Sadly, there are fewer of those than the number of NSA sycophants posting on FR. Which is, of course, to point out that there are far too many of the latter.
I’m as conservative as anyone, in my humble opinion only, of course. However, I think it’s probably wise on almost all self-defense claims to have some kind of hearing or trial. There needs to be extra scrutiny of some sort.
So, having this trial doesn’t bother me so much if it hadn’t come about the way it came about.
It’s not wise to establish a precedent that says, “Say you were defending yourself and you can kill someone.” Spouses will be claiming abuse, neighbors will be claiming rampages, and salesmen will be claiming muggings.
My sense is that there should always be some kind of very serious, methodical hearing no matter who claims a self-defense killing.
In fact, one of the things being said by the racists threatening to riot if the TM verdict doesn’t go their way is that they’re gonna kill some white guy and say they were just defending themselves.
>> Conserev1 is gone ... but you have to wonder how many other people are out there that require the defendant to prove his or her innocence.
>
> Sadly, there are fewer of those than the number of NSA sycophants posting on FR. Which is, of course, to point out that there are far too many of the latter.
No kidding! I had a long discussion via Freepmail w/ one such conservative/statist who seemed absolutely incapable of admitting [or conceiving of] a “secret clearence”/agreement could be used to do evil, illegal, and illegitimate things. Even to the point of saying that it took precedence over morality and adhering to the highest law (the Constitution) and would not break it even if the secret operation involved plans to assassinate Americans [completely contrary to 5th Amd].
can count my oldest daughter. i can barely talk to her anymore. she voted for O in 2008 too. she has no idea what kind of world her kind will bring for her and her children.
i get sick to my stomach.