I think that's the goal.

You going to be boycotting them too? Or is your outrage purely selective?

that's where it starts

So you just want to "start" somewhere.

got it

got it

Wow I wish I had the courage to boldly only stand up for my principles some of the time, you know when it doesn't inconvenience me too much.

you poor thing

If you truly were concerned about fairness, you'd understand that Florida has an issue with George Zimmermans that the others states with SYG simply don't have. There are another dozen or so SYG cases just as fucked up as the Zimmerman case going on now in Fl. Florida clearly has an issue with its laws.

Again this boycott seems way more about style than substance.

The pertinent section provides:

Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.

ORS 161.219. There are obvious differences in the wording of the Oregon law and the Florida law. The Oregon law makes no reference to a “duty to retreat” nor does it use the words: “stand his or her ground.”

If just looking at the Oregon statute, knowing when the use of deadly force in self-defense outside of the home is legal does not appear quite as clear compared to the
Florida law.

In 1982, the Oregon Supreme Court had to decide whether Oregon’s use of deadly force in selfdefense law imposed a duty to retreat when outside of the home. Citing previous case law, the Court noted: “(a)ny civilized system of law recognizes the supreme value of human life, and excuses or justifies its taking only in cases of absolute necessity.” State v. Charles, 293 Or. 273, 281 (1982).

The Court ultimately decided that Oregon law imposed a “duty to retreat” when outside of the home, thus relegating the use of deadly force in self-defense only when there is no reasonable opportunity to escape. State v. Charles, 293 Or. 273 (1982). For 25 years, this was the rule in Oregon. If you kill in self defense outside of your home, you better not have been able to avoid the killing.

In 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed itself...Is the Oregon Supreme Court’s interpretation of ORS 161.219 the correct interpretation? It has been 41 years since the Oregon legislature passed ORS 161.219. For at least 25 years it has required a duty to retreat, and for the last seven it has not.

http://www.pdxcriminallawyers.com/articles-by-castleberry-elison/oregons-stand-your-ground-statute/

The law passed in the 70's, but it wasn't interpreted correctly at the time. The law is still much older.

Again, if you're going to boycott over stand your ground, you should boycott all state swith stand your ground. It is pretty ridiculous to claim to be principled when blatantly applying double standards.

the florida statute was in place.

the 1971 law has no relation whatsoever to the 'stand your ground' laws passed starting in 2005 under the guidance & politicking of nra & alec.

If that is your view why even have a legislative branch in the first place? Clearly it doesn't matter what they pass if the court can apparently just say any law means anything.

law has no relationship with the 'stand your ground' laws passed starting in 2005, backed by the NRA & ALEC.

No relationship whatsoever.

I really don't get it. What do you have an issue with? Is it the actually laws themselves or the fact the NRA lobbied for them? Because if it is because of the lobbying you got even more states to boycott than before.

At this point you might even end up having to move somewhere else. Ireland is pretty nice, that would be my suggestion.

Doesn't use the same language & didn't have the same sponsorship.

Florida's was the nation's first 'stand your ground' law.

I will not be boycotting them. I am directing my outrage at the killer. Is that okay with you?

In the twenties, striking miners shut down only three of 27 coal mines in the VA/WV area. In addition to the rather melodramatic and colorful narrative of "selective outrage", one may also perceive it as did the striking miners-- examples of action for all to take note of instead of simply the target itself.

for a certain contingent here to pretend they're accomplishing something by telling each other that "boycotting" an entire state is viable, makes sense, and will actually achieve something.

Other than that, it serves no purpose.

... that you hurt someone who had the audacity to live in a state that had a jury decision you disagreed with...

that get their marching orders from ALEC.

I'm not sure what to say.

Is that really what you think? The folks that would be hurt by a magically effective organized boycott all fall in that category?

I'm not expecting to see much.

I'll never eat a Chik Fil A - has it made a dent? I don't care - I still won't eat there. Boycotting does not have to be organized - it can be personal.

All kinds of wrong that happen in Florida ends up on the news, weirder and more often than any other state.
I haven't ever been there and I have no plans to visit anytime in the near future, but I would like to visit Florida once in my life.

Like most of these boycotts, I will be participating in the boycott out of default: I was never a real customer anyway.

Change you can believe in.