Only three years? Such a superficial and cursory investigation can only be the result of deep-seated anti-black bias in our system.
Attica! Attica!
Regards,
Shodan
This isn’t the law, though. It’s the reasonable person standard, as is often the case. A reasonable person doesn’t shoot at the first hint of concern, so there are in fact consequences for misjudging the degree of danger. The actual shooter’s fear is relevant only in that if it can be proved that they didn’t feel they were in danger, then they have no defense. In addition, their fear must have been reasonable. So, my point here is that we don’t need an additional rule to allay your concern, it’s addressed by the reasonable person standard (at least from a model penal code pov - states are all over the place and I don’t claim to know all of the precise language used in each state).
I can’t agree with the first paragraph, I just don’t think it would make for good law, but I certainly agree with the second part of your post. I could see room for modifying the burden of proof or applicability of defenses in instances where an armed civilian instigates an encounter which later escalates to a violent conflict.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Carrying a firearm doesn’t mean your first resort in any conflict is to shoot the other guy. Particularly not in cases like Zimmerman’s and Dunn’s, where the shooter provoked or exacerbated the conflict, then “settled” it with his gun.
[/QUOTE]
The only difficulty being, in Zimmerman’s case, the lack of any evidence that he provoked or exacerbated the conflict.
I agree with the first sentence, providing “first resort” doesn’t mean “after he punches you in the face, knocks you down, jumps on your chest, and smashes your head into the ground”.
Ufortunately, the Supreme Court does not agree with you.
Regards,
Shodan
MSNBC and CNN entertainers must be pissed. Oh well, there will be another “crisis” they can use to increase their viewership and bottom line.
Fret not, my fellow sophisticate. Yes, it’s a dark time, but we can still count on Fox News to maintain the standards of journalistic integrity to which we’re all accustomed: real, hard news, news that matters, reported objectively with no hidden agendas, and definitely no lurid sensationalism to appeal to our basest desires, nor opportunistic exploitation, nor partisan spin. As I recall, they barely addressed the Zimmerman story at all, except to present the necessary who-what-where before returning to their thoughtful, nuanced and painstakingly sourced analysis of events of global importance.
(post shortened and underline added)
WHAT? “Present the necessary who-what-where”, you say. How dare they!
Actually, FOX also repeatedly stated that TM was carrying ice tea. Shame on them.
Good effort, Vinny, but doorhinge has repeatedly proven himself immune to such simple ruses.
I actually pleased with this. The federal civil rights cases often seem like an end-run around double jeopardy.
Zimmerman is still murdering scumbag who should die in a fire, though.
chasing someone at night is a reason for them to kill you. I would not have hesitated to kill Zimmerman, were I in Trayvon’s situation. However, I don’t think I would have stopped to talk to Zimmerman. He would simply have forfeited his life by chasing me at night.
Granted, Trayvon probably DID lose his temper and jump Zimmerman, right after their conversation. That’s the most likely chain of events, and Trayvon may have been foolish to do so. I don’t know how Zimmerman presented himself in that conversation, so I don’t know if Trayvon’s probable attack was foolish, or HOW foolish.
A REASONABLE person knows, though, that you should expect a severe beating if you chase someone at night, either from the person you’re chasing, or someone protecting them. There’s not a damn thing reasonable about Zimmerman getting out of his car that night, and only the mentally deficient don’t know that. Those that know it but won’t admit it are trolling. And racists, quite probably.
So you are saying that you belong in an institution for the criminally insane?
Good to know.
Regards,
Shodan
Between this and the conviction of the murderer of The Greatest Person In The History Of The Fucking Universe, right-wingers must be masturbating like motherfuckers all day.
With the fucked up laws in Florida, I doubt either one would have been convicted of killing the other. George had a gun, Trayvon didn’t.
Do you believe that these confident, assured statements you’ve offered find any support in the laws of Florida?
I was not aware Tom Cruise had been murdered. I am le sad. 
He’s been killed dozens of times. He just wakes up a day earlier with a can-do attitude.
Huh? I think you’re talking about legalities, but I am more interested in my safety than the fine points of the law. I’ll place my trust in jury nullification if I’m ever unlucky enough to have to take another’s life to save my own life, and end up prosecuted for it. Those cases get all kinds of press, and I’d be happy to use conventional AND social media to explain jury nullification to the citizenry. LOL
Why would you expect sympathy for taking the life of someone who’s not even threatened you, much less attacked you, which is the situation you’re talking about?
I’d do my best to make sure my jury was a bunch of older white male gun-owners. I’m male, early 40s, and appear white. Also, separately, I’d rather be alive in prison than dead and a non-felon. Wouldn’t you? I have no criminal record, clean up well, and can speak well in front of people. I’d probably get a couple of years at most, even in a nanny state with hostile jurors.
Unless the prosecutor gets access to whatever device you’re using to publish your manifesto. Or reads your posts. If produced in court, these statements might make it difficult for a jury to believe your future claims of imminent danger.