Spot on. Seems the gun crowd is for shooting someone or doing nothing. Sometimes just standing up and speaking out can stop someone.
So here's a SYG case that seems to me (with absolutely no real knowledge of the evidence) to be one where it should not work as a defense: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/man-claims-self-defense-in-fatal-shooting-of-neighbor/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0hzt1saKsY And the jury agreed: http://gma.yahoo.com/texas-man-foun...r-dispute-053934284--abc-news-topstories.html
Happens all the time CO, but that does not make the newspapers, and if it did, the klannish would ignore it as it does not conform to their worldview. For example, one of the klannish here loves to post black crime in Chicago, but a cursory view of the mug shot section of the Tribune shows they are by no means alone. This gets ignored, of course. It is not hard to expose an agenda.
I don't know. The man was clearly threatened. He was dealing with a bunch of out of control drunks. From the context, this was hardly the first episode. It just goes to show what can happen if you are carrying though. Things escalated, a couple of loud drunks started making threats, putting the guy in fear and he reacted. If I'm on his jury, I'm not voting to convict in that situation.
And as usual you would be wrong. You can not go to another person's home with a gun and kill them. Not in Texas anyway.
Not anywhere. But AAA is beginning to sho his actual biases. He is good. He hid them for quite some time.
SYG is meant to provide a measure of legal protection for folks who are being reasonable then are suddenly threatened. If I strap up, stroll into some tough neighborhood, start taunting a big group of local thugs, then waste `em when they get all uppity, that's not covered. Note, I am not saying Zimmerman is guilty. AFAIK, he's innocent (but once again my knowledge of all the evidence is pretty limited). This case is different, IMO.
That's not what happened. He went to the house to try to quiet a loud, drunken party. He was threatened. It is captured on the tape. He probably overreacted, but in that situation I am not voting to convict a man of murder because he misinterpreted the actions of some belligerent drunks.
It is exactly what happened AAA and a jury who saw the same video agreeded. You cannot go to another persons house with a gun and kill them, not in Texas anyway.
I think the shooter let himself get too emotional. Dangerous enough when confronted even worse when you're armed. I'm no legal expert but I think the shooters defense is questionable. However had I been on the jury, based solely on the video, I would probably not have voted to convict though.