View original post
View original postView original postBut what I meant though was that the political issues we discuss are more complicated and less well understood that this trial. I agree with the concept that criminal trials should not be used as entertainment but this particular case is influencing politics. When a case is being used as justification for political action then the merit off the case becomes part of the political discussion.
View original postWhich is why we should denounce those who try to use specific criminal cases to advance their rhetoric and agenda, not join them in the gutter. This is no different then those who point to any individual tragedy and try to use crocodile tears and 'think of the children!' to advance their agenda. Let us, instead, denounce those who attempt to damage a person's right to a fair hearing for their gain.
View original postThis is the biggest lesson of this particular trial: The state of Florida provides more rights to the killer in a self-defense case than they would otherwise be subject to.
How so please? Quote the specific passage(s) of Florida Law which do so, contrasted to other states. I am of Ohio so an Ohio R.C. quotation would be proper I think, or your own home state.
This trial shows that, even if you follow someone despite the police telling you not to,
No policeman told him not to, as I understand it. Certainly no police officer ordered him not to, which would be all that would matter.
then shoot that person dead, you can literally get away with murder.
Again, that argument need not rely on this specific case to be advanced. If a person is ordered not to do something by the police, and does it anyway, and someone else dies, that is not proof of murder. In fact it is likely to be utterly irrelevant.Whether or not it was in this specific case, one can make arguments with respect to. The state did so argue, the jury did not find it compelling.
Unfortunately, it seems that Florida politicians are all too happy to continue having these laws protect the killers over the victims, as none of the lawmakers I've seen interviewed have any desire to revisit the laws which created this mess.
Again, which laws are those and how should they be changed? I deal in facts and specifics, if you wish to sway me, cite those laws, explain why those laws are themselves flawed, and suggest how if at all you think they should be replaced. None of this should ever require the mention of Zimmerman or Martin, they need only be hypothetical arguments.