I'm tired of you posting inaccurate paraphrase, and demanding that I deal with it.
and i've proven more than once that you are wrong WRT my posting or paraphrasing
present evidence or STFU
Yes, it did, in fact, mean that he was not legally culpable under the law. That's what "justified" meant, in that case and similar.
and again, this is transference and your interpretation
i'll explain (again)
you've presented a case of homicide that was adjudicated - this is your example
you didn't present the judicial findings, but rather articles. nowhere have i seen you present judicial findings
so, you're presenting your interpretation of events based upon the outcome
nowhere have you
proven that the shooting was explicitly stated and prosecuted as a racially motivated hate crime and "justified"
you proved that there was "a" shooting, and that said suspect is not incarcerated
you've proved that it is perceived to be a hate crime based upon the articles you've presented (perceived by you and others)
you've proved that you perceive the situation as racially motivated
you've proved that race was involved
you've never once proved, through FOIA or other means, that it was prosecuted as such
so you've
only proved that there was:
1- a homicide
2- suspects used stand your ground as a defense
3- no incarceration for the suspect
now,
that is the extent of what you've proved.
you have not proved that it is legal to kill or batter blacks in the US. you haven't even been able to prove that the shootings were prosecuted as racial crimes.
the suspect of any racially motivated crime can still be prosecuted for the homicide under 18 U.S. Code § 249 as a hate crime, which is a separate charge and is explicitly worded to demonstrate without interpretation that it is illegal to shoot blacks in the US, making your claims as well as your defense above false, and as you've repeated it and ignored the facts, then blatantly false due to your interpretations and or delusion
Your supposed "evidence" consisted of quoting some laws, which proves nothing
really?
so, if you claim it's legal to speed in the US
and you use the demonstration that it's legal because three people have gotten away with it,
and there is a media story about it,
then quoting the explicitly stated law is not evidence you're wrong, but rather my interpretation of why you're wrong?
is that what you're saying?
ROTFLMFAO
At most, completely accepting your reading of those laws, it would demonstrate the existence of what appear to be, in an ordinary reading of the English words, conflicting principles in the law - in the one, killing someone who is sufficiently threatening you is legal, in the other killing someone who is or has come to be sufficiently threatening to you in part because they are black is illegal.
you're arguing multiple separate points and distracting from the topic - for starters:
1- it is not my accepted reading of the law. it is explicitly stated. it is not about literacy at that point, but rather your ignoring the evidence
2- there is no conflict as one law covers threats to person, whereas the other law specifically covers hate crimes: the problem as you've posted is that the application of the stand your ground laws is applied in such a manner that you've interpreted it as supporting racial homicide, and the evidence is compelling to validate your argument. it in no way, shape or form supports or states that this is legal in any way, as that is an interpretation of the application of the law, not an explicit statement of the law.
3- application of a law in a situation creating a miscarriage of justice is not the same thing as being legal, it simply means that you got away with a crime. this is no different than my serial killer example: their crime is still illegal, but they got off on a technicality. it doesn't make what they did legal, it makes what they did unprosecuted.
now, about the unprosecuted part: this is also a tactic PA's use for a reason
sometimes a PA will not prosecute an event because there is insufficient evidence
at that time, or at the time of the filing of the prosecution. this doesn't exonerate the suspect from the crime. it only postpones it to collect evidence. this is very common in the system. This allows a person to be prosecuted for "a" crime and incarcerated while giving investigators and law enforcement time to gather evidence to prosecute a more heinous crime.
the above examples you chose may well be examples of this - as there is no statute of limitations on murder, nor is there a statute of limitations on prosecuting a hate crime that results in a murder, as i've explicitly shown.
The context of both is that feeling threatened by someone because they are black is legal - that is, it is legal to be sufficiently threatened due to the extra threat of racial identity. Mortal fear, even partly from that source, is legal.
1- then please show the explicit wording from the following sources:
a- the law (it must explicitly state, as i showed WRT 18 U.S. Code § 249 , that it's legal to shoot blacks due to threat by race)
b- the adjudicated cases findings (it will be explicitly stated)
c- multiple precedent and SCOTUS will have ruled on this - so please show cases and adjudicated findings
2- it cannot be "legal" if there is an explicitly stated federal statute that states it is illegal
it really is that simple, so get to work, becuase to date all you've showed is your interpretation of events due to a known biased media storm
that is it
your interpretation
nowhere have you actually provided evidence showing the explicit adjudicated findings that this is legal due to race
nowhere
not once
in any post in this thread
so it's time for you to actually post the same level of evidence as mine
thanks
The question of how that conflict is resolved, what in the final analysis the law as a whole says, must be answered in practice, by judges, AGs, police, DOJ, etc.
true
And we have our answer, in various common circumstances, illustrated for us by these few examples from the hundreds of events.
blatantly false
you have your interpretation of events
like i said - nowhere have you actually provided evidence showing the explicit adjudicated findings that this is legal due to race
nowhere
not once
you've showed interpretations based upon the lack of incarceration, but you have not explicitly tied this to race, you've only interpreted it as being because of race
where is the evidence that this is racial?
it will definitely be in the findings... it absolutely MUST be in the findings
it must be there because that is required by law - the findings must reflect the summation of the case and present legal justification for the ruling
present those findings