re: #183 Obdicut

So, this law should be changed from its current state?

You didn’t really address the wording of the law, though. The law has no requirement to stand. It gives the right to stand, and not flee, if you are in a place where you have a right to be when the altercation begins.

I really don’t think you’re reading it right. I also think that your reading of it would lead to bad cases on the other side, where, if you were walking towards someone at any point, you gave up your right of self-defense.

Actually I did address the key phrases and challenged the handling of the incident because “reasonable” has been stretched too far. IMO. But I’ll admit I was apparently unpersuasive. So I’m going to see how far off I am by asking some qualified legal folks about it. I have the contacts and I think I can find the time, these are the issues I make time for.

One thing I hope does not happen is that we get a big backlash (good so far but wait) and then people who defend themselves legit have an overwhelming burden of proof. That would really suck. And the very legitimate racial concerns only make the whole thing harder to sort out in terms of policy long term.

But let me defend my read this way, if I was a prosecutor in Florida and looked at this and went after Zimmerman just like any suspected criminal case how far out of line would I be? Would I be fired for negligence? Be embarrassed in court? I rather doubt those two would happen.