@panzade,
panzade wrote:Legal analyst Holly Hughes last night:
"“Let’s just keep it really real. Us lawyers use this term, “assuming arguendo,” meaning “how about if it was like this,” let’s flip this, Don.
Let’s say that in the state of Florida, black men were murdering teenage white boys, and then when they went to trial, they got acquitted using “stand your ground.”
Do you really think that if that was happening, that they wouldn’t repeal the law or change it?
That’s what it comes down to!
I’ve heard a lot of people say, “Oh well, black men get convicted and that’s the problem…”
No, no, no, let’s do exactly the reverse: black adult men, murdering white teenagers in Florida, and then getting acquitted. There would be a riot to equal none! They would repeal that law so fast and say,” you can’t have “stand your ground” anymore!”
So, why is it ok in this situation!? Why is it ok? Can we just ask the question!”
Considering Ms. Hughes question on its merits,
without her semi-hysterical assumptions,
I will re-iterate what I said in good faith during Zimmy's trial:
if I were on a jury, I 'd simply do the job, playing it straight.
If a white kills a black with no justification, then apply the law,
regardless of race either way. In the Dunn case, I can see a reasonable
conviction, possibly, in such a circumstance. Foul language from blacks
does not justify killing them.
In 1974, a friend of mine was impolite to me, and I did not shoot him.
David