Stand Your What Now?
Okay, this just doesn't make any sense to me. Could someone please explain why claiming self-defense under Florida's Stand Your Ground law prevents someone from even being charged? Doesn't it make more sense that you go to trial for second-degree murder, and if it is then found to have been in self-defense, then you are acquitted?
Frankly I think laws that make it legal to respond with deadly force as a first option when one feels threatened instead of that being a mitigating factor diminishing or eliminating repercussions after the fact are completely insane anyways, because what is stopping form anyone from gunning anyone else down on the street and then claiming self-defense? I mean, if then the authorities have to just throw up their hands and say "Oh well, it was self-defense. You can tell because he said so. Guess he goes free then!" without any kind of investigation or being brought before a judge or jury to decide independently whether or not deadly force was justified, then what's to stop anyone from just going out and shooting someone they don't like and then claiming that they felt threatened? I mean, it doesn't seem to matter how old the person was, or whether or not they were armed, is Florida honestly saying that this guy can legally shoot some kid and not even have any kind of an investigation into it, no charges or anything, just because he said "Whup! Nope, he was black and was wearing a hoodie and walking straight towards me and I felt threatened, so under the Stand Your Ground law I felt justified in defending myself by killing him." And then the cops can't even look into it to see if maybe he was lying about it? I mean, maybe this guy just had a boner on and felt like gunning someone down and just wandered around until he came across some black kid in a hoodie, because, dudes, if he was in a hoodie then he was obviously a criminal, right? And if he was black then he was obviously a criminal. And a threat. And then, fuck, yeah, shoot him! Who's gonna care? Hey, it was self-defense, right?
HOW THE FUCK DO WE KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS SELF-DEFENSE IF NO ONE'S ALLOWED TO INVESTIGATE BECAUSE HE SAID THE MAGIC WORDS?!!?
Oh, look! He was just a kid! Wasn't in any gangs, didn't have anything more threatening than Skittles on him, was just walking down the street. GOOD THING THE GUY HAD A GUN TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN SUCH A HOSTILE AND DANGEROUS SITUATION, EH.
So someone please explain the rationale to me behind just throwing up your hands and going "Really? Well okay then!" just because he said "Stand Your Ground!" Because to me it sounds like complete bullshit.
As an aside, hoodies are also part of the Canadian Rangers' official dress uniform (and you will note that we are an official branch of the Canadian Forces), so take your "only criminals wear hoodies anyways" and stuff it up your ass, please. Remember to pull your head out first.
This entry was originally posted at http://kryss-labryn.dreamwidth.org/67777.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Frankly I think laws that make it legal to respond with deadly force as a first option when one feels threatened instead of that being a mitigating factor diminishing or eliminating repercussions after the fact are completely insane anyways, because what is stopping form anyone from gunning anyone else down on the street and then claiming self-defense? I mean, if then the authorities have to just throw up their hands and say "Oh well, it was self-defense. You can tell because he said so. Guess he goes free then!" without any kind of investigation or being brought before a judge or jury to decide independently whether or not deadly force was justified, then what's to stop anyone from just going out and shooting someone they don't like and then claiming that they felt threatened? I mean, it doesn't seem to matter how old the person was, or whether or not they were armed, is Florida honestly saying that this guy can legally shoot some kid and not even have any kind of an investigation into it, no charges or anything, just because he said "Whup! Nope, he was black and was wearing a hoodie and walking straight towards me and I felt threatened, so under the Stand Your Ground law I felt justified in defending myself by killing him." And then the cops can't even look into it to see if maybe he was lying about it? I mean, maybe this guy just had a boner on and felt like gunning someone down and just wandered around until he came across some black kid in a hoodie, because, dudes, if he was in a hoodie then he was obviously a criminal, right? And if he was black then he was obviously a criminal. And a threat. And then, fuck, yeah, shoot him! Who's gonna care? Hey, it was self-defense, right?
HOW THE FUCK DO WE KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS SELF-DEFENSE IF NO ONE'S ALLOWED TO INVESTIGATE BECAUSE HE SAID THE MAGIC WORDS?!!?
Oh, look! He was just a kid! Wasn't in any gangs, didn't have anything more threatening than Skittles on him, was just walking down the street. GOOD THING THE GUY HAD A GUN TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN SUCH A HOSTILE AND DANGEROUS SITUATION, EH.
So someone please explain the rationale to me behind just throwing up your hands and going "Really? Well okay then!" just because he said "Stand Your Ground!" Because to me it sounds like complete bullshit.
As an aside, hoodies are also part of the Canadian Rangers' official dress uniform (and you will note that we are an official branch of the Canadian Forces), so take your "only criminals wear hoodies anyways" and stuff it up your ass, please. Remember to pull your head out first.
This entry was originally posted at http://kryss-labryn.dreamwidth.org/67777.html. Please comment there using OpenID.