this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
765 points (86.9% liked)

Not The Onion

12344 readers
409 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Didn’t he travel a good distance to “defend” a business, one he had no right or reason to defend with a deadly weapon?

Yes, which is not murder or a component of murder.

Was it really just that Washington is a “stand your ground” and not a “duty to retreat” state that made him innocent on that?

No, and I think this is where a lot of the hysreria around the trial came from. He didn't stand his ground, he ran away was being chased. One of the men chasing him was trying to grab his gun, and another pointed a gun at him.

I think the great majority of the people calling him a murderer have never actually looked into what happened that night.

[–] GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're right, I don't think he was guilty of murder, but that wasn't the only focus of the trial was it? Seems like there should have been a better case brought against him, but there wasn't a good legal precedent or framework to really categorize the level of responsibility he had for the situation. While it isn't murder, it's something.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

True, and I think that speaks to the loophole point you brought up. He very obviously went there and was okay with the possibility of doing harm to people. That, in itself, should be illegal, but it's very hard to prove.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

By that logic anyone who carries and is willing to defend their life if necessary could be argued to be "okay with the possibility of doing harm to people." Clearly that's not what you meant but it is important to think about how laws could be abused when advocating for things to be illegal, as other people are able to interpret laws differently than intended based on improper wording.