If this is being claimed by he same authorities who failed to follow up on major clues (like Martin’s phone), who announced that Zimmerman felt the need to defend himself in the absence of a complete investigation, and who witnesses say did a dodgy job of taking their statements–even reportedly going so far as to correct things they said so that they fit with Zimmermans statement–I am not inclined to believe them.
They would know better than anyone what they intended when they drafted the law,
wouldn’t they?
Of course, it is a well-known fact that legislators have a knack for passing ambiguous laws,
and that the courts are likely to resolve ambiguity in favor of a criminal defendant.
Hopefully Florida’s SYGL is clear enough not to stand in the way of putting this Zimmerman bastard
where he deserves, which is behind bars.
Except there was nothing at all suspicious about Trayvan to zimmerman except for his blackness.
Oh, you can, but then you’re no longer an innocent party but a threatening black athlete that wants to kill his ex-wife.
The language of the law trumps the supposed intent. There is nothing in the law that says that it doesn’t apply.
I’m Team ‘Cops were lazy, incompetent morons’, so we no longer have a snowflake’s chance in the hot place of getting decent evidence of what really happened. My general impression is that they showed up, found a black kid dead and an off-white guy who looked a little roughed up and said ‘self-defense, case closed’.
I prefer the interpretation of those who drafted the law over your interpretation.
They didn’t “interpret”. They just claimed. Read the law. Point to any language that would hint that it doesn’t apply in this case.
Listen asshole, for someone who drafted a law to “claim” such-and-such about the law
obviously connotes that he “interprets” the law in such-and-such a way, that it is his informed legal opinion.
What the drafter in question has not done is provide an explanation, a legal brief.
Frankly since the Florida legislature did its share to create this mess I would think
some such statement of intent and interpretation would be forthcoming from it.
ABC is reporting as follows:
Recall that earlier you said this:
It looks to me like you may be guilty of the sin of which you accused the authorities: Making up your mind based on too little information.
Sounds like someone is trying to CYA all of a sudden. Sanford PD is more dysfunctional than I thought.
Our very good friends over at ThinkProgress have compiled the cites for various themes running through this narrative. You got your "This guy looks like he’s up to no good, on drugs or something. " quote, the ever popular “street sign examination” doozy, and, everbody’s favorite, the “bloody nose”. Cites include links, publications, the whole magilla.
Joe Bob 'luc says “Check it out!”
Why not? They could just introduce a bill of attainder against Zimmerman and declare him guilty by legislative fiat. 
Typical, gotta be some fancy Yurpeen car. Can’t use a good plain ordinary legislative Ford, or Chrysler.
So basically you just believe whatever you want to believe no matter what the actual facts say. Gotcha.
That you assume Facebook rumors, the statements of a police department whose history of racism IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE HERE, and hypothetical statements from unnamed “witnesses” that contradict actual statements from witnesses who have identified themselves and produced recordings that corroborate their story, constitute “actual facts,” says a hell of a lot about your own opinion regarding white people murdering black people for no reason without legal consequence.
I’m agin’ it.
Also, as soon as I hit submit I knew someone would respond like this. By “actual facts” I meant both what we think is the case now and what comes out late as actually being the case. I was indicting you with the face’s method of determining the truth, not what she currently thinks is the truth.
The police are the investigative arm of the justice system, so if she’s just going to dismiss every single thing the police say, then it’s apparent she’s living in a faith-based reality system.
Finally, funny that you mention the police department’s history of racism being the central issue. Your post is the first I’ve heard of it.
I know, your people think this is about nonexistent gold teeth and “self-defense” including the right to stalk and assault children if they are the wrong color for Real America. It’s not, though.
Who are “my people” exactly? All the other atheist libertarian tax lawyers out there?
Are you sure they are non-existent?