Three men in an SUV with a baseball bat and the intention to “rough up” a Mr. Norman Broden found out the hard way that Broden was fortunate enough to have a handgun, and confident enough in his actions to defend his own life.

Then he was put on trial for murder, despite the presence of a stand-your-ground statute.

The Florida law authorizes the use of defensive force by anyone “who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be.” Furthermore, under the law, such a person “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” The statute also grants civil and criminal immunity to anyone found to have had such a reasonable belief.

The prosecutor in the case, Craig Williams indicated that he “pursued the charges because he thought a jury needed to decide the case,” despite his own misgivings about taking Mr. Norman Broden to trial. “[H]e privately wondered how he would have behaved in the same situation.” I’ve helped a friend in law school with a paper or two, I’ve had some work experience with property law, and I took one class in Business Law & Relations back in 2002. I’m no lawyer. But isn’t it pretty well settled that juries do not decide matters of law – only matters of fact?

When Borden was acquitted, [Williams] was almost relieved. Williams conceded after the trial. “It was pretty clear what the right thing to do was here.”

Wait – almost? Are you kidding me? You were merely almost relieved that a man you put on trial for murder, who otherwise might’ve been pavement-pizza, was acquitted of murder because he had the wherewithal to defend his fucking life?

Three cheers for justice?