I think the prosecutions problem can be exemplified by half the comments here and on the root:

The problem, I assume, is that the “under 18 exemption” (And yes, there is one) doesn’t say you have to have a hunting license. It says you have to be in compliance with a section that, from my reading, basically indicates the requirements to obtain a hunting license. Which (IMO) makes no sense. It’s bad legislation.

the court has made it clear it doesn’t matter what got him there

As I’d imagine other people have said by now.

Unless the point is intentionally to keep the steam in so the turkey is nice and moist including the skin.

Sure Iceland. But for my 2cents, discretionary international travel (a.k.a. tourism) is one of the more likely causes of human extinction.

As reported by Wired, guitarist, and Amazon employee Dustin Mitchell is potentially facing a legal battle

Playing 3 games, 2 of ‘em (I believe) very much sandbox, is not “going deep”.

It’s Felony Murder 101.

she willingly put her son in a position where he had** to kill two people and seriously injure another to keep himself safe

“rightly perceive him as a threat”

I fail to see where I was insisting he didn’t mean to kill anybody when he pulled the trigger. I’m, again, pointing out that at the time, he didn’t *know* that would be the result. Just like he said.

I’m simply responding to the quote you presented wherein he said that he didn’t *know* if it was going to kill him. Future tense. Unless you’re also claiming he can see into the future to see those images of the deceased, then he didn’t. Simple as that.

Arguably, the victim did claim self defense.

Zimmerman was stalking the kid he shot, may or may not have even initiated the confrontation, and the defense argued regardless of all that it became self defense when Zimmerman began to lose the fight.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that there was reasonable expectation that somebody was going to actually attack him when he was there visibly carrying a large gun forcing him to shoot them to defend himself.

Except there has been no evidence presented that he threatened or in any other way brandished his weapon, and all the evidence seems to suggest he was running away from his attacker until he (allegedly?) ran out of room.

Nah. They didn’t deserve to die.

They were asking for a mistrial with prejudice, not just a mistrial. If granted, a mistral with prejudice precludes any attempt at a retrial. That would presumably include getting off on the (probably getting a guilty verdict) illegal possession charge.

This means driving through protestors is OK and crossing state lines to kill protestors is OK