08-06-2013, 01:05 PM
(08-06-2013, 12:55 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:(08-06-2013, 12:49 PM)username Wrote: Regardless, there's still something fundamentally fucked up with the law.
Thanks for the sound bite.
What is the specific something(s) . . . NOT the theoretical something.
Might wanna address in what states this "fucked-upness" is present.
BTW . . . Zim didn't claim SYG when he was tried for bagging his trophy.
Zim didn't claim SYG but as I understand it, the law was cited and/or was part of the jury instructions as part of Florida's self-defense laws.
I'm not sure how the law could be fixed because so many aspects of it are subjective. For example, I've read that people are saying that the "initial aggressor" shouldn't be able to claim SYG. Well, good luck defining initial aggressor. Fear for your life? Some guy *thinks* that another guy is waving a pipe at Taco Bell so he shoots him (turns out the guy had a dog leash)? Again, how can one better define "fearing for your life"?
I don't have a problem with defending one's home/family but shooting a guy who is robbing a house next door because he's generally headed in your direction (could be 50 yards away) seems extreme.
I agree with CN that the basic premise is "I'm scared, bang, you're dead". That's fucked up to me.
Commando Cunt Queen