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.
So, anyone who exercises their right to self defense should be bankrupted by the police state prosecutors?
I guess we disagree. But if your view wins, I hope you enjoy life with a boot on your throat.
to date they are still killing white guys and gals and the stories are hushed up and not made a big deal by media.
There needs to be a serious, methodical investigation but I don't think every self-defense claim needs a jury trial. If there is -no- evidence to question the claim, I certainly wouldn't want my exercise of self defense left in the hands of a jury when the prosecutor can muddy the water like they've done with Zimmerman.