re: #232 Daniel Ballard

Actually I did address the key phrases and challenged the handling of the incident because “reasonable” has been stretched too far. IMO.

But reasonable is always going to be squishy, and in a case where there is only one surviving witness— the shooter— it will be highly abuseable. That is one of the main problems with this law— it makes it safer to murder someone than it does to assault them.

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.

Do you understand my main point? You are saying the law requires you to stand, and not pursue, but it doesn’t. All the law requires is that you be in a place that you have a right to be, and not be engaging in a crime, when the ‘attack’ begins. That is all. The ‘standing’ part is the right granted, not a requirement of the law.

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.

I think if someone has the ability to retreat and does not use it, instead choosing to use lethal force, they should have to prove why that course of action was legitimate.

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.

We’ll see. Previous cases have wound up with rulings for people who clearly pursued and initiated the confrontation and then shot the other person. I don’t see how this case is substantially different. So, so far, prosecutors have been embarrassed in court thanks to this law, yes.