I really dont like all this hate against my state.

[jtuck004]

50. Does the dead person not have a "constitutional right" to life, which you seem

to think you can remove on just your say-so?

The Fifth Amendment...

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

You seem to be suggesting that your rights are more important than theirs, based only on your testimony or statement. No court or grand jury said that the person's crime, that you, and only you, said they were committing, deserved the death penalty that you, and only you, administered, the need based only on your observation? You say they were trying to take your right to life away - well of course you would say that. Got any bridges for sale?

That one section...

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - You pulled out your .38 and popped a cap on that person without giving them due process because, well, we are back to you said again, eh?

What due process of law did the person, who is now your victim, have that guaranteed you made any kind of rational, unbiased, unemotional, cold, calculating decision to put a bullet in their head? After you missed with the three others that went various places, because that is the way shootings happen. It's not infrequent that in a real gunfight, not a murder, the intended target doesn't even get hit

Or did you just kill them after you stalked them, because "those assholes always get away, and he must be guilty because he is wearing a hoodie and probably smoked marijuana at some point in his life.

I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw a feather. A light feather.

If you feel you have a reason to pull your gun and shoot them, in defense of your life, AND ASSUMING YOU DIDN'T PROVOKE THE CONFRONTATION, we have laws that govern self-defense. That's enough for me. I would take advantage of them if I happened to be lucky enough to have mine on me, and had enough time to pull it out and couldn't get out of the situation any other way. Then again, I don't put my gun in my pocket and go hunting for people.

And the state, who speaks for the person that would then be the victim in this case, has the right to question that decision. And I welcome that, because it protects me as well.

And here we go with the court thing - that is called an inquest. It is held by a judge, in front of a jury. They can decide whether criminal charges should be filed and then order your ass hauled into another court and made to defend yourself. Then you can explain how you were "legitimately attacked".

They will file charges based on the evidence, and then you are summoned to another court and must defend yourself. Again. Or, at least, so you say. EVERY shooting, most especially in the event of a death based on only the testimony of a self-serving shooter, should be held up to the light of day and examined thoroughly. So an inquest, for every shooting where some lone individual deprives someone else of their life without due process...sure, I can live with that. And that is a jury.

Should you be immediately arrested, incarcerated? Depends on the facts at the scene. Should an inquest be held, perhaps a grand jury? Without question.

Should you run the risk of criminal charges every time you shoot. Damn right, if you decide, on your own volition, to take away another person's life without due process...as opposed to bullshit laws that try to pre-empt that sort of thing, like saying you can "stand your ground". That gives too much leeway to the ignorant racist, or just plain ignorant, with a gun and perhaps a grudge. Hold an inquest. If criminal charges are brought, you can take your chances on the friends of your defense attorney sitting on the jury. That's the fair way.

On the other subject, it's just ignorant hyperbole to infer that jurors are treated as if they are in jail. Afaik, they don't give pedicures in jail, nor take the prisoners on trips to the museum as happened in the Martin case. The intent is to shield them from outside influence that might cause them to make an unjust decision. Television, friends, people the defense attorney plays golf with, etc are all potential sources of altering that verdict by people who have not seen all the evidence. On the other hand, I suspect Michelangelo's David, or having your toenails cut short and waxed, would not motivate a juror to vote either way. Sequester is not done very much, but if it is done poorly, then that's not justice. For anyone.