Your ignorance, so clearly displayed is embarrassing. Any attempt to explain the law would obviously be futile. Did you even read the article? Its not a bad summary of an SYG IMMUNITY hearing.
Just in case you’re actually interested in facts see FL Stats. 776.032 then check FindLaw for the appellate case Peterson vs. State of Florida which established the SYG trial procedures later affirmed by the FL S.Ct.
Too taxing? Google “How to boil water”, master that then get back to me and we’ll proceed with tougher concepts. Sheesh!
—Your ignorance, so clearly displayed is embarrassing.—
Yeah. I don’t live in Florida, but I’ve read the law, read the law’s author’s interpretation of the law and why It does not apply here, and read plenty of other articles about the practical application and its purpose as well as existing “self defense” legal protection.
Regarding the SYG immunity hearing, I’m very ignorant, I admit. But I’m not embarrassed. It’s not my job to know. What I am trying to deal with is the law as written and the meaning of English words and how they apply to this case.
Your superiority complex could be dialed down a bit though. Adults don’t talk that way. At least, not at first utterance. Get to know me. See if I may not be who you perceive me to be after reading only a few of my posts. IOW, be slow to anger. ;-)
BTW, these two contradictory parts of the article are comical. First this:
“There are some judges that don’t want to stick their foot out there and say the buck stops here,” Cobbin said.
The REAL key is hidden in the first quote from the article and applies to this case specifically: What judge is going to risk his, and his family’s life and limb giving Zimmerman immunity even if he DOES righteously deserve it? :-P