The other side of the Trayvon Martin story...

Post Reply New Topic

It would certainly curb accidental firearm related deaths immensely and generally teach respect for the potential power of firearms and the ramifications of misuse.

I'm for teaching it t at all levels of public K12 education. The wall that keeps this from happening is people that actually think that they can prevent firearm accidents by totally shielding kids from any exposure to firearms.
It's a parents prerogative to raise their kids as they see fit but at the same time it is naive and irresponsible to attempt to bar them from something they will likely encounter at some or several times in their lives.

You know - - it occurred to me, did anyone in danger of his life not defend himself prior to this law existing? My question is admittedly rhetorical, as it's obvious that they had.
For more of an actual question, had anyone defending his life, family, or property ever get sentenced to prison because of acting in self defense? And I don't mean something like Nicholas Cage getting sent to prison for defending his wife in Con-Air. I mean a real life case.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Hi Kraichgauer,

Many individuals under threat from another person committing an act of a possible forcible felony have retreated to safety whenever possible. Other than while being in your own abode, a majority of States wisely still require the "duty to retreat". For example of New Jersey: http://www.newjersey-legal-guide.com/Ne ... fense.html
The "duty to retreat" is a continuance from historical Common Law.

Many individuals have been sentenced to prison because of acting in self-defense, especially when such an act resulted in needless dangers and/or injuries and fatalities, often to totally innocent bystanders.
Broad examples: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... ed+role%22
Ten Year Sentence for misguided self-defense & confusion: http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/law_v_state.html

Many cases are referenced about Florida, and Florida's trying to decipher its own law by other State's models, is at: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... +Torres%22

Florida has been very fickle in applying its "Stand Your Ground" self-defense laws, as even Florida's courts of appeals have cited the circular logic and self-contradictions of the newer law (2005, on-wards). The laws are probably unconstitutional when making it to the federal level, because the whimsical results involving loss of life & liberty without due process under this law deprives many people of equal protection under the law.

Tadzio

Tadzio wrote:

You live in California but call anything about Florida idiotic.
Says a lot but whatev…..



When the type of event occurs where you would invoke SYG you rarely have time to dig into the law books for case history, assemble a panel of experts, or use an iPhone app to chart a course of action that is both legally and tactically sound.
It can be about the same as deciding whether to swerve or brake to avoid a car accident; split second decisions that have to be lived with.
The law was written to favor the law abiding citizen in surviving a potentially lethal encounter both physically and legally intact instead of giving his assailant a hand up.

It will not always work out for the best, this case being an example if Zimmerman is proven in court to be at fault, and laws cannot be written for each and every possible eventuality.
The more I think about this version of the SYG law the more I approve of it and reading some of the personal and political agenda driven arguments against it is helping me arrive at that conclusion.

I’m sure (read that KNOW) that since this incident last month that lots and lots of other people were murdered in much more certain terms but I don’t see those cases being examined to death in this forum.

Hey, you have the Brady Campaign and we have the NRA……
I think I can honestly say that the NRA has done more to positively curb gun violence and accidents than those Brady idiots could ever hope to.....

You live in California but call anything about Florida idiotic.
Says a lot but whatev…..

When the type of event occurs where you would invoke SYG you rarely have time to dig into the law books for case history, assemble a panel of experts, or use an iPhone app to chart a course of action that is both legally and tactically sound.
It can be about the same as deciding whether to swerve or brake to avoid a car accident; split second decisions that have to be lived with.
The law was written to favor the law abiding citizen in surviving a potentially lethal encounter both physically and legally intact instead of giving his assailant a hand up.

I’m sure (read that KNOW) that since this incident last month that lots and lots of other people were murdered in much more certain terms but I don’t see those cases being examined to death in this forum.

It would certainly curb accidental firearm related deaths immensely and generally teach respect for the potential power of firearms and the ramifications of misuse.

I'm for teaching it t at all levels of public K12 education. The wall that keeps this from happening is people that actually think that they can prevent firearm accidents by totally shielding kids from any exposure to firearms.
It's a parents prerogative to raise their kids as they see fit but at the same time it is naive and irresponsible to attempt to bar them from something they will likely encounter at some or several times in their lives.

You mean like this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rcjKB9sE9o
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rcjKB9sE9o[/youtube]

Or this woman?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv89_3rrW8Y
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv89_3rrW8Y[/youtube]

Hi Kraichgauer,

Many individuals under threat from another person committing an act of a possible forcible felony have retreated to safety whenever possible. Other than while being in your own abode, a majority of States wisely still require the "duty to retreat". For example of New Jersey: http://www.newjersey-legal-guide.com/Ne ... fense.html
The "duty to retreat" is a continuance from historical Common Law.

Many individuals have been sentenced to prison because of acting in self-defense, especially when such an act resulted in needless dangers and/or injuries and fatalities, often to totally innocent bystanders.
Broad examples: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... ed+role%22
Ten Year Sentence for misguided self-defense & confusion: http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/law_v_state.html

Many cases are referenced about Florida, and Florida's trying to decipher its own law by other State's models, is at: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... +Torres%22

Florida has been very fickle in applying its "Stand Your Ground" self-defense laws, as even Florida's courts of appeals have cited the circular logic and self-contradictions of the newer law (2005, on-wards). The laws are probably unconstitutional when making it to the federal level, because the whimsical results involving loss of life & liberty without due process under this law deprives many people of equal protection under the law.

Tadzio

in those cases the prison sentence could have been deserved,

are there anyone where they were sent to prison despite a clear cut case of self defense ?

The NRA is behind a lot these pushes. They arent shy about it. Maybe you feel that if you line up enough words you can change reality. Good luck with that.

For reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum on this forum. You choose to ignore it. Again, good luck.

Gun users and self-defense invokers should not get special rights.

Again we come back to the different views of justice. And the NRA was behind this law. That's just a fact. I'm sorry if you find it upsetting in some way.

What are you doing with your guns if not playing with them? You are a hobbyist mate, not Paul Revere . Have fun. I just don't see why you need special rights to use them on others and get away with it.

What possible research could I do that would convince you of anything? Zimmermans' lawyer is planning on using SYG. Said so in an interview. The state attorney has said that SYG is a problem and may be a bar to prosecution. Maybe they are both crazy. Maybe youve successfully typed enough words on your keyboard and a genie came out and changed all that. Alakazam!

Media coverage of Florida’s self-defense laws in recent weeks has often been very inaccurate. While some persons, particularly from the gun prohibition lobbies, have claimed that the Martin/Zimmerman case shows the danger of Florida’s “Stand your ground” law, that law is legally irrelevant to case. So let’s take a look at what the Florida laws actually say.

Fla. Stat. § 776.012. Use of force in defense of person

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

So the general rule is that deadly force may be used only to “imminent death or great bodily harm,” or “the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” A person may only use deadly force if he “reasonably believes” that the aforesaid factual conditions exist. These standards are the norm throughout the United States.

Eventually, a grand jury will issue a report based on its investigation. In the meantime, there are two competing narratives. In one narrative, Zimmerman followed Martin, attacked him, and then murdered him. Let’s call this the “M narrative.” In Zimmerman’s account, he followed Martin, caught up with him, and then left; while he was leaving, Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground, and began slamming his head into the pavement. Let’s call this the “Z narrative.”

I am not making any judgment about which narrative is more plausible. The grand jury will do that. For now, it should be noted that neither the M narrative or the Z narrative has anything to do with a duty to retreat. The retreat issue would only be relevant if Martin were the aggressor, and Z had the opportunity to escape from Martin in complete safety. Then, and only then, would different state standards about retreat be relevant. Simply put, everyone who has claimed that Florida’s retreat rule affect the legal disposition of the controversy is either misinformed or mendacious.

The core Florida law on deadly force in self-defense leads to clear results. If M is true, then Zimmerman’s firing of the gun was a criminal homicide. If Z is true, the act was lawful self-defense. The results would be the same in every other state.

Under Florida law, there is another set of circumstances in which deadly force is permitted is:

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013

The cross-references is to a statute involving self-defense in one’s home or automobile. Neither of these is relevant to the Martin-Zimmerman case.

Fla. Stat. § 776.013. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

The home/automobile law allows use of deadly force against intruders who unlawfully enter the victim’s home or occupied automobile. The law makes specific exceptions if the intruder has a legal right to be there, or is lawfully exercising child custody rights, or if the person in the home/automobile is engaged in illegal activity, or if the intruder is law enforcement officer who has identified himself as such.

Again, the home/automobile provisions have no relevance to Martin/Zimmerman case.

Next is the issue of retreat:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Again, this is irrelevant to the Martin/Zimmerman case. A duty to retreat, if it existed, would apply to a crime victim, who would be required to retreat than to use force in self-defense, if retreat were feasible. In the M version of the case, Zimmerman stalked and shot Martin; Martin never attacked Zimmerman. Accordingly, Zimmerman never had any lawful right of self-defense. Only Martin had violently and feloniously attacked Zimmerman would there be an issue (in any jurisdiction) as to whether Zimmerman had a duty to retreat. In the Z version of the case, there was such an attack, but it was impossible for Zimmerman to retreat. Thus, duty to retreat law has no bearing on the case.

Historically, American states have been split as to whether there is ever a duty to retreat, and under what circumstances. Richard Maxwell Brown’s excellent book No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society (1994) details the strong trend in American courts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries against a duty of retreat. The U.S. Supreme Court said the same thing in Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895):

[Beard] was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.

Beard involved a victim on his own land. The Court unanimously re-affirmed Beard‘s no-retreat rule in Alberty v. U.S., 162 U.S. 499 (1896), which involved a person in his own home. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 493, 502 (1896), involved a victim who was on someone else’s property; there, the Court upheld a jury instruction in favor of a duty to retreat.

Finally, in Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), Justice Holmes writing for a unanimous Court that included Louis Brandeis (the greatest Progressive jurist), explained:

Rationally the failure to retreat is a circumstance to be considered with all the others in order to determine whether the defendant went farther than he was justified in doing; not a categorical proof of guilt. The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence. That has been the decision of this Court. [cite to Beard.] Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him Rowe v. United States, 164 U. S. 546. The law of Texas very strongly adopts these views as is shown by many cases, of which it is enough to cite two. Cooper v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 28, 38, 89 S. W. 1068. Baltrip v. State, 30 Tex. App. 545, 549, 17 S. W. 1106.

It is true that in the case of Beard he was upon his own land (not in his house,) and in that of Rowe he was in the room of a hotel, but those facts, although mentioned by the Court, would not have bettered the defence by the old common law and were not appreciably more favorable than that the defendant here was at a place where he was called to be, in the discharge of his duty. [Defendant Brown was an employee at a federal navy yard, where Hermis attacked him with a knife.]

The above cases all involved federal common law, applied to the federal Territories and to federal property. States, of course, are free to chart their own course. Judges can revise the common law, and legislatures can enact statutes which differ from the common law. Under the English common law of Blackstone, there was no duty to retreat in the home, and no duty to retreat when the use of force was necessary to commit a forcible felony, such as arson. Retreat was required, if practicable, in cases “of a sudden brawl or quarrel” outside the home. See also Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, sects. 106-07; Bishop’s Criminal Law, sect. 850 (most influential American criminal law treatise of latter 19th century; person who is victim of murderous attack has no duty to retreat).

In sum, Florida’s non-retreat rule is not some 21st century novelty. It is consistent with a long tradition of American law, in which different states have had a variety of rules about when, if ever, retreat might be required.

Even among the most restrictive states, such as New York, retreat in safety is not required before using deadly force in the home; to prevent a burglary (if the person reasonably believes that the criminal would use force to thwart the person’s termination of the burglary) ; to prevent a robbery ; or to prevent a kidnapping, forcible rape, or other forcible criminal sexual attack. Thus, whether you are in Lake Placid, New York, or Lake Placid, Florida, and someone attempts to rob you when you are walking down the street, you have no duty to retreat before using deadly force to thwart the robbery.

Back to the Florida statute, which then provides some additional legal standards for home/automobile defense:

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

The next part of the Florida Code concerns “Use of force in defense of others.” Fla. Stat. § 776.031:

A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Deadly force is permitted only when “reasonably” believed “necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” The no-retreat rule is the same as for self-defense.

We have now covered the entire relevant sections of Florida’s self-defense statutes. Not one word of them provides the slightest legal protection to Zimmerman, if the M version of the events is true. The grand jury will decide whether there is plausible evidence in support of the M theory.

Florida law provides some protections for persons who have lawfully used force against a criminal attack.

Fla. Stat. § 776.032. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

So if a person used force lawfully in self-defense against a criminal attacker, then his actions are justified (not merely excused), and he may not be arrested, criminally prosecuted or sued. It seems obvious that persons who have obeyed the law should not be arrested or prosecuted. Nor should criminals or a criminal’s relatives be able to harass the victim by filing a civil suit.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

The Sanford police said this is why they did not arrest Zimmerman: they did not have probable cause to believe that he had broken the law. In fact, the statute does not change the law, but it apparently is effective at reminding law enforcement officers of the standard they are required to obey. Regarding arrests, the United States Constitution requires that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the . . . persons . . . to be seized.” As judicially interpreted, the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for some arrests, but the probable cause requirement remains enforceable. The normal rule in American law is that a police officer must have “probable cause” in order to arrest someone.

Another protection:

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

So if a lawful defender is sued, then the court will attorney’s fees and costs to the victim of the improper suit, who was, of course, also the crime victim.

Finally, Florida law guaranteeing self-defense rights express excludes anyone who “Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself.” Fla. Stats. 776.041. As is typical in other states, the provoker can only regain self-defense rights if:

(2)(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

The only way that this statute would be relevant would be if Zimmerman initially attacked Martin, and then withdrew. Zimmerman has made no such claim, nor does the M narrative.

In sum: there is not a shred of support for the claim that Florida law protects, or has protected Zimmerman, if he unlawfully attacked Martin. If Zimmerman’s story is true (Martin attacked him, putting him in imminent peril of grave bodily injury, with no opportunity to retreat), then Zimmerman’s self-defense claim would be valid under the laws of Florida, New York, or any other Anglo-American jurisdiction. The particular legal changes resulting from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws (deadly force in the home/automobile; no duty to retreat in public places; Fourth Amendment arrest standard affirmation; protection from civil suits) simply have nothing to do with whether Zimmerman’s actions were or were not lawful.

Yeah, in some cases they do, such as the war on drugs.

However, in self-defense the law here more or less says that you can respond in kind provided there was a reasonable conclusion made on your part that the other party would be able to inflict similar damage as you did.

IE, if a 200+ lbs male or a well trained person were to tell me that they'd put me in the hospital, I'd be permitted to put them in it, but if a 140 lbs female told me that she was going to kick the sh** out of me, I couldn't because there is no way she could inflict that damage without a weapon.

The issue that isn't being addressed is the ability for almost anyone to get away with murder. If you have a death grudge against someone all you have to do is confront them somewhere where there are no witnesses and make up a "self-defense" story claiming they were going to beat you unconscious if you hadn't shot them first.

Just for Simon_Says, I'm reposting this from the other thread for his perusing convenience, as it answers many of the questions he keeps asking me and puts to rest a lot of misinterpretations and such. You're welcome.

David Kopel takes a more in depth look at Florida's self defense laws and their applicability to this case:

http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-s ... more-57774

Did I say the NRA was not behind anything? What I said was "what does it matter?". See, I tend to evaluate ideas independently of their source and partisan alignment; I don't care who came up with the idea, only whether or not it's a good one. You on the other hand, seem to think that the mere presence of the NRA somehow "taints" the idea, though the exact mechanism you seem to be imagining is illusive to me.

Also, I can change reality with my words; it's called persuasion, lobbying and activism. Here though, I'm just having fun.



Can you not tell the difference between ignoring something and disputing it? For a guy who keeps insisting that none of this means anything, you're sure being stubborn about playing out your (willful?) misunderstanding of self defense law (see my handy posts explaining it all in both TM threads).



Who said anything about "special rights"? I asked you if you thought that people wrongfully prosecuted over self defense incidents should have to pay their own legal fees or be reimbursed by the state, and you said yes. I asked if you really meant that using plainer language, and you deflect with this "special rights" distraction. SYG and other self defense shield laws are universally applicable, no one is getting anything anyone else isn't and that kind of kills your idea of "special" right there.

Hmm, "special rights" that apply to everyone? Sounds an awful lot like the conservative objection to gay marriage, doesn't it?



Indeed, and apparently yours really does include a rush to satisfy emotions before the facts are in, as I've given you multiple chances to clarify and all. And (yet) again, I've never disputed that the NRA has been involved in pushing for liberalized gun laws and self defense related legislation, it's sorta what they do. The point is that I. Don't. Care. CATO could propose some stupid idea tomorrow and it would still be a stupid idea even though it came from people I tend to like and agree with, while the KKK could come up with a great idea that wouldn't be made any less great by it's odious originator. Maybe in your world an idea's merit is partially derived from who came up with it, but it isn't in mine.



*sighs* Where to start... Now if I said I was "playing with my guns" I'd have people down my throat about how I'm not treating deadly weapons seriously, but when I take them seriously I get the likes of you telling me I've got some sort of Rambo complex. Maybe you should accept that you clearly know nothing about guns and that you know less than nothing about me personally and what I happen to do with them.

I'm a gunsmith, friendo, Colorado School of Trades class of 2004, which makes me a professional when it comes to firearms and their handling, and much of what I do with them is fix and tune them, in addition to my own sport shooting and habitual carry.

I don't harbor any ideas about the British monarchy getting in my face, but I do take responsibility for my own security and that of my family, a responsibility I take very seriously. I don't roam the neighborhood looking for trouble, I don't try and put myself in dangerous situations, but I do know that if one of those situations should find me that I'm equipped and prepared to give myself the best chance of coming out OK.

I think I adequately addressed your "special rights" red herring above, but feel free to peruse the excellent David Kopel piece I'm posting to this and the other thread, *just for you*.



Evidently *you* aren't likely to do any productive research period, so I guess I should just lower my expectations when "debating" with you and think of it more as a Larry King softball questions sort of experience.

As to the rest, you seem to be missing the entire "is there actually something to prosecute here?" boat. If there is something to prosecute, the law will not get in the way (read that David Kopel), and if there's nothing there, then I'm glad they can't try to slap a charge on someone just to please the media and the horde.

Also, if you're going to employ the "why are you typing so much/it won't change anything" tactic, you need to shut up yourself or it doesn't have the same impact. Don't worry, we've got the thread covered without your... contributions.

As to the rest, you seem to be missing the entire "is there actually something to prosecute here?" boat. If there is something to prosecute, the law will not get in the way (read that David Kopel), and if there's nothing there, then I'm glad they can't try to slap a charge on someone just to please the media and the horde.

In your projected gun trigger-happy school lessons, has anyone hinted to you that when when two people happen to encounter each other, that doesn't make one of them a felonious criminal, even if both of the individuals happen to be paranoid schizophrenics carrying heat???