Don't get mad at me? Get mad at the law. I don't make the laws.
Here's a recent case from Florida. It's basically what happened in this case. The person chased down and killed the man for stealing radios. Not just his, but other neighbors too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/miami-judge-rules-in-stan_n_1385219.html
I'm sure a lawyer would have no problem representing Summer's parents, if they so wish to fight these laws. That's the only way they are going to get Justice for Summer because unfortunately, these guys are truly covered under the law as the kids were actually committing a crime. It sucks! I agree!
But what if... what if... one of these men ended up dead at the hands of these kids? They were well on their way to becoming very dangerous young men. I won't include Summer in that because I don't know how many times she was involved.
Would it have been different if he had shot one of the boys? Or if she were older? Or if she was Hispanic? Black? Or would it be the same no matter what?
Hey, I'm not mad at you! Really! Just stating my take on things...and yes, angry, but angry at the Sheriff & DA & especially the shooter, but not at you.
That judge is an idiot. Seriously. 'Stand your ground' laws do not authorize you to chase someone down and murder them. That is not defending yourself. That is forcing a confrontation. Until these past few years, all precedents point to such an action as being the root cause of any injuries or deaths, not the interceding events that were precipitated by the contact. Just like Felony Murder. Of course, it doesn't surprise me that such a ruling would come out of the legal cesspool known as Florida, where due process no longer exists in any rational form. ("oh, you saved the courts time and killed one of them there criminals? Good on you!")
Regardless of the criminal acts of the idiot teens, they were not threatening those men, were no longer engaged in criminal activity at the time of contact, did not engage with the men, and were on public land when contact was made. The men had the ability to call the authorities, observe & wait. Instead they ran off half-cocked with lethal weapons, tried to be action heroes, and then wondered why someone got hurt.
So yes, even going by the strange wording of 'stand your ground', it would still be an illegal & irresponsible act regardless of who was shot. And regardless, it should be up to a jury to decide whether these 'stand your ground' laws cover incidents with contradictory testimony/evidence. And one still may - if enough noise is made, like in Trayvon's case. As many of these cases need to be taken to the courts by the DAs as possible, so that one of them can reach a high enough level for long established precedent to be reaffirmed.
I do have to ask why you feel it necessary to ask me about age & race. Really...I don't want to take offense, but the wording there seems to be making implications about my motives that are...well, not very nice...
All JMO and not intended to be taken personally.
