no, it is perceived to be legalBut it is legal.
If someone argues that he or she shot another person because of a perceived threat, that is legal in many parts of the US. And yes, many people have shot unarmed minorities and used that as an excuse and have gotten away with it.
it is imagined to be legal
it is believed to be legal
it is not legal if there is a specific explicit law that states it is illegal, per 18 U.S. Code § 249
this is what i keep trying to point out
i know that people have gotten away with it. and people have used stand your ground as an excuse. but the refusal of the PA to act upon the law is not the same thing as being legal
and again, this is irrelevant as federal statute trumps stateBecause the stand your ground laws now state that the threat only has to be perceived and not actual or real.
you are not understanding that just because people are getting away with it doesn't mean it's legal - nor does the fact that the lack of prosecution under the law imply or demonstrate something is legal
I can't stress this enough. just because someone is not prosecuted for a law doesn't mean that what they did was legal.
- it is exactly like saying that because everyone else you know is christian then their god is real because the numbers and perception of "real" is in favour of the superior numbers
i really do understand what you are saying, but you are not understanding what i am sayingDo you actually understand what I am saying here?
you are, quite literally, making the point of a miscarriage of justice and then saying that because there is a miscarriage of justice then it's legal - but that is not factually correct any more than the christian example is
perhaps this example is more clear: serial offenders who haven't been caught
is what they do legal since they haven't been prosecuted under the law which explicitly states it is illegal to commit their crime?
no, it is not "legal", they simply haven't been prosecuted under the law
what about those serial offenders who were caught and charged with a lesser crime - is it then, legal, that they got away with their crime?
no. they were simply charged with a lesser crime.
that is it. really!
it doesn't change anything other than the perception of justice
this is the same thing. people are being prosecuted under the law using stand your ground and getting away with miscarriages of justice. this doesn't mean that whatever crime is then legal. it only means that they were not prosecuted under the law.
now, take a look at what you just didNo, there are no laws that say it is legal to murder a black person. But there are laws that dictate that one can use deadly force if one perceives a threat.. And black people are dying because their killers perceived a threat. Whether that threat is real or not is beside the point. If they declare they perceived a threat, that is a legal defence.
you have justified that god is real because:
someone believe it and as evidence of proof that said someone was taking communion and they weren't stricken down by lightning as a heretic
- can't you see the problem here?
perception or even the refusal to act upon a law is not the same thing as actually being legal
absolutely true - so you have now just validated my point: just because something isn't prosecuted doesn't mean it's legalAnd yet, that federal statute will not really come into play when local law enforcement and the local State prosecutors argue that the killer perceived a threat.
Federal Hate crimes rarely come into play in this murders, and when they do, the right kick up a huge fuss and the jury rarely indicts.
i really can't stress that often enough... it's like speeding in your car. just because you regularly get away with it and / or a cop doesn't pull you over and give you a ticket doesn't mean it is legal to speed. this even applies to warning tickets, and i think that is a fair example in this case. if you get a warning ticket for speeding, is it then legal to speed?
nope.
no, i am notYou keep relying on these laws as though they are fool proof and always work.
i never once said anything to even imply this
i am simply making a point that just because you get away with a crime, or because a crime is not prosecuted, doesn't mean in any way, shape or form, that said crime is legal
see analogy about speeding
1- the law you state is irrelevant as it's a state statute, not federalAnd the laws were written in a way that literally allows this as a defence. Saying the laws themselves are irrelevant does not absolve the fact that white people are shooting minorities and claiming they perceived a threat and getting away with it twice as much as anyone else is. It's called racial bias.
2- i am not attempting to absolve any facts, i am trying to establish a fact that you are overlooking due to your perception of the law
and you just validated my point again - refusal to prosecute is not the same thing as being legalAnd juries rarely indict or render a guilty verdict if it gets to court. A lot of the time, it never gets that far as the local law enforcement will not press charges.
just because you didn't get a speeding ticket doesn't mean you are now legally or otherwise absolved of the responsibility to maintain speed per the law
i do see what is going on around me, but that doesn't change the factsYou need to see what is going on around you. Saying 'oh well, that's just illegal' means diddly squat.
and i am not just saying that's just illegal. i am an advocate for prosecution under the law. always have been. it was my job at one point. it is still my job as i see it.
and if more people like you and i stood together and fought to prosecute people who justify hate crimes with stand your ground laws ....
again - noThat is the law and how it is being applied. Legally. Until those laws are amended, the driver of that truck did nothing illegal.
if the driver of that truck was speeding down the road and the same thing happened (a cop did not pull him over and issue a citation), is it then legal for said truck driving idiot to blatantly speed as wished?
nope
i can't keep stressing this enough - refusal to prosecute is not the same thing as being legal
it just isn't
the refusal to prosecute you for exceeding the posted speed limit is not then proof that speeding is legal just like the refusal to prosecute an explicit law of hate crimes is not then proof that killing blacks is legal
this is also demonstrated by speed limits: people know that exceeding the speed limit by around 5 mph or less is typically not prosecuted under the law, so you perceive this to be legal
however, if you were then pulled over for doing 58 in a 55 and taken to court (or issued a citation), and subsequently prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit, you are guilty under the law
same thing
perception of legality isn't the same thing is being legal
see speeding point aboveAnd as explicitly you believe it is spelled out, the reality is vastly different.
The laws are written that way and people are using those laws to avoid being charged for murdering minorities by claiming they perceived a threat. So in those cases, it is legal to murder a black person.
refusal to prosecute the law is not the same thing as being legal
so, because you have never gotten a speeding ticket for doing 60 in a 55, then it is legal to do 60 in a 55 and as such, you cannot be prosecuted for speeding?The law allows for a perceived threat.
What part of that is not sinking in, exactly?
the law, literally, allows for the exceeding of the speed limit by up to 10mph in certain circumstances (like overtaking), so if you get a ticket, then you can't be prosecuted, right?
that is essentially the same argument you're making above
really... no joke
so how do you think it would go over if you entered a court and was prosecuted per the law, but you used the excuse that it's legal because no one ever gave you a ticket for speeding before?
it doesn't matter that the law isn't being utilised - that is just a miscarriage of justice
it doesn't then mean that the speeding is legal
the stand your ground laws are not the problem - this is the same logical fallacy Tiassa uses when she attempts to justify gun bans because criminals don't obey the lawYou want to change the law? Lobby your local representative and express your displeasure with the NRA for pushing for these laws to begin with.
the problem is that the federal hate crimes laws are not being used to prosecute
so you can't change the situation by repealing the stand your ground laws because they don't apply - they are being used to justify a hate crime, and i know this because, as i've repeatedly noted, you are demonstrating this
but that doesn't change the fact that a hate crime is explicitly illegal
it simply means that PA's aren't prosecuting the law
it doesn't mean hate crimes are legal
all it means is that it is illegal under the law and prosecutors aren't prosecuting it under the law