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

[AtheistCrusader]

166. Now I find myself in the position of defending something I do not approve of.

So I should clarify: I do not approve of the Castle Doctrine laws, nor SYG, specifically as we have seen in the state in Question.

MY state, Washington, has no duty to retreat, BUT we also have no castle doctrine. If you shoot defensively, you can and should be prepared to explain yourself to a grand jury. I wholeheartedly approve of that tack, because it isn't enough to assume the survivor's tale is accurate. An investigation is warranted.

What I DO like about the SYG law, is bringing Civil and Criminal standards of evidence into alignment, in that if you are found not guilty in a criminal trial, you are immune to an associate civil trial, which might otherwise have a lower standard of doubt, and might be successful where the criminal trial was not. There are certainly cases of this happening, though it is, as you pointed out, by no means an epidemic. Seems there might be other pressing concerns for the legislature. But that aside, I do approve of bringing the two standards into alignment, and not just on defensive homicide.

But getting back to Castle/SYG as a mechanism to halt an investigation, I do not approve, as there is at the very least, a clear potential for abuse.