Proves what the author, and the two governors and several of the people that voted for the bill said. I am sure if they think anyone has trouble understanding it that they will change it shortly. Will that make you happy.
I must be really off my game today. I quoted the law above. What language in that law proves what those individuals said?
I am sure if they think anyone has trouble understanding it that they will change it shortly.
And they should, if they've found that the law doesn't address something it should address. But Constitutionally, you can't prosecute somebody ex post facto under a criminal law. In other words, you can't make something illegal after somebody does it, and then prosecute them. It's unconstitutional. If they messed up by not making the statute clear when they wrote it, and they left a hole in it that Zimmerman walks through, they it's the fault of the legislators. But they're not allowed to change the law now and apply it to Zimmerman back then. Not on a criminal prosecution.
Will that make you happy.
My happiness doesn't have anything to do with it. But if you ask, the killing of Travon Martin doesn't make me happy. The rewriting of Florida law after the fact to prosecute Zimmerman doesn't make me happy. When bad things happen and they can't be prosecuted because legislators messed up, doesn't make me happy. This is the first time I've had to focus on Stand Your Ground laws. It makes me a little queasy to think you can kill somebody just because you think they're going to seriously injure you, particularly if you may have precipitated the incident after the police told you not to do so. But the law's the law. The Florida statute clearly says that Zimmerman had the right to do so under Florida law. If you're going to change it, you change it prospectively, not retrospectively. It may not sound good to you, but I like the idea that in principle the government can't make what I've done illegal after the fact.