Silly Jesus:
The guy just murdered three random people and is running around with the weapon. Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified. It's well established law.

Citation Needed. . .of all three facts.

Still running around with the weapon? TFA doesn't say anything about that. It's actually kind of vague on the point. If he was disarmed or dropped the weapon, that kind of changes the equation.

"Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified" Really? Last time I checked, state self defense laws (which include "defense of another", by the way, stop being so obtuse) set strict rules of engagement on when the killing is justified, not "any killing" that happens "within the immediate time frame".

"It's well established law." Really? It's well established law that it's justifiable homicide to kill somebody after they have fled the scene of their crime and are not imminently threatening or endangering any other person? You must have got a 4.0 in getting your GED in Law.

The DA thought it was good enough to file charges. I'm sure the jury will get a very exacting explanation of the law. We're going on a local newspaper article here in trying to make decisions.

austin_millbarge: liam76: He didn't track down shiat, he saw a guy murder several people and followed him to prevent more murders.

No, he followed the guy to kill him because he saw his brother murdered.

Either way, it is incredibly easy to argue that this guy was an immediate threat to the general public.

Silly Jesus: austin_millbarge: Silly Jesus: The guy just murdered three random people and is running around with the weapon. Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified. It's well established law.

Want to know how I know you're not a lawyer?

How's that?

Because you're making shiat up.

Silly Jesus: 76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.


It was even in your original bold.
Did the guy still have a weapon? The article was unclear.

austin_millbarge: Silly Jesus: austin_millbarge: ihatedumbpeople: He'd have been better off killing him on the spot and claiming self defense. Chasing him down and killing him is a revenge killing, pure and simple. Sorry dude...I feel for ya, but once you hunt him down you're outside the law.

THIS. For those of you who are saying "Stupid DA" this isn't a defense situation or even using force to defend someone else. What this guy did was technically murder, regardless of the horrible things the guy had just committed.

It's not his place to track the guy down and administer his own death sentence on the guy.

The law, read it.

I do read the law dipshiat. If he or someone else in his immediate presence is in danger he can use whatever force is necessary to stop that act up to and including deadly force. Once the perpetrator leaves the vicinity or ceases to be an immediate threat you can't just decide to track the guy down and administer your own personal death sentence.
At the point where the brother decides to track down the stabber with intent to kill, he becomes a vigilante.

Do I think the guy deserves first degree murder, no way. But he was wrong to track the guy down and put himself into that situation. Do I understand why he did it, yes I do. But we are talking about legality here not what some jerkwater hick thinks his interpretation of justice is.

I see you didn't get the subtle hints before.

Maybe you should look up "track".


And nevermind in a situation like this there was no way to know if he was ever out of the psycho's vicinity. Unless he knew for a fact the guy dropped his knife and knew he didn;t have another one he was still athreat to anyone he crossed paths with.

Silverstaff: Silly Jesus:
The guy just murdered three random people and is running around with the weapon. Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified. It's well established law.

Citation Needed. . .of all three facts.

Still running around with the weapon? TFA doesn't say anything about that. It's actually kind of vague on the point. If he was disarmed or dropped the weapon, that kind of changes the equation.

"Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified" Really? Last time I checked, state self defense laws (which include "defense of another", by the way, stop being so obtuse) set strict rules of engagement on when the killing is justified, not "any killing" that happens "within the immediate time frame".

"It's well established law." Really? It's well established law that it's justifiable homicide to kill somebody after they have fled the scene of their crime and are not imminently threatening or endangering any other person? You must have got a 4.0 in getting your GED in Law.

The DA thought it was good enough to file charges. I'm sure the jury will get a very exacting explanation of the law. We're going on a local newspaper article here in trying to make decisions.

I've posted the law.

Fleeing the scene doesn't matter, he is still a threat to the general public. How does a guy (I believe still armed or reasonably carrying a second weapon) running around in public immediately after he just killed three people NOT qualify as a very likely threat to society in your mind?

austin_millbarge: Silly Jesus: austin_millbarge: Silly Jesus: The guy just murdered three random people and is running around with the weapon. Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified. It's well established law.

Want to know how I know you're not a lawyer?

How's that?

Because you're making shiat up.

What did I make up?

Cubicle Jockey: Silly Jesus: 76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.


It was even in your original bold.
Did the guy still have a weapon? The article was unclear.

I assumed that he did. Barring being able to show with certainty that the pursuer KNEW that the guy was no longer armed, everything still stands. Even beyond that, it's reasonable to believe that a guy on a killing spree has more than one weapon. This thing will never see the inside of a courtroom.

Another point would be most stabbing victims do not die immediately. Steve's brother may not have been dead when he chased Wike down and may not felt vengeful at the time. Also, Wike may not have died right away either and Steve may have fought only hard enough for Wike to quit fighting. The number of times Wike was stabbed should also play into factor. Now if Wike was subdued and then they informed Steve that is brother was gone before he stabbed Wike than I would agree with the DA.

/Possibly, things being kept out of the media till the trial.
//not that would stop us from our comments
///any range within sprinting before collapse is still close to the scene

Silly Jesus: dBoone: DA isn't stupid... s/he has to charge and try someone who publicly chases down someone else and kills them. A jury conviction will never happen because 1) it can be argued that the brother thought the perp was likely to imminently kill someone else and wanted to stop him, and 2) that he was temporarily insane under circumstances that are unlikely to repeat and he isn't a public threat. Therefor while the brother must be prosecuted, my bet is that the DA will quietly tell the prosecutors to put minimal resources into it and take an early dive at the trial (or offer a *very* sweet plea bargain).

The killing was justified under your 1).

Charges are therefore not appropriate.

Charges may not be "appropriate", but they must be done. The government can't implicitly give the OK for public vigilantism. Leave it to the Jury to get the guy off (uh huh, uh huh).

Silly Jesus: Cubicle Jockey: Silly Jesus: 76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.


It was even in your original bold.
Did the guy still have a weapon? The article was unclear.

I assumed that he did. Barring being able to show with certainty that the pursuer KNEW that the guy was no longer armed, everything still stands. Even beyond that, it's reasonable to believe that a guy on a killing spree has more than one weapon. This thing will never see the inside of a courtroom.

If they have decent lawyer.

dBoone: Silly Jesus: dBoone: DA isn't stupid... s/he has to charge and try someone who publicly chases down someone else and kills them. A jury conviction will never happen because 1) it can be argued that the brother thought the perp was likely to imminently kill someone else and wanted to stop him, and 2) that he was temporarily insane under circumstances that are unlikely to repeat and he isn't a public threat. Therefor while the brother must be prosecuted, my bet is that the DA will quietly tell the prosecutors to put minimal resources into it and take an early dive at the trial (or offer a *very* sweet plea bargain).

The killing was justified under your 1).

Charges are therefore not appropriate.

Charges may not be "appropriate", but they must be done. The government can't implicitly give the OK for public vigilantism. Leave it to the Jury to get the guy off (uh huh, uh huh).

So charge someone when there is no legal basis for charging them? Huh?

Would a cop who had no relation to any of the victims have been justified in using deadly force in the exact same situation? If so, that's good enough for me, and if I'm on the jury, I vote to acquit.

liam76: Silly Jesus: Cubicle Jockey: Silly Jesus: 76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.


It was even in your original bold.
Did the guy still have a weapon? The article was unclear.

I assumed that he did. Barring being able to show with certainty that the pursuer KNEW that the guy was no longer armed, everything still stands. Even beyond that, it's reasonable to believe that a guy on a killing spree has more than one weapon. This thing will never see the inside of a courtroom.

If they have decent lawyer.

Or the DA gets his head out of his arse.

The DA probably did this solely because of the Martin debacle. It was CYA until things calmed down and his office was able to get everything in order.

gretzkyscores: Would a cop who had no relation to any of the victims have been justified in using deadly force in the exact same situation? If so, that's good enough for me, and if I'm on the jury, I vote to acquit.

Yes. See the N.C. law that I posted above.

I really wish I was on jury duty sometimes

I'd let this guy off in a heartbeat

I don't even have the whole story here. It stops right after he stabs everyone. Looks like maybe the story needed some editing.....

Silly Jesus: Either way, it is incredibly easy to argue that this guy was an immediate threat to the general public.

George Zimmerman, I didn't know you had a Fark account. Keep fighting the good fight!

Silly Jesus: "Tracking down" and chasing out of the bar are two very different things. The immediacy of this entire event is very relevant here, dipshiat. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that everyone that this crazed lunatic comes across is in immediate danger of being killed. The guy just murdered three people. It's a logical conclusion that any reasonable person would come to that the guy might not be done with his killing spree just because he set foot outside of the bar.

Time frame has nothing to do with THE LAW it's about PROXIMITY of an immediate threat. Once the guy kills two people he doesnt have this little 24-style clock appear above his head that says "legal to kill me within this time frame". Once this stabber left the presence of the bar, he was no longer an immediate threat to anyone who was there. Therefore at that point you cannot use deadly force. It has nothing to do with time frame.

I think maybe the DA picked first degree because they know there's no way they can convict him of it, as there is no way it was premeditated. Their way of looking like they care when really they're just fine with how things ended.

It's what I'd do since I can't imagine not trying to kill the guy who stabbed my little brother infront of me.

North Carolina is what you get when you cross a redneck police state with psychopathic soccer moms.

cryinoutloud: I don't even have the whole story here. It stops right after he stabs everyone. Looks like maybe the story needed some editing.....

Silly Jesus: Either way, it is incredibly easy to argue that this guy was an immediate threat to the general public.

George Zimmerman, I didn't know you had a Fark account. Keep fighting the good fight!

The guy had just stabbed 3 people. I guess your solution is to wait for the cops while more people die

austin_millbarge: Silly Jesus: "Tracking down" and chasing out of the bar are two very different things. The immediacy of this entire event is very relevant here, dipshiat. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that everyone that this crazed lunatic comes across is in immediate danger of being killed. The guy just murdered three people. It's a logical conclusion that any reasonable person would come to that the guy might not be done with his killing spree just because he set foot outside of the bar.

Time frame has nothing to do with THE LAW it's about PROXIMITY of an immediate threat. Once the guy kills two people he doesnt have this little 24-style clock appear above his head that says "legal to kill me within this time frame". Once this stabber left the presence of the bar, he was no longer an immediate threat to anyone who was there. Therefore at that point you cannot use deadly force. It has nothing to do with time frame.

/I see what you're saying, but if i was the guy, i would go with "I was trying to stop him before he hurt anyone else, "citizens arrest" and i had to..by his actions, defend my life." Bingo, out of jail. Everyone is happy.

Silly Jesus: austin_millbarge: liam76: He didn't track down shiat, he saw a guy murder several people and followed him to prevent more murders.

No, he followed the guy to kill him because he saw his brother murdered.

Either way, it is incredibly easy to argue that this guy was an immediate threat to the general public.

Yes, then you call the police and have them deal with it. These laws are in there for a reason. And that reason is to prevent slackjawed yokels like this guy from playing Rambo and a) potentially putting more innocent people in harms way, and b) to prevent untrained people from potentially exacting revenge on the wrong person.

Again I understand why the brother did what he did, I'm not arguing his personal justification for it, I'm arguing what the laws say. You can't claim defense once you are out of an immediate threat of danger.

Here's what will happen. Once the dust settles, the DA will drop the charges down to involuntary manslaughter because clearly it was not premeditated murder, and this guy will have some level of punishment against him because technically he broke the law.

austin_millbarge: Silly Jesus: "Tracking down" and chasing out of the bar are two very different things. The immediacy of this entire event is very relevant here, dipshiat. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that everyone that this crazed lunatic comes across is in immediate danger of being killed. The guy just murdered three people. It's a logical conclusion that any reasonable person would come to that the guy might not be done with his killing spree just because he set foot outside of the bar.

Time frame has nothing to do with THE LAW it's about PROXIMITY of an immediate threat. Once the guy kills two people he doesnt have this little 24-style clock appear above his head that says "legal to kill me within this time frame". Once this stabber left the presence of the bar, he was no longer an immediate threat to anyone who was there. Therefore at that point you cannot use deadly force. It has nothing to do with time frame.

First off why are you bringing up time frame when he was clearly talking about proximity?


Second, what kind of scenario are you envisioning here? He stabs two people then teleports a block away? He was alwasy int he vicinity of the people who were chasing him.

austin_millbarge: I do read the law dipshiat. If he or someone else in his immediate presence is in danger he can use whatever force is necessary to stop that act up to and including deadly force. Once the perpetrator leaves the vicinity or ceases to be an immediate threat you can't just decide to track the guy down and administer your own personal death sentence.
At the point where the brother decides to track down the stabber with intent to kill, he becomes a vigilante.

And that right there is the prosecutor's argument for first degree murder. They'll say that after the guy killed his brother, he formed the specific intent to get revenge. Intent to commit murder can happen pretty quickly.

Interestingly, the NC self defense law doesn't seem to have the "defense of others" language that other states' laws have and that we all seem to be arguing about here.

"In its perfect form, self-defense can completely excuse the killing of another person where the following four conditions are met: (1) it appeared to the defendant and he believed it to be necessary to kill the person in order to save himself from death or great bodily
harm; (2) defendant's belief was reasonable in that the circumstances as they appeared to him at the time were sufficient to create such a belief in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness; (3) defendant was not the aggressor in bringing on the affray; and (4) defendant did not use excessive force. State v. Wood, 149 N.C. App. 418, 419 (2002)."

Based on that, I can see why he was charged with first-degree.

But perfect self defense and no self defense are not the only games in town. There is also the issue of imperfect self defense, which would reduce the charge to voluntary manslaughter. An imperfect self-defense will apply when the state has proved either of the last two elements of the perfect self defense (defendant was the aggressor or used excessive force), but failed to prove the first two elements (defendant believed that killing was necessary to prevent bodily harm and that belief was reasonable). State v. Alston, 588 S.E.2d 530, 536
(2003).

I don't know if the self defense language is the same in NC's statutes and this is just a paraphrasing by the court to fit with the circumstances of the case. My gut says the elements are accurate, but I'm not sure because I can't get to NC law on my Lexis account.

ihatedumbpeople: He'd have been better off killing him on the spot and claiming self defense. Chasing him down and killing him is a revenge killing, pure and simple. Sorry dude...I feel for ya, but once you hunt him down you're outside the law.

Realistically, a man crazy enough to come back into a bar and murder 3 people fleeing through a crowded area is just not safe to leave go. I couldn't let him run off unimpeded and murder someone else, and the threat to yourself trying to stop him without hurting him is pretty severe. Given that he just walked in and started trying to kill random people I don't think its unreasonable to assume he might just keep that up after he gets away, especially if someone notices that he's COVERED in blood.

Its not like he chased down a guy who tried to steal his mail and killed him.

For you Al Sharpton Fans, and you Lynch George Zimmerman groupies.....this is why Florida has the STAND YOUR GROUND LAW....so that prosecutors do not go after people who defend other people

The same derps who lick Al Sharpton's Jeri Curl are the same ones who will allow people like Steve Davis to be prosecuted for saving people

Stand Your Ground prevents the BS Davis will go thru

Silly Jesus: It's a logical conclusion that any reasonable person would come to that the guy might not be done with his killing spree just because he set foot outside of the bar.

It's not his place to play cop. The law says you can use deadly force if you are under immediate threat, that means if the guy is still all stabby in the bar, then kill his ass. The guy left. You call the police and let them deal with it. If you walk outside to see where he's running to be able to alert them to where he's going, then so be it. But then deliberately putting yourself into a situation that might result in death does not justify killing. It's not "self defense" at that point. You can argue it all day long but it doesn't change the law.

prince of peas: The hacker was fleeing when he was stabbed. This was not self defense although it was, in my opinion, justifiable. The law and common sense do not have a good relationship however.

How do you know he wasn't enroute to kill the next person on his kill list?

Chasing down and killing a robber, I'd agree. Chasing down and killing a guy you just saw murder your brother... be my guest.

liam76: Lizardking: Thats what almost everyone who thinks as you do says. But its not. From the article it isnt even clear whether the guy still had the knife or not. If you witness a mass shooting, follow the guy to the river where he throws the gun in and then shoot and kill him, youre in the wrong.

If you shto him when he had his hands up, yes. If you shot him when he was reaching for something, no.

Silverstaff: liam76: Silverstaff: In this case, the "victim" was indeed up to no good, but that still didn't justify chasing him down. It went from self defense to revenge once he left the scene of the crime

I disagree.

If you are defining the "scene" as the bar or bar property the guy doesn't magically become a none threat when he leaves.

Well, I'm no expert on NC law, but it would be interesting to see what the exact wording of their self defense exemption is. Could a Farker more up on North Carolina laws give us some links on that from actual legal references?

Now, from what I do know of other state's laws (especially Kentucky), if he's not attacking or threatening people, you can't use force. At most, the citizens arrest statute would apply since you saw a felony commited by him in your presence, so you could use force to detain him until the police could show up, but then that use of force falls under use-of-force guidelines for arrests, and I'd want to know the exact details of what happened after he chased him down (did he just plain shoot him with no stated intent to detain, for example).

On general principle, what point would does stop being "self defense" then? You are not in imminent danger, no person around you is in imminent danger, the dangerous person is fleeing the area and not engaging other people. Who were you defending? Random people on the street he's running past and not engaging?

Yeah, theoretically he could attack another person. He could do that at any point after he leaves. If you tracked him down at his home the next day, kicked in the door and shot him, would that still be self defense since he could still hurt people and has proven he has a weapon and intent to hurt multiple people? An extreme example, yes, but where would you draw the line?

I think it is very reasonable to assume he will attack more people. We don't know if the psycho tried to stab him when he caught up.

Once again he didn't "track" anybody. I would draw the line at the point where he lost sight of the person, or didn't know where they were (ie once they had to "track" them, which didn;t happen here).

Unfortunately where you would draw the line and where the law or a jury draws it will most likely differ

My uncle spent 4.5 years in prison for grabbing the gun from a guy and shooting him in the head after the guy was pointing it at the bartender robbing the place. The bartender was my uncle's girlfriend, and he stomped on the guy's head a few times in anger. My uncle had a long rap sheet of fighting, fights came to him because he was so strong. He's a huge powerlifter who could have choked the skinny guy with one hand, was legally drunk, was on probation, and with all that stacked against him he felt he got off easy with the times served. Had he been an off duty policeman he would have received a medal and a promotion. Oh well, once he got out he and the bartender got married and now they have a child, a nice house, and he's the bouncer at her bar.

Lizardking: Unfortunately where you would draw the line and where the law or a jury draws it will most likely differ

I don't see a jury going after him.

As for the "law" as long as you take defending other people as self defense he is in the clear.

UCFRoadWarrior: For you Al Sharpton Fans, and you Lynch George Zimmerman groupies.....this is why Florida has the STAND YOUR GROUND LAW....so that prosecutors do not go after people who defend other people

The same derps who lick Al Sharpton's Jeri Curl are the same ones who will allow people like Steve Davis to be prosecuted for saving people

Stand Your Ground prevents the BS Davis will go thru

Zimmerman stalked and murdered an innocent 17yo kid... Davis chased down and confronted someone who just committed murder moments before. The two cases have absolutely nothing in common.

Shatner's Bassoon: "Every time (Wike) hit somebody with a knife, they died. ... This guy knew what he was doing," Light said. "They should look at it as a self-defense case."

When the guy flees and you have to actively chase him down before you can stab him to death, it stops being self defense and turns into vigilantism. Sorry.

I'm the libbiest lib that ever libbed, but if you killed by brother, I wouldn't stop until you saw your heart beating in front of your eyes.

/ITG and all

liam76: First off why are you bringing up time frame when he was clearly talking about proximity?

Because he WAS talking about time frame.

Silly Jesus: The guy just murdered three random people and is running around with the weapon. Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified. It's well established law.

Time frame... see it?

Shatner's Bassoon: "Every time (Wike) hit somebody with a knife, they died. ... This guy knew what he was doing," Light said. "They should look at it as a self-defense case."

When the guy flees and you have to actively chase him down before you can stab him to death, it stops being self defense and turns into vigilantism. Sorry.

Good thing we have juries. Sorry authoritarian.

It's not possible that so many people can be killed in one knifing incident.
The anti-gun zealots have repeated told us that making all guns disappear would never result in multiple killings even if someone was armed with a knife.

Silly Jesus: Lizardking: Silly Jesus: Shatner's Bassoon: Silly Jesus: Your GED in Law, I see it there.

OK GED in Law guy, how the fark is it self defense to chase someone down and kill them after they've fled from you?

It's not self defense. People are allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves or a third party from great bodily harm or death.

If someone is running around shooting people, for example, you don't have to wait for the gun to be pointed at you to pull yours out and shoot the guy in the head.

If, however, you follow them home, knock on the door and shoot them when they open the door...youre a murderer.

Correct. Immediacy is a very important factor. On the same city block is pretty immediate to me.

The guy was also trying to get onto a city bus while being chased in 'hot pursuit'

Looks like this guy saved lives and prevented a hostage situation.

austin_millbarge: liam76: First off why are you bringing up time frame when he was clearly talking about proximity?

Because he WAS talking about time frame.

Silly Jesus: The guy just murdered three random people and is running around with the weapon. Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified. It's well established law.

Time frame... see it?

And the fact that stepping otu of the bar doesn;t mean "game over".

It's a logical conclusion that any reasonable person would come to that the guy might not be done with his killing spree just because he set foot outside of the bar.
:

See it?

Still wondering how you think he teleported himself out of the vicinity to some safe distance.

enry: Shatner's Bassoon: "Every time (Wike) hit somebody with a knife, they died. ... This guy knew what he was doing," Light said. "They should look at it as a self-defense case."

When the guy flees and you have to actively chase him down before you can stab him to death, it stops being self defense and turns into vigilantism. Sorry.

I'm the libbiest lib that ever libbed, but if you killed by brother, I wouldn't stop until you saw your heart beating in front of your eyes.

/ITG and all

I'm the conserviest conservative you ever saw, and I won't mention a thing about jury nullification during selection.

Any jury I was on would be deadlocked or not guilty. And if the facts in this case are what they seem to be, I'd sit in jail for contempt of court if need be.

Digital Communist: UCFRoadWarrior: For you Al Sharpton Fans, and you Lynch George Zimmerman groupies.....this is why Florida has the STAND YOUR GROUND LAW....so that prosecutors do not go after people who defend other people

The same derps who lick Al Sharpton's Jeri Curl are the same ones who will allow people like Steve Davis to be prosecuted for saving people

Stand Your Ground prevents the BS Davis will go thru

Zimmerman stalked and murdered an innocent 17yo kid... Davis chased down and confronted someone who just committed murder moments before. The two cases have absolutely nothing in common.

Depends, was one or more of those involved a minority?

zepher: It's not possible that so many people can be killed in one knifing incident.
The anti-gun zealots have repeated told us that making all guns disappear would never result in multiple killings even if someone was armed with a knife.

What the fark are you saying? NC has concealed carry laws - so according to gun nuts as soon as this guy thrust for his first stab he should have been put down in a hail of righteous gunfire, saving the day and assuring humanity's future.

liam76: Still wondering how you think he teleported himself out of the vicinity to some safe distance.

Now you're just being silly. The guy left, as in stopped being an immediate threat. That is in the definition of the law on self defense. If he left to get a bigger knife out of his car and come back in, it's game on and you can use whatever force is necessary to stop him.

You can argue this all day long but it doesnt change the law.

Let's all come together as one to agree on one thing and one thing alone

That guy deserved exactly what he got (the crazy stabber being stabbed)


Now we can argue about everything else mentioned in this thread:

-connection to Zimmerman case
-jury nullification
-gun control
-knife control
-time sequences
-etc etc

SoCalSurfer: Let's all come together as one to agree on one thing and one thing alone

That guy deserved exactly what he got (the crazy stabber being stabbed)


Now we can argue about everything else mentioned in this thread:

-connection to Zimmerman case
-jury nullification
-gun control
-knife control
-time sequences
-etc etc

Gah, bolding words..how does it work

survey say's guilty of being white.