Originally Posted by dopey
You must have some interesting facebook friends. I take it you know a lot of wannabe fascism-for-justice-and-the-public-good types.
Have any suggested that "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" yet?
Well, interesting, if you find bookish nerds interesting. I'm probably the real wannabe fascist of the bunch, sadly.
On a less glib note: what I've been most intrigued by is the sense (ON ALL SIDES, GODDAMMIT), that "good" politics (whatever that means) implies knowledge-claims rather than simply ideals. Politics as the inheritor of religion, etc.
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman
What exactly would you legislatively change here? I mean I guess you could outlaw self-defense and say that you are never entitled to protect yourself from a violent attack. Or you could remove the burden of proof and put it on the Defendant to prove his innocence at trial. Or remove the right against self-incrimination and force the Defendant to testify.
But barring that there's really no way to get a different outcome in this case. And frankly, there's a place like that, it's called England and it's a fucking disaster.
And by the by, since the vast majority of my clients are of African-American heritage any restrictions on the rights of the Defendant you put into place will have a disproportionate impact on black people, not on white-Hispanics. Talk about shortsightedness.
I know all of these remarks are barbed (treating me as if I were an idiot, etc.), but I'll respond sincerely. I am curious (really, since I know nothing about Florida law) how the Stand Your Ground Law doesn't exacerbate rather than alleviate the simple problem of one's ability to act like an egregious asshole, provoke a fight, then respond with lethal force.
And FWIW, my comment was meant to register that I think the jury probably reached the right legal conclusion.
Originally Posted by Douglas
Perhaps we could have an affirmative action plan for criminal justice, whereby a different standard of proof could be applied depending on the races of the victim and defendant.
Was this directed as a response to me? If so: my comment explicitly registered the fact that this kind of thing is obviously undesirable.