A federal judge in Florida ruled a U.S. law that prohibits people from having firearms in post offices to be unconstitutional, the latest court decision declaring gun restrictions violate the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” that expanded gun rights. The 2022 ruling recognized the individual’s right to bear a handgun in public for self-defense.
The judge shared her decision in the indictment that charged Emmanuel Ayala, U.S. Postal Service truck driver, with illegal possession of a firearm in a federal building.
Slow down there, George Zimmerman.
Those skittles and hoodie were so much more dangerous than any gun.
Still don’t get how he got off in that case
Trayvon Martin was black and it’s Florida. I think it’s pretty much that simple.
The case has been argued in court and Zimmerman was found innocent by a jury of his peers.
And you don’t see any problem with that, even though he did kill an innocent and unarmed person?
The defense established that Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman. For that reason the jury acquitted Zimmerman.
You can speculate and apply your beliefs to build whatever narrative you are trying to construct. But those are the facts of the case.
Yes and a person throwing a paper ball at you is technically attacking you too, you wanna just shoot everyone? Jesus. Lethal force should not your only option when you’re going out looking for trouble. That’s why they don’t just give cops guns and say “shoot em if they don’t listen.”
I see. So OJ Simpson also did not murder his ex-wife and her boyfriend, correct?
OJ was acquitted of the charges by a jury of his peers and is considered innocent.
The Zimmerman case had a lot more relevant eyewitness evidence as well as an audio recording of the shooting. None of this existed for the OJ trial.
So OJ didn’t kill his ex-wife and her husband. You believe that, correct?
I was not on the jury in that courtroom. I have to trust that our peers made the right decision.
I see. So you believe court decisions always determines truth.
In that case, evolution is false. Scopes lost his case and was fined $100 for teaching evolution.
Scopes wasn’t a murder trial, it’s an extreme stretch of the imagination to try and compare the two when they aren’t remotely related in any way.
Scopes didn’t even know if he taught evolution but intentionally incriminated himself to challenge the Butler act which made teaching evolution in schools a crime. The whole case was a farce to bring attention to the town and to highlight the debate surrounding teaching evolution in schools.
He was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine but was let off on a technicality.
Teaching evolution in schools eventually won the day. But is in danger because people believe that lying or making false comparisons is justified to push their narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial
I see, so only murder trials determine what is or is not true.
You realize that means he’s found innocent by a bunch of people who think like him. That doesn’t make his logic and people’s acceptance of it ok. Hell back in the day a jury of peers would find a slave guilty for running away.
You do realize that the defense and prosecution both have a say in Jury selection.
Jury’s also don’t establish law, they just rule on if the defendant violated it.
Do you want to reach any further back in time to try and establish a false equivalency? We could debate trial by combat or something.