Bruce W. Krafft shares a conversation. [More]
I've been occupied with other priorities and haven't had time to weigh in on this case, but do note the antis are dancing in the blood with all their might in order to kill "stand your ground" and to keep it from spreading.
Here's the thing--Workman asks a good question: "Was ‘SYG’ law even relevant?"
I've been marginally watching this from the sidelines and here's a sneaking suspicion I can't shake: I’ve read officials aren’t prosecuting him saying they can't because of stand your ground laws that need to be changed. I’m wondering if that’s a cynical strategy on the part of prosec
Here's the thing--Workman asks a good question: "Was ‘SYG’ law even relevant?"
I've been marginally watching this from the sidelines and here's a sneaking suspicion I can't shake: I’ve read officials aren’t prosecuting him saying they can't because of stand your ground laws that need to be changed. I’m wondering if that’s a cynical strategy on the part of prosec
I've been marginally watching this from the sidelines and here's a sneaking suspicion I can't shake: I’ve read officials aren’t prosecuting him saying they can't because of stand your ground laws that need to be changed. I’m wondering if that’s a cynical strategy on the part of prosecutors who are hostile to anything making their burden of proof more difficult to overcome—it seems they very well could charge and prosecute the guy—who followed and confronted the teenager after being specifically told not to by the 911 dispatcher. I’m suspecting the decision to not prosecute is a calculated legal and political exploitation of the situation.