It seems crazy that there isn't a burden of proof on the shooters. Does it not need to be demonstrated that it was reasonable for the shooter to be in fear for their life?
Innocent until proven guilty. If you shoot someone, you have a right to be assumed innocent, that's how the legal system works. The prosecutors need to prove that you broke the law.
Say someone attacks me, and I defend myself and in the course of doing so, they die. Why should I have to prove I'm not guilty of murder? That's a presumption of guilt.
And I know what someone's gonna say, "well what about the person you shot, where's their presumption of innocence". But that's the thing, the system didn't execute them, I killed them in self defense. And failing to prove I am guilty of murder is not a statement of their guilt. They haven't been legally found guilty either.
That's the way the system SHOULD work. Nobody should be assumed to be guilty.
And frankly, I've seen so much utter bullshit and political distortions around this subject, that I don't believe anyone when they say that a self defense shooting is murder. Cause everyone said that about George Zimmerman. But despite looking into it over and over again, every time I have found that it is abundantly clear that he was justified to shoot. But, the public see Zimmerman as white, and Martin as black. Zimmerman is automatically assumed guilty because of all the other probably unjustified shooting of blacks by cops. The fact that Zimmerman wasn't a cop is apparently not considered at all.
Then you have the fact that people play armchair expert and assume they have any idea what a real life self defense situation is like, and believe that a violent altercation works according to movie and TV physics. Where a nobody ever dies from being punched in the head, even though it happens in real life all the time.
With Zimmerman, it was so cut and dry. Martin has injuries to his hands, Zimmerman had injuries to his face. Zimmerman had wet grass on his back, indicating he had been punched to the ground. If Martin had gained control of Zimmerman gun, he might have killed him. Zimmerman life was in real danger even if there'd been no gun at all.
But to the public, this is all ignored. To them, a kid can't punch an adult to death. Zimmerman is expected to psychicly know that he will survive with no lasting injuries. He's determined to be guilty because he was carrying a gun at all. Even though he'd broken no law. He's guilty because he didn't run away, even though it's also clear he was attempting to leave up until he was attacked after being asked to do so by the 911 operator. And even though after being attacked, the evidence suggests he would have been unable to run at that point.
Fact is, people see the scenario the way they want it to be. A cut and dry case of racism and the murder of an innocent misguided teenager. But that's BULLSHIT.
Then you have the fact that the media edited the 911 calls to make it sound like Zimmerman disobeyed the 911 dispatcher, which he didn't. And isn't illegal and doesn't make him at fault even if he had. They also photos hopped the pictures to make Martin look blacker and Zimmerman whiter. The media tries to distort this shit, and because the public wanna see it that way anyway, they don't question it.
But it's bullshit. That we're even talking about stand your ground laws is probably bullshit. Because those laws only apply when you actually have the ability to retreat. In the Zimmerman case, it's clear he didn't. He'd likely not have been prosecuted and found guilty anywhere, stand your ground state or not. It's just another distortion. And personally I'm fed up of being lied too and manipulated by the media and the ignorant public.
I believe people have a right to defend themselves, and it's clear to me that most people who argue against this sort of thing are totally ignorant of the law, of the realities of self defense in the real world, of the legal philosophies that I believe entirely justify a lot of these circumstances.
I absolutely agree that a lot of black kids have been wrongfully killed in examples of police brutality. But I am also convinced that the public and the media try and distort EVERY situation that remotely resembles it into this narrative, and innocent people are vilified for it. And that's wrong. It's a witch hunt.
And speaking of this presumption of guilt, I once argued with a bunch of people who claimed the justice system had been corrupt when it sentenced a transgender woman to jail for defending herself. It was my position that it was clear that the justice system had followed the law, but that the law itself was what was wrong.
But they couldn't accept that position, and you know why? Because the reason she was found guilty was because she had the ability to run away, but in a split second moment of fight or flight, this untrained individual decided to fight. Stand your ground laws exist to protect people like her. They are a legal statement that ordinary individuals can't be expected to know when to run, when they can run and are legally expected to, or when to fight. But in the state in which this happened, there were no stand your ground laws, so she was correctly albeit unjustly found guilty for fighting when she could have run, resulting in a death.
But the people I was arguing couldn't accept that. They were politically left wing. They want to defend this woman, and in my opinion are right to do so. But they absolutely can't accept that she was found guilty because there's no stand your ground law. So they lie to themselves and imagine corruption where none existed.
It's total bullshit.
