There's a debate about whether Zimmerman should have been carrying

[Wumpusrat]

44. Well...

If I and the victim are the only witnesses, and the victim is dead, I can claim anything I want.

The very concept of this law seems to be set up in such a way to allow for premeditated murder, so long as you can justify it as "self defense". The IDEA behind it might have been noble (or probably not), but the idea that if there's no one around, you could simply claim "self defense" and kill someone?

The main problem is that from what I've read, the moment you claim "self defense", it's up to the state to prove that it WASN'T self-defense. All you have to prove is that you felt threatened. "Justifiable homicides" have skyrocketed in Florida since they adopted this law. And the vast majority of the people who ended up doing the killing didn't get charged or arrested.

Like I said, the very concept of it just baffles me. It's like we're drifting back to the "wild west" mentality, where everyone's going to end up walking around armed, gunning each other down for insults and arguments. Makes me sad for this country.

<edit> This bit here puzzles me, too: (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant

So basically, let me get this straight, even if I'm the one that starts the fight, the moment I start to lose badly I can claim self defense and shoot the person? Dubya tee eff? O.o