evidence came up that the article never mentioned, which it had access to because all evidence is made public in Florida. Since the judge basically stopped the trial in mid course, and that is the only information we have, it is reasonable to assume that evidence came to light that destroyed the State's case for murder but was evidence of self defense. That being the case, it would be in justifiable in any place in North America. Castle Doctrine is British common law since medieval times. SYG has been US common law in most states and the federal level for 136 years. While you don't like Florida's SYG, but you don't criticize California's SYG which allows the defender to continue to fire even while attackers are retreating. Florida does not.
There is a bill in Florida to legalize warning shots, how do you feel about that?
Question is: how was his lack of sobriety relevant to the rest of the case? The article doesn't mention that. No, I base opinions on a few paragraphs in a newspaper. I would like to know the rationale and evidence the judge based his decision on. We don't have that. Instead we have mostly irrelevant information that may or may not be true.
= new reply since forum marked as read
