Yes, I have trained very carefully in order to use my 9mm in self-defense and I dont care HOW clear the threat or big an asshole....I will retreat every time if I can.
Case in point: Michael Dunn. Need another one? George Zimmerman. Doesnt matter that he got off....his life is ruined.
Need more: every single gun owner that was justified in using their guns to protect themselves or their homes and STILL lost their homes and/or tens of thousands of $$$ in court costs having to defend themselves.
Yes, you answered like a man, beating his chest. And made all men look bad, if one were to generalize. (Which I wont.) You sound like someone that would end up just like Michael Dunn.
By the by, you seem awfully quick to lump me in with your caricature of Dunn without ever having met me. That points more to your looking silly that your irrational outburst here.
Though I am very infrequently armed- I just rarely feel the need, I am also firmly resolved to follow the Olde Common Law wisdom that required retreating if possible.
Even though Florida SYG eliminated the need (foolishly in my opinion- Common Law principals are based on centuries of learned common sense), as you pointed out, even legitimate defenses are just too costly (Zimmerman), and at least one jury was tired of the Michael Dunns of the world.
Sweating bullets (get it) that a jury buys your side of the "I stood my ground- and needed to, absolutely needed to shoot "S" " is just one of many.
Then factor in that the Texas law states one cannot provoke the victim (yet does not define "provocation") and the odds of a jury not buying into a particular SYG claim go upwards.
Last edited by Cryptic; 10-08-14 at 03:43 PM.
We know what the Jury decided. We do not know why. Do you or do you not understand that?
We also know that Juries get things wrong all the time. Do you or do you not understand that?
That is why this current discussion is about the evidence and not what they decided. Do you or do you not understand that?
Your continuing to bring it up is absurd.
By the evidence there was a miscarriage of justice.
But you false clams of racism, is racist.
You have no concept of the law or justice.
So you speak nonsense.
The only reason he would be convicted is because he verbally blew off steam in public.
Not because of the actual evidence of what happened. That being he heard a metal on metal noise increasing his fear to the point of being fearful for his life.
As for accepting? There is no evidence to show that is account is false. Nothing.
Look at that. More nonsense from you because you can not debate the evidence.
"The law is reason, free from passion."