LogFAQs > #926621749

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'd like to know how the actual law is worded and how it applies to this case. Without that it sounds like he was acting within the law and should appeal the verdict.

Nope. Specifically stated he shot the dude in the back. Laws require you to fear for your life that argument cannot be reasonably made in this case.

I wouldn't be surprised if he appealed of course, it's just it seems like you think he should get off which is difficult for me to understand and I don't think he will win if he does.

As you quoted "I'd like to know how the actual law is worded and how it applies to this case". From what was posted by Full Throttle it was argued whether he believed he was in danger but I can't tell from this whether that's a requirement of the law since it was also argued "that any kind of violence should assume harm and a right to kill". If the latter argument is valid then the verdict was unjust.

Nope.

Never heard of any law that lets you shoot a man in the back.

This happened in florida, and do you not recall anything of the Zimmerman trial? Like you're basically trying to argue, as I see it, "any kind of violence allows me to kill a man in retaliation" which isn't the case. The law requires you to be defending yourself, not retaliating, and you can't prove defense when you shoot someone in the back because no jury is going to reasonably feel you fear for your life in that situation.

Zimmerman got off for shooting as his head was getting pounded into concrete and killing the only witness to counter his story.