The final point that amazes me is that the same people here who say that the would "have" to vote guilty....even though they also say they think the man was justified.....are mostly the same folks who loudly proclaim that they'd never give up their guns if a law were passed saying they must.
Does this mean that you also believe that a person has the right to ignor any law they choose because they don't agree with it....but MUST follow other laws? You NEVER "have" to convict when on a jury....grow a set of balls and stand up for what's right or blindly follow whatever instructions THE LAW decides you should.....you can't have it both ways.
Maybe I'm a bit different, but I was taught a truth by my father and grandfather....and have taught my children the same thing,
"Never let the LAW stand in the way of what's right and wrong!"
Maybe in Texas but not were I live. Last jury I was on the instructions were to determine if the defendant broke the law or not. There was NO allowance for our feeling about the law of if the defendant was justified or not.
If there was a choice to make that decision then I would think the defense attorney would have made a comment in his closing or appealed the decision. Neither happened.
Again, if what was stated in the original article is true than this man broke the law. The DA may chose not to bring it before the grand jury and the grand jury may not indite but if this went to trial where I live he would be guilty.
I am not sure about your point about giving up my guns. The Constitution give me the right to own guns under the Second amendment. Any state law would not supersede the second.
If it came down to a decision, I would then have to make a decision to follow the law or not. If charged a jury would have to decide if I was guilty or not.
As for unjust laws we have the obligation to work within the system to change such laws. Ignoring laws we don't like seems a poor option to me.
