Look. It was a SELF DEFENSE case. The burden was on the prosecution to prove that it wasn't self-defense, and they didn't. End of story.
The MSM is claiming it was a STAND YOUR GROUND case...which, no. SYG is the same thing as TX's "Castle Doctrine" - basically, if someone illegally enters your house/car/premises, you can use deadly force and claim SYG. You WILL "take the ride", but you will probably skip the rap (and the jail time) - IF a judge determines that you did have cause.
Self-Defense is different. You have to be in fear of your life before resorting to deadly force. Again, you might take the ride....and in most cases you WILL be tried. Self defense is slightly harder to prove (um, unless you're a woman and the victim was male. Just sayin'......no, it's not fair, but it is what it is.) - but YOU don't have to prove it, the prosecution has to prove that it was NOT self defense.
GZ could NOT claim SYG - he left his vehicle and was on a public street. He could claim self-defense....now, at the moment of the shooting, I think he WAS in fear of his life. (Not gonna go into any other discussion, because it doesn't matter.)
The MSM apparently wants to overthrow SYG....which is just another nibbling away of our 2nd Amendment right. :sigh: (And...I think they'd have incited stuff no matter WHAT the verdict - but I'm jaded).
Laws are complicated, and I'm not a lawyer...but I've done a lot of reading. Mostly of TX's penal code (after all, those affect me directly).....and this is what the law says (in laymen's terms, anyway.) Don't get mad that GZ walked - get mad at the prosecution. (Although, honestly, it looks to me like it was self-defense.)
Gotta skitter - got Ricotta on the stove. Shabbat Shalom!
This entry was originally posted at http://fiberaddict.dreamwidth.org/763861.html. Please comment there using OpenID.