The secretive corporate outfit that is behind the Stand Your

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 07-14-2013 11:30 PM

For many years, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been a particularly influential organization that has promoted the agenda of corporate America and the political right in state legislatures nationwide, but about which the public has known little. ALEC’s members, who work together to draft model bills, consist of state legislators, who pay little to join, and corporations and trade associations, who pay hefty membership fees. These fees purchase influence over ALEC’s agenda and access to lawmakers. Because ALEC’s issue-areas are quite broad – voter IDs, consumer protection, healthcare, education, the environment and guns, to name a few – not every ALEC bill connects to a particular company’s financial interests. Until now, associating with ALEC’s range of issues seems not to have been much of a problem for most companies, well worth the payoff of having their favored bills promoted. That’s why the stream of recent defections of some of ALEC’s highest-profile corporate members – McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Mars, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Intuit and Kraft – has been so extraordinary.

The principal trigger, of course, has been the taint surrounding ALEC’S “Stand Your Ground” laws, the statute at the heart of the controversy over George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin. The business downside of associating with an organization pushing a law that seemingly turns a criminal perpetrator into a lawful executioner has apparently become too much for these companies, thanks to pressure from the civil rights and consumer community.

More...
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... ur-ground/

Doka · Post by **Doka** » 07-15-2013 09:10 AM

After thinking about this one and reading more about it, the thing I have to come to is this. If someone where beating the crap out of me and I got a hold of a rock,knife or gun would I use it? Probably. Even if I knew I would face jail time, for protecting myself. It is truly a double edged sword and then of course it has become politicized. And we could be in danger of having our rights to protect our selves severely limited*. I ran across a debate on some forum some time ago(can't remember where) where it was asked if your family was being terrorized and you had a gun in you hand would you use it. Most the guys said they would, but some of the women said they wouldn't, they just didn't think they could, didn't like guns etc. For myself I found that plumb scary. Where a dislike of something would stop someone from taking action if they could, because of a personal belief. For me it would be so hard if not impossible to watch my family being terrorized, put down the gun and knit booties or something. But that is just me. I hope I never have to walk in those shoes of making a decision like that. I am wondering even if it is a conscience decision when you are being beaten, let say. The will to survive is primal , no thinking thought goes into the moment.

We have no "Stand You Ground" law , just better get yourself a good attorney. I hope I never find myself walking in the "shoes" of others that have had to. I will leave the "Judgement" to others.

* What am I saying! We ARE under seige for the right to protect ourselves and our families!!!!

Doka · Post by **Doka** » 07-15-2013 09:19 AM

This kind of explains the law with out all the political "Gobbly Gook" that Ms Dorashow put in her article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 07-15-2013 10:19 AM

The principal trigger, of course, has been the taint surrounding ALEC’S “Stand Your Ground” laws, the statute at the heart of the controversy over George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin.

The Stand Your Ground law was not applied in this case; it had nothing to do with the defense.

Doka · Post by **Doka** » 07-15-2013 12:15 PM

HB3 said: The Stand Your Ground law was not applied in this case; it had nothing to do with the defense.

I did not know this HB3, thanks for the info.

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 07-15-2013 03:26 PM

HB3 wrote: The Stand Your Ground law was not applied in this case; it had nothing to do with the defense.

You're right. But it does give vigilantes a law to hide behind. They may not have used it for his official defense but it was always playing in the background. You pretty much used this law in your defense of Zimmerman's actions. So yeah it was relevant to this case, if only in the court of public opinion.

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 07-15-2013 05:13 PM

Geez, you've seriously got a problem with admitting that you're wrong.

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 07-15-2013 05:19 PM

HB3 wrote: Geez, you've seriously got a problem with admitting that you're wrong.

The article states that the Stand Your Ground Law was at the heart of this case. It does not say it was Z's defense.

That is why I posted it separately from the "Not Guilty" thread. So what the hell are you on about?

Yup, this is how I picture you...engage fingers first and brain second.

:hacker:

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 07-15-2013 05:55 PM

The article was written and posted in April of 2012.

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 07-15-2013 06:37 PM

HB3 wrote: The article was written and posted in April of 2012.

I knew that too. I'm sure this article was posted on the FF last year. But due to this trial, I thought I would post it again, just so we are reminded about the sinister power of corporations.

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 07-15-2013 06:44 PM

Tweet:
"If you stand your ground with your fists and you're black, you're dead..."

voguy · Post by **voguy** » 07-15-2013 07:32 PM

So how do you all feel about the "Castle Law". In short.... if you're in your home, and someone "breaks" in, and they confront you and fail to flee, you have the right to shoot them.

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 07-15-2013 09:54 PM

voguy wrote: So how do you all feel about the "Castle Law". In short.... if you're in your home, and someone "breaks" in, and they confront you and fail to flee, you have the right to shoot them.

In Canada you can only shoot a burglar if your life is threatened. And you have to be damn sure it is before you pull that trigger or you will face murder charges and manslaughter at the least. The authorities here don't take kindly to shooting unarmed people, no matter what reason is. Only they have the power to do that. (sarcasm).

As home invasion is not an epidemic here, I see no reason to implement a law like this. Too many people could abuse it, as has happened in the U.S.

I'm sure there are Canadians who would disagree with me for whatever reason.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » 07-16-2013 09:44 AM

voguy wrote: So how do you all feel about the "Castle Law". In short.... if you're in your home, and someone "breaks" in, and they confront you and fail to flee, you have the right to shoot them.

I feel just fine about that.

If you have the testicles to break in to someones home then you get what you get.

voguy · Post by **voguy** » 07-16-2013 06:51 PM

Raggedyann wrote: In Canada you can only shoot a burglar if your life is threatened.

That's exactly the meaning here. Perhaps the only difference is how each state, and nation, determines your level of threat. In one state a prosecutor suggested that the threat from a knife wielding man does not approach a threat until he lays hand on you..... in your own home..... after breaking down your door.