Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chocolate_ladyland
I wasn't ever saying that I believed Zimmerman was a murderer, I was just posing the question.
|
yeah i didn't assume one way or another. i couldn't answer your question though because i purposefully skipped the days upon days of trial media circus, so i'm not privy to what the jury saw or heard (with few exceptions)-- i mostly skimmed through the commentary on "serious" papers. hence, i plead agnosticism. i am not equipped to decide.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chocolate_ladyland
I do stand behind the Stand Your Ground law being bullshit though. Was Trayvon not "standing his ground" too?
|
again because of the accounts i don't know. whoever was the recipient of the aggression was the one who had no duty to retreat. in other words, one has the right to self-defense wherever the may be, not just at home. who attacked first?
but that's the law-- common sense to me dictates avoiding a potentially deadly fight whenever possible. zimmerman was trying to play cop but apparently he didn't break the law, i.e., it's not illegal to follow someone on the street. even though it's retarded in my personal opinion.
however in other occasions stand your ground may apply differently. say someone comes into a movie house and starts shooting up the place. you're not the owner but a mere customer. are you obligated by law to fuck off and run and possibly get shot in the back? or can you pull out your carry weapon and shootthe assailant?
shit like that gets very complicated and there's no black and white which is why lawyers make so much money. i'm no jurist, but i know that no law will ever be perfect. claims about the effects of the law itself go both ways-- it reduces crime, it increases crime, i haven't seen anything conclusive.
personally though, i favor the castle doctrine but about stand your ground i really don't know enough to make a definitive judgment. but maybe you can convince me it's bullshit. 1... 2... 3... go!