Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
So you're saying that the law, when correctly interpreted, allows unarmed individuals to be shot dead by citizens after being told to stand down by law enforcement. I really don't think that is the case.
|
There are so many things wrong with that sentence it's hard to know where to start...
1) "Correctly interpreted" by who? You? By the authors of the bill? By God? By Nancy Grace? By the millions of Internet wanna be activists who sign petitions? There is no such thing as "correct interpretation" in law, there is only "interpretation by precedent" of a jury or a court after the fact. The lawmakers have all come out publicly and said that the intent of their law wasn't meant to protect this action. Intent when it's passed is irrelevant, it's what the letter of the law says that's important.
2) Unarmed meaning unthreatening in your book? I had a guy grab my rifle and try to wrest it from me when I came around a corner in a house. He grappled it to the side where I couldn't use it and grabbed my neck with his other hand. I had absolutely no compunction about shooting him with my pistol three times in the stomach after I drew it. Unarmed is irrelevant to threat level...it's incredibly easy to main or kill without weapons...
3) Being told that it was unnecessary to follow him has absolutely nothing to do with the law. The law only cares about what happened during the confrontation. In fact, if the police had directly ordered him NOT to follow him and NOT to physically touch him, the law would still protect him if he felt an imminent threat to his life, regardless of how the incident started. Again, this may not be the intent of the original lawmakers, but it's the letter of the law as written.
The only facts are that the kid is dead and the person who killed him says that he was in fear for his life. He's presumed innocent until proven guilty, and there are no facts that can possibly prove that he didn't FEEL in danger for his life. Everything will be circumstantial if this farce even manages to come to trial, but until it does, and until a verdict is rendered, the law stands on its wording and on previous precedent only as "interpretation".
P.S.-COG, I can't believe you of all people are arguing this...how many countless threads have you started RIGHT HERE about how pissed off you are that the wording of the NDAA allows so many things that the "intent" of the law should never allow? You should know how this "correctly interpreted" shit works dude...
