Our legal system already works under the framework innocence unless proven guilty, so your argument doesn't work. The SYG law does not at all give the one who kills such protection--our legal system does. The SYG law does allow an unarmed victim who does not have to initiate a confrontation and is not on someone's property to be pursued and if that person tries to defend themselves because they feel threatened by being pursued, but in turn, scares the pursuer they can be killed by deadly force and the person who started the pursuit can walk away unless evidence proves otherwise.
SYG doesn't say that at all. Nowhere.
This is just you speculating about what you want to have happened between GZ and TM with NO EVIDENCE to back it up. Then you want him found guilty based upon such hate-based speculations. And finally want it declared that because GZ was found not guilty for lack of evidence to the contrary then the law is a bad law.
Your messages are OUTRAGEOUSLY and deliberately FALSE. You claim that TM was only "scaring" GZ when he smashed his nose knocking to the ground and then was over him beating on him.
CLEARLY then, your view any man can slam you in the face knocking you to the ground and beat on you too. That is the bottomline to what you want made legal. You want anyone who annoys you to be able to beat on you as much as they want - and you want to be able to the same to anyone you want to assault that annoys you too.
Strange too, in the sense of my disagrees. Not to be macho, but for my entire life history including childhood, am a particularly bad ass tough guy. I wouldn't need a gun to hurt or kill someone with only the rarest exception. The only thing that could stop me would be the other person had one. That is not speculation on my part. If the law was as you want it, I would be one of the rulers of the street and essentially everyone should do what ever I want them to do because it illegal for them to defend themselves. If they have to wait until seriously injured it is too late for them to do anything at all - and I could do exactly anything to that person I wanted to no matter how violent, crippling, disfiguring, permanent or lethal.
EXACTLY 100% of cops on this forum understand that criminals don't need a weapon to rape, assault, torture, cripple, disfigure or kill someone. But apparently you want to make it certain that no one who isn't tougher has no way to prevent such victimization. So... explain to me how a 75 year old woman is suppose to be good enough in martial arts to hold off a young man or men?
This constant drumming of "unarmed" is so twisted view Hollywood portrays that no one is really ever hurt in a fight without a weapon and 1 hour later the person is just A-OK.
There was a well circulated video discussed on this forum of a woman tasered by a police officer - not a deadly weapon. She fell, hit her head and permanently in a vegetative coma. You should contact her family and explain to them the doctors are lying to them because it is impossible for someone to be injured merely by the person's head hitting concrete. That it is impossible to hurt or kill someone without a deadly weapon - which is the constant false claim of GZ haters (and I think racists against Latinos as the core of it.)
Oh, and send letters to all legislators explaining how absurd helmets are for motorcyclists and bicyclists - and to the NFL too - to expose the lie that a person can't be hurt in any way that matters by hitting their head on the ground.
