MaxTheVool:
Another question for Bricker: suppose a law was passed that was, utterly 100% clearly and directly, nothing more than something to make getting an abortion a hassle. IE, “applicants must get 10 different forms and fill them all out in number 2 pencil, not straying outside the prescribed areas…” etc etc. Would you support that law? Given that abortion is constitutionally legal in the US, is/should it be legal for lower jurisdictions such as states to put totally arbitrary restrictions in place to make it more difficult to get abortions? Does it matter in answering that question what the feelings of the majority of the populace of that jurisdiction believes?
So, I answered this question.
Now one for you:
In the various threads about the prosecution of George Zimmerman for shooting and killing Teryvon Martin, several posters have expressed sentiments similar to the following:
The ‘few months to a year’ in jail is a lot shorter than the time that Martin will be dead, which is FOREVER.
You want to carry a gun around, and have the ‘right’ to exercise mind-numbingly poor judgement that results in you shooting someone dead? Sorry dude, you absolutely should end up in court.
I don’t think he’s guilty of 2nd degree murder, but reckless homicide / manslaughter or some other charge? Abso-fucking-lutely. Either way, I still expect him to walk because of how skewed the law is (and how mind-blowingly bad the prosecution was <bangs head on table>).
So congratulations; he won’t spend the next 20 years in jail. I’m not going to lose a wink of sleep over any jail time he serves or any legal bills he has. Small price to pay for the ‘right’ to play wannabe-cop.
This seems to embody the same sort of attitude: I don’t care what the actual law says; because I am convinced of the wrongness of Zimmerman’s actions, I am willing to see the law ignored to impose some consequence on him, even acknowledging that the consequence is not mandated by the law.
Do you agree?