and see a man beating a woman with a chain or baseball bat and you are forbidden from intervening to save her life. That does not make sense, not that the law always does, but it is not the way I read it. I'd be interested in case law or precedent to prove it, if there is any available.


<edit> After re-reading the law, I can see where you might interpret it that way. However, I do not believe that is the intent of the law... perhaps we should start a campaign during next session to have our legislators clarify that wording, so that it may be more clear. Would hate for a well-intentioned, law-abiding citizen to end up hoisted on his own petard for doing the right thing in such a situation.

You can still intervene, it would still be the right thing to do. There are other provisions of Oklahoma law pertaining to justifiable homicide and preventing forcible felonies. A person who intervened in a situation like the one you described would probably be ok, but they would probably end up paying a lot of money to defend themselves in criminal and civil court.
SYG specifically shifts some burden of proof off of the defender under certain circumstances and prevents some costly legal challenges to that person.

You would think that...but you'd be wrong. Even if the man had committed a crime and the mob was there to mete out justice, I don't have to let them kill him on my front steps. That would be a felony, and I can intervene if I so choose.

No f_ _ _ _ ing way I'm gonna watch a man get beat to death on my porch.

We were talking about SYG protection in particular. There are plenty of laws on justifiable homicide outside of the SYG act.