A Democrat actually acting like Florida Republicans will listen to him.

Here is their site: http://dreamdefenders.org/

Financial and material support: http://dreamdefenders.org/takeoversupport/

like a very good beginning.

WE DEFEND THE PEOPLE’S POWER TO DETERMINE THE DESTINIES OF OUR OWN COMMUNITIES.

WE DEFEND THE RIGHT OF ALL TO A QUALITY EDUCATION AND TO LIVE LIVES FREE OF POLICE BRUTALITY, RACIAL PROFILING, AND MASS INCARCERATION.

WE DEFEND THE RIGHT OF ALL TO HAPPINESS WITH WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE. WE BELIEVE THAT NONVIOLENCE, LOVE & UNITY WILL ALWAYS TRIUMPH OVER RACISM AND HATE. WE WILL NOT REST, UNTIL VICTORY IS WON.

http://dreamdefenders.org/

I've read a lot about there organization. They are great! Thanks teach.

He lost, and I spent several months defending myself in court too. Apparently, it's open season on black people in Florida--with guns. We already knew their votes didn't count down there. There are times when people in the south make me want to re-fight the Civil War.

Would that somehow overturn Brown v. U.S., 256 U.S. 335 (1921)?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=256&invol=335

For starters, the Florida statute goes way beyond the SYG doctrine cited in Brown. The Brown court never had to consider the case of an aggressor being able to claim self defense, which is the crux of the problem with the SYG statute at issue. The facts of the Brown case took place in Texas, and the Court was influenced by Texas case law rulings on self defense. Finally, the murder in the Brown case took place in a location that was wholly within the jurisdiction of the federal government -- the only reason the case was before the SCOTUS and not in the Texas state court system.

The Florida legislature and courts are free to define and interpret self defense as they see fit. That is entirely a matter of state law. Absent a constitutional issue or a conflict with applicable federal statute, the opinion of the SCOTUS is irrelevant, it has no jurisdiction in the matter. Likewise, the repeal of the Florida SYG statute by the Florida legislature, would have zero bearing on the Brown decision.

like Zimmerman's.

Zimmerman's attorney did not rely upon the Florida's SYG statute and claim that Zimmerman was standing his ground. Instead, he was misinterpreting the concept of self-defense. He was saying, in an absurd way, that an aggressor was defending himself.

In the Brown case, the U.S. Supreme Court did not act as a super supreme court for the State of Texas and limiting it's holding to Texas case law and the geographical confines of Texas, but was interpreting the law of self-defense generally.

A repeal of Florida's SYG law would have no effect on the Brown holding with respect to self-defense.

Repealing Florida's SYG law would not prevent another Florida attorney from claiming that another aggressor was defending himself.

The prosecutor did a poor job. He repeatedly allowed speculative questions to be asked without objection. He failed to point out the absurdity of having an armed stalker and aggressor claim self-defense.

is that the latest NRA talking point?

out the absurdity of having an armed stalker and aggressor claim self-defense.

Now that the prosecution has lost, there are those who want to blame the nuances of a SYG law instead of the poor job of the prosecutor.

For those who want to think that Florida's codification of a SYG law is a codification of a new concept. It's not. The concept existed long before the 1921 Brown decision.

The 1921 Brown case didn't generate a new doctrine. The issue was whether a reasonable-man standard was applicable to a claim of self-defense, and whether a jury instruction limiting self-defense to a reasonable-man standard was proper, or whether a defendant's subjective belief at the time of being attacked could be considered.

Those who want to believe that Florida's SYG law is a new concept which caused a loss in the Zimmerman case without even being argued, instead of the prosecutor's poor performance, can continue to do so. A repeal of Florida's SYG law would not prevent another Florida attorney from arguing that an armed stalker and aggressor was somehow acting in self-defense. If there is a repeal and a prosecutor doesn't want to point out the absurdity of that, there is nothing that can be done.

you know why

and as such answers only to them. Change is highly unlikely. Militarized police swinging batons and firing gas IS.