If I could bring God back today, I would say, “What took You so long to make me call out your name?” Nothing has happened to Me that You couldn’t see But others wondered, Where can He be?
If I could bring God back today, would anything really change? Without His Father raising Him up, just how far could He extend His range?
If I could bring God back today, would I praise Him like they did back in the day? I see signs in the World that only He could cause Heads bowed, people speaking in tongues Everyone looking side-to-side giving reason to pause
If I could bring God back today, would He even want to stay? While they have folded hands and arms, He could stretch His out and create a brand new Day
Where would I be, If I could bring God back today?
I seriously cannot understand why all the hate towards Black people…not People-of-Color, but Black people seem to really disgust a certain basketball team owner, Donald Sterling of the L.A. Clippers. Apparently, this same gentleman who instructed his ‘girlfriend’ to “not bring any Black people to basketball games,” is being praised by the NAACP for his Lifetime Achievement. I guess I can see the resemblance. The NAACP did, in fact, throw dark-skinned Claudette Colvin under the bus and supported light-skinned Rosa Parks during that momentous boycott period. Discrimination and Racism…are they really two different things? Good Hair – Bad Hair…Light-Skinned – Dark-Skinned…Ebonics – Correct Grammar… What a never ending saga for the “Black Man,” huh? Just when some of us thought Lupita Nyongo’s People Magazine cover was a breakthrough, a true breakthrough would be Don Cheadle gracing that cover very soon (should People Mag ever decide to issue a Most Handsome Man edition). So much hate is spread in the media only to later have that person apologizing or saying their words were taken out of context. Maybe honest is the ‘Best Policy.’ But why is it necessary in the first place? No other race, in my opinion, seems to be hated more than Black people. And please, get rid of that term “African-American.” It just doesn’t fit…anybody.
Remember Claudette Colvin? She was the one individual the NAACP turned its back on during the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955. Because of Miss Colvin’s dark skin, and the fact that she was an unwed pregnant mother, the NAACP chose to support the lighter-skinned and less threatening, Rosa Parks, after she was arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white passenger.
Should the NAACP change its name? I mean, the term or word “colored” is no longer used. That is, unless you ask someone still living from that time period. Jesse Jackson saw to it that ‘Blacks’ were to now be referred to as ‘African-American.’ Though he was then catapulted to stardom during the Democratic National Convention in 1988, where is he now? Has Mr. Jackson seen any real advancement for ‘African-Americans?’ I think Spike Lee explained it well in his movie “School Daze.” Then again, I can’t remember if the Willie Lynch speech was ever mentioned…or ever needed to be.
Even having money doesn’t seem to make a Black person accepted into many environments. There is always the question and wondering how that particular individual could afford a certain thing designed and designated for the white individual. The main thought or reason…Drugs! A Black person is rarely ever considered to have acquired his or her means through hard work. She persistence, Yes! Though the thought always reverts back to some illegal nature. And it’s usually the darker-skinned male who gets the short-end of the stick. Does Lil Wayne wreak of the ‘Thug Life?’ While rock star, Prince, receives royal treatment? Jay-Z without Beyonce over Vin Diesel? Disparity in treatment? You betcha!
What does the NAACP get out of promoting and praising those who exhibit racist behavior? If the organization believes they are receiving favor or acceptance in return for theirs, they’re probably right. Should Black people cease looking to the NAACP as their savior for equal or civil rights, the famed group would still exist. As racist comments continue to soar on a daily basis, the NAACP’s roar really is the loudest. And there obviously is no shame in their game.
Below is a copy of the Florida Right to Bear Arms Law
Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense
In receiving a license to carry a concealed weapon for lawful self-defense, you are undertaking a great responsibility. A license to carry a concealed weapon is not a license to use it. I am sure you share my hope that you will never find it necessary to use a weapon in self-defense. If you do, the law will protect you only if you have acted within the law. Those who are choosing to arm themselves with weapons should, therefore, be armed with the most indispensable weapon of all knowledge.
We are providing this information to you as a service in pursuit of that goal. Only you can provide the wisdom, restraint, and good judgment that the law demands of those who possess the ability to take another human life.
Adam H. Putnam
A License to Carry a Concealed Weapon is not a License to use it.
This information was prepared by the Division of Licensing in an attempt to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about the use of deadly force for lawful self-defense. Included are examples of real situations involving the legal consequences of the use of deadly force.
Q. What kinds of weapons are included in the concealed weapons law?
A. The Jack Hagler Self-defense Act defines concealed weapons or firearms as follows: handguns, electronic weapons or devices, tear gas guns, knives and billies. The information provided emphasizes handguns, because they are one of the most commonly used weapons for self-defense.
Q. What if I am in my vehicle?
A. A person has no duty to retreat in his lawfully occupied vehicle against a person who was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or had unlawfully and forcefully entered an occupied vehicle or had unlawfully and forcefully removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the occupied vehicle.
Q. When is a Handgun “Concealed?”
A. The Florida Legislature defines a concealed firearm as any firearm “carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal it from the ordinary sight of another person.” A person carrying a concealed firearm without a license is guilty of a felony of the third degree. The penalty for this offense is a prison term of up to five years.
Q. Are there special laws that apply to the use of Handguns?
A. Yes, special laws apply anytime anyone uses deadly force, whether or not the weapon is concealed. Florida law defines deadly force as force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. When you carry a handgun, you possess a weapon of deadly force. The law considers even an unloaded gun to be a deadly weapon when it is pointed at someone.
Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.
Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?
A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.
Q. What if someone is attacking me in my own home?
A. The courts have created an exception to the duty to retreat called the “castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, you need not retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. The castle doctrine applies if you are attacked in your own home by an intruder.
Q. What if I am in my place of business and someone comes in to rob me? Do I have to retreat before using deadly force?
A. The castle doctrine also applies when you are in your place of business. If you are in danger of death or great bodily harm or you are trying to prevent a forcible felony, you do not have to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.
Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don’t use it?
A. Never display a handgun to gain “leverage” in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don’t have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.
Example: In a 1987 case, a woman refused to pay an automobile mechanic who she thought did a poor job repairing her car. They argued about it, and the mechanic removed the radiator hose from the car so she couldn’t drive it away. She reached into her purse, pulled out an unloaded gun, and threatened to kill the mechanic if he touched her car again. The mechanic grabbed the gun and called the police.
The woman was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to serve a mandatory three-year prison term. The fact that the gun was not loaded was irrelevant. Even though she was the mother of three dependent children and had no prior criminal record, the statute does not allow for parole. Her only recourse was to seek clemency from the Governor.
Q. When can I use deadly force in the defense of another person?
A. If you see someone who is being attacked, you can use deadly force to defend him/her if the circumstances would justify that person’s use of deadly force in his/her own defense. In other words, you “stand in the shoes” of the person being attacked.
Q. What if I see a crime being committed?
A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be “preventing” a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.
Q. If I get a license to carry a concealed weapon, can I carry it anywhere?
A. No. To get a license you must sign an oath that you have read and understand the Jack Hagler Self-defense Act (Section 790.06, Florida Statutes). That statute lists several places where you may not carry a concealed weapon. You should read subsection 12 for a complete list, but some examples are football, baseball, and basketball games (college or professional) and bars.
A cool head and even temper can keep handgun carriers out of trouble. You should never carry a gun into a situation where you might get angry.
1. Never display a handgun to gain “leverage” in an argument, even if it isn’t loaded or you never intend to use it.
2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.
Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don’t, you will be killed or seriously injured;
Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.
3. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a “good samaritan.”
4. Never carry your concealed weapon into any place where the statute prohibits carrying it.
This is not a complete summary of all the statutes and court opinions on the use of deadly force. Because the concealed weapons statute specifies that concealed weapons are to be used for lawful self-defense, we have not attempted to summarize the body of law on lawful defense of property. This information is not intended as legal advice. Every self-defense case has its own unique set of facts, and it is unwise to try to predict how a particular case would be decided. It is clear, however, that the law protects people who keep their tempers under control and use deadly force only as a last resort.
I won’t go very far into this story but to say this:
Sanford, Florida was the site of another incident where the Sanford Police Lieutenant’s son punched a homeless Black man. On December 30, 2010, the Lieutenant’s son was not arrested immediately after it was determined that he was the one who inflicted harm on the gentleman.
Now, fast forward to February 26, 2012. Sanford Police has another incident involving pain inflicted on a Black man. However, the pain inflicted resulted in immediate death. George Zimmerman, if this is his real name, called 911 to report that he was following a Black man because “…these a**holes always get away with it…” Zimmerman was told by the 911 dispatcher “…not to follow…” the man. As CNN reports, they allow a dispatched call by a woman who claimed that she couldn’t see anything but could hear the altercation between two people. In the background to 911, it is clear that the person screaming is the 17-year-old young man, Trayvon Martin and not George Zimmerman. If the young woman on the phone with 911 couldn’t see anything, why is it that the dialogued broadcast on CNN so clear? It was obvious that this woman was in some line of vision of the altercation. In lieu of all this, Trayvon Martin was walking alone, from the store, and George Zimmerman, who at the advice of the 911 dispatcher, tracked down Trayvon, got out of his vehicle, confronted the young man and shot him dead. Now, if there was any fist fight or brawl, it had to be one of Zimmerman priding his pistol and beating Martin before shooting him. The screams heard in the CNN 911 Dispatched call reveals the screams of Trayvon Martin before being executed. Again, it was “Zimmerman” who had the gun. Why would he be screaming?
How is it that George Zimmerman, if this is his real name, felt threatened by a young man walking alone in Zimmerman’s “Neighborhood Watch Neighborhood?” A Hate Crime? A Racial Crime? Who could or would dispute this? In fact, is it not true that 27 year-old “George Zimmerman” has a criminal record? Having a Felony record due to violence with Police, why did Zimmerman even have a gun? The Florida Department of Law Enforcement? How could they even be trusted after the failure of the Sanford Police Department? Is Zimmerman a citizen of Florida…how about a U.S. citizen? Was there a drug test or toxicology report done on “George Zimmerman” while in police custody? Probably not, since Sanford Police probably high-fived each other, and “Zimmerman,” after taking down the Black man.
Florida does need a revamping of its Justice System. Ever since the BUSH and GORE Presidential Race, Florida has exuded its ugly head. The Powers That Be in Florida is out to prove Republican rule there. With no fair Democracy, who are the ones able to afford guns or weapons either legally or not? As poor as Blacks are in Florida, it is greatly assumed that most to all burglaries are committed by Blacks. And, as the vigilantes continue to prowl, they may feel as if they are performing mercy killings on the young Black race. What nationality is Zimmerman? I am almost sure there are other incidents of Blacks attacked by non-Blacks. It’s up to the media to decide which stories make the headlines. With the support of Law Enforcement, is it just the city of Sanford, in Florida, that has found a new way to bring back lynching in the South?
Going forward, my heart goes out to the families in Florida who have lost and will lose loved ones as a result of this foolish law. There should be a demand to have this law repealed immediately. Should the NAACP insert their involvement in this cause, I only hope they do not waiver or falter due to political pressure. Otherwise, what is their purpose? How much rhetoric is necessary to say and prove that something is wrong? In my opinion, this created law in Florida could be a way to attack President Obama. What a way to diminish his support!