In support of "Stand Your Ground"

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    The jury instructions referred to "stand your ground"  because it's now part of the regular self-defense law in Florida (which DontQuestionBB quotes above), and therefore stand your ground did play a significant role in the jury's decision.

    What wasn't used is only the provision in the stand your ground law that allows for a pre trial immunity hearing.  I'm surprised at how few people in media and in general seem to understand this.

    Stand your ground was very much in play.  The defense simply passed on taking advantage of the pretrial immunity hearing.



    Not to get overly technical, but the Florida jury instructions are standard and they're determined by a committee of judges and lawyers. They refer to SYG, among other things, but that doesn't mean SYG played a role in the decision. It's just one thing that must be considered (and disposed of) by the jury. By the way, I believe it's law in 24 states, so Florida is hardly alone.

    The only difference between the law in most states and in states where SYG is in effect is the duty to retreat, if possible. According to the facts the jury had to consider, retreat was not an option. Therefore stand your ground was NOT a factor in their decision.

    It's nothing but a red herring, a convenient whipping boy for the Eric Holders of the world to attack the decision in order to make it look like they're doing something about it. They're ignoring the inconvenient fact that the defense is used by black defendants far more frequently than by any other group.

    Based on the facts at the jury's disposal, the same decision would have been reached in every state in the US, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Self defense is the law of the land, everywhere.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: In support of

    To follow up, the reason the defense did not request a pre-trial stand-your-ground hearing was precisely because it was not a defense that they intended to use in the case. It wasn't needed and furthermore, it was contrary to the facts that they were intending to establish at trial.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The jury instructions referred to "stand your ground"  because it's now part of the regular self-defense law in Florida (which DontQuestionBB quotes above), and therefore stand your ground did play a significant role in the jury's decision.

    What wasn't used is only the provision in the stand your ground law that allows for a pre trial immunity hearing.  I'm surprised at how few people in media and in general seem to understand this.

    Stand your ground was very much in play.  The defense simply passed on taking advantage of the pretrial immunity hearing.

     



    Not to get overly technical, but the Florida jury instructions are standard and they're determined by a committee of judges and lawyers. They refer to SYG, among other things, but that doesn't mean SYG played a role in the decision. It's just one thing that must be considered (and disposed of) by the jury. By the way, I believe it's law in 24 states, so Florida is hardly alone.

     

    The only difference between the law in most states and in states where SYG is in effect is the duty to retreat, if possible. According to the facts the jury had to consider, retreat was not an option. Therefore stand your ground was NOT a factor in their decision.

    It's nothing but a red herring, a convenient whipping boy for the Eric Holders of the world to attack the decision in order to make it look like they're doing something about it. They're ignoring the inconvenient fact that the defense is used by black defendants far more frequently than by any other group.

    Based on the facts at the jury's disposal, the same decision would have been reached in every state in the US, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Self defense is the law of the land, everywhere.

    [/QUOTE]

    Muz, the judge determines which jury instructions are given, choosing from a list of standard ones.  It's up to the judge to determine specifically which are given, though the attorneys can make their cases to the judge about which should or should not be included.  The instruction about provocation was not given because the judge agreed with the defense that it was not applicable.  The instructions relating to "no duty to retreat" and the right to "stand your ground" were given because the judge found them relevant.  So they very definitely played a role. 

    Now it may be true that the evidence suggested that there was no opportunity for Zimmerman to retreat, but the jury didn't need to examine the evidence to determine whether or not Zimmerman had that opportunity, because Florida says there's no duty to retreat anyway. In a state where duty to retreat was in effect, the jury would have had to evaluate whether or not Zimmerman had the ability to retreat. In Florida, stand your ground takes that whole discussion off the table.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to gr82bme's comment:

    Wow, mindless moonbats still foaming at the keyboard - great stuff indeed.  Keep up the good work, maybe Eric Holder will follow through on federal "civil rights" charges.  Yup, that's the ticket - instead of honoring a court's decision to acquit, we'll keep digging at something to put this guy away.  Here's a though - the Department of Justice is just that - justice - it's not the Department of Social Justice or the Department of doing anything under the law to appease a bunch of folks that don't like a law - all for the glory of more liberal votes.  Yup, that's some system you want eh?  Be careful what you ask for - you just may get it.

    Also, can we cease with the "just a little unarmed boy walking through the neighborhood" drivel.  The characture you all so desparately want to believe is as false as all get-out and you know it.  At least make your debate reasonable - you don't like the law and you want Z in jail.  But to cloud your debate with the old "this kid was on the a-team of the choir boys" baloney is just that - baloney.



    Also, can we cease with the baloney of judgement on the victim (the one who is dead!)? You do not have to be a choir boy to be "allowed" to enjoy the rights of the Constitition and the rule - and protection - of the law. And you don't have to be white to not be painted as some dangerous person. For all you know he was a good kid. What you read in the press - for any side of any issue - is often frought "news porn", that is with misrepresentation in order to encourage strong emotion and so encourage readership. And having done something wrong where it is not a pattern of behavior that is reasonable to associate with behavior of that day does not have bearing on the events of that day.

     

    Also - take a look at this "scary" person Martin. He was a scrawny kid. Scrawny. The kid was a stick.

    And if you are intersted in who ACTUALLY was not a choir boy how about this about Mr Z (not that my understanding is he was not convicted of what is stated below but then again.... it doesnt mean he did not do those things and it certainly "paints" a picture of someone who is the antithesis of a choir boy.... certainly a darker picture than of Martin... and if you do not like eith what was printed because you think it has its own agenda or if you do not like it because it is past history then apply the same standards to the twists and turns of what the alternative press was saying in order to paint a negative picture of Martin):

    Zimmerman was arrested in 2005 for "resisting an officer with violence" and "battery of a law enforcement officer." The charges were later reduced and ultimately dropped upon his entrance into an alcohol education program. Later that year, Zimmerman's ex-fiancee sought a restraining order against him over alleged domestic violence. He later filed a counter claim for a restraining order of his own, and both were granted. And in the wake of Zimmerman's 2012 arrest, allegations by a cousin emerged, claiming that he'd molested her for more than a decade.

     

    You picked a creep to be a hero and a kid who did nothing wrong to be the fall guy.

    Bad judgement. But and if you want to prejudge the two you ought to take a good long look at the past history of the creep Mr Z. Out of line, out of control, bad judgement, violent streeks, etc.

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: In support of

    Florida's self defense laws incorporate stand-your-ground principles. Any jury instruction concerning self defense will, therefore, include those principles. That's self evident. In and of itself, it's not significant.

    Zimmerman did not need and did not benefit from stand-your-ground. It wasn't an issue in this case. Just because jury instructions refer to those principles, doesn't change that. 

    Anybody using the Zimmerman case as a reason to justify amending or eliminating the self defense laws, is either being disingenuous (Holder) or is just confused. The result would have been the same in every other state, given the facts the jury had to consider.

    There may be reasons to reconsider the incorporation of stand-your-ground principles in the self defense laws of Florida (and 23 other states), but the Zimmerman case is not one of them.

    My personal view is that standing one's ground should be your right. Why should anybody give ground to a bully or a criminal? You may want to because it's the prudent thing to do (you might get killed otherwise). But if you have the means to defend yourself, why should you have to retreat?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

    Florida needs to do a better job at regulating neighborhood watch groups.  The various municipalities need to take training neighborhood volunteers more seriously. This was a tragedy that could have been avoided.

    I don't think George Zimmerman is a demon.  I also don't think Trevon Martin is without blame in his own death.

    Healthy discussion of this needless loss of life is productive.  Picking and choosing facts to support a position is not.



    I think this point is worthy of additional emphasis.  Neighborhood watch volunteers have but two responsibilities once they've committed to perform this task:  1) observe; 2) report.  That's it.  Anything beyond that exceeds their charter and not only places the volunteer at risk but also anyone else with whom they come in contact. Hence the communication from the dispatcher to GZ to refrain from following TM.

    No, I am not saying George Zimmerman is at fault.  I do not have enough information to make that assessment.   What I am saying is that by any reasonable measure he should have (yes, should have) remained in his vehicle and did as the dispatcher indicated.

    There are two and only two people who know what really happened that night.  One of them is dead.  With respect to the other, a jury found that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.  Regardless, his life will for evermore be defined by this tragedy.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     

    Florida's self defense laws incorporate stand-your-ground principles. Any jury instruction concerning self defense will, therefore, include those principles. That's self evident. In and of itself, it's not significant.

    Of course it's significant.  It means the jury never had to consider if Zimmerman had the ability to retreat. 

    Zimmerman did not need and did not benefit from stand-your-ground. It wasn't an issue in this case. Just because jury instructions refer to those principles, doesn't change that. 

    We don't know.  If there was a duty to retreat, the whole case would have been argued differently and the jury would have had to consider whether it believed Zimmerman that he couldn't retreat.  As it is, the obligation to retreat (traditionally part of self defense laws and still the law in many states) was taken off the table.  That is very significant. 

    Anybody using the Zimmerman case as a reason to justify amending or eliminating the self defense laws, is either being disingenuous (Holder) or is just confused. The result would have been the same in every other state, given the facts the jury had to consider.

    There may be reasons to reconsider the incorporation of stand-your-ground principles in the self defense laws of Florida (and 23 other states), but the Zimmerman case is not one of them.

    My personal view is that standing one's ground should be your right. Why should anybody give ground to a bully or a criminal? You may want to because it's the prudent thing to do (you might get killed otherwise). But if you have the means to defend yourself, why should you have to retreat?

     

    Because killing another human being, even a bad one, used to be considered a bad thing to do.  But I guess that traditional value is no longer held by those who adopt today's more advanced right-wing moral code.


     

    One thing I'll add. Please don't be so gullible and believe everything the defense lawyer tells you. A criminal defense lawyer has every reason to make it seem like stand your ground wasn't an issue and therefore shouldn't be revised.  Stand your ground is a huge gift to those who make their money defending killers.  If your client admits to killing someone (or if the evidence is overwhelming that your client did kill someone) you basically have two paths to follow if you are not going to plead guilty:  You can try to prove your client insane or otherwise mentally unfit or you can claim self defense.  These are the two "get out of jail free cards" you've got in your deck.  Stand your ground makes one of those cards much, much more powerful, which is a huge gift to criminal defense lawyers.  They are using it to let all sorts of killers walk free.  It's one of the perverse consequences of this "get tough on crime" legislation.  It has turned out to be a great tool for criminals to use to get away with murder.  All you have to claim is that you felt threatened and, voila, the state of Florida says it was okay to shoot.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to gr82bme's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Wow, mindless moonbats still foaming at the keyboard - great stuff indeed.  Keep up the good work, maybe Eric Holder will follow through on federal "civil rights" charges.  Yup, that's the ticket - instead of honoring a court's decision to acquit, we'll keep digging at something to put this guy away.  Here's a though - the Department of Justice is just that - justice - it's not the Department of Social Justice or the Department of doing anything under the law to appease a bunch of folks that don't like a law - all for the glory of more liberal votes.  Yup, that's some system you want eh?  Be careful what you ask for - you just may get it.

    Also, can we cease with the "just a little unarmed boy walking through the neighborhood" drivel.  The characture you all so desparately want to believe is as false as all get-out and you know it.  At least make your debate reasonable - you don't like the law and you want Z in jail.  But to cloud your debate with the old "this kid was on the a-team of the choir boys" baloney is just that - baloney.

     



    Also, can we cease with the baloney of judgement on the victim (the one who is dead!)? You do not have to be a choir boy to be "allowed" to enjoy the rights of the Constitition and the rule - and protection - of the law. And you don't have to be white to not be painted as some dangerous person. For all you know he was a good kid. What you read in the press - for any side of any issue - is often frought "news porn", that is with misrepresentation in order to encourage strong emotion and so encourage readership. And having done something wrong where it is not a pattern of behavior that is reasonable to associate with behavior of that day does not have bearing on the events of that day.

     

     

    Also - take a look at this "scary" person Martin. He was a scrawny kid. Scrawny. The kid was a stick.

    And if you are intersted in who ACTUALLY was not a choir boy how about this about Mr Z (not that my understanding is he was not convicted of what is stated below but then again.... it doesnt mean he did not do those things and it certainly "paints" a picture of someone who is the antithesis of a choir boy.... certainly a darker picture than of Martin... and if you do not like eith what was printed because you think it has its own agenda or if you do not like it because it is past history then apply the same standards to the twists and turns of what the alternative press was saying in order to paint a negative picture of Martin):

    Zimmerman was arrested in 2005 for "resisting an officer with violence" and "battery of a law enforcement officer." The charges were later reduced and ultimately dropped upon his entrance into an alcohol education program. Later that year, Zimmerman's ex-fiancee sought a restraining order against him over alleged domestic violence. He later filed a counter claim for a restraining order of his own, and both were granted. And in the wake of Zimmerman's 2012 arrest, allegations by a cousin emerged, claiming that he'd molested her for more than a decade.

     

    You picked a creep to be a hero and a kid who did nothing wrong to be the fall guy.

    Bad judgement. But and if you want to prejudge the two you ought to take a good long look at the past history of the creep Mr Z. Out of line, out of control, bad judgement, violent streeks, etc.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The FACTS are one person attacked another and ALL the evidence shows that person to be Martin.  The prosecution could not even present reasonable doubt to those findings. NONE! Following a suspicious person in order to report his whereabouts to the law, is not a crime.  Repeatedly bashing a persons head on the ground  COULD be considered attempted murder.  At that point a person has a right to defend himself. That's the law!

    No one is choosing a hero

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: In support of

    How can SYG be significant in a case if it wasn't invoked by the defense? Not once, not ever. It didn't benefit Zimmerman, it didn't hurt his case, it was not relevant. It is a classic red herring.

    Anyway, we're never going to agree and I'm over it.

    I understand Florida law very well. I know how the courts work here. I am not fooled by defense lawyers (or prosecutors who play the same games by the way), I assure you. The fools are the media and those who pay attention to what they say. They sensationalize, they lie and they manipulate facts to serve their own aims. Look at what NBC did with the 911 call. That's not an exception, that's the type of stuff the media does regularly.  

    If you believe you can shoot someone with impunity in Florida because you feel threatened, then you are the gullible one. Good luck with that defense.

    The bottom line is the Zimmerman case sucks because a kid who apparently did not set out to cause any harm that day was killed. I don't know what happened. I don't necessarily believe Zimmerman's account, I think he may have killed Martin in cold blood, I really do. 

    But the jury has to go by the facts presented and apply them to the law as instructed by the court. That's the extent of their job. They can't find guilt because of personal feelings. They did their job in this case, as unsatisfactory as it might seem.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     

    Florida's self defense laws incorporate stand-your-ground principles. Any jury instruction concerning self defense will, therefore, include those principles. That's self evident. In and of itself, it's not significant.

    Of course it's significant.  It means the jury never had to consider if Zimmerman had the ability to retreat. 

    Zimmerman did not need and did not benefit from stand-your-ground. It wasn't an issue in this case. Just because jury instructions refer to those principles, doesn't change that. 

    We don't know.  If there was a duty to retreat, the whole case would have been argued differently and the jury would have had to consider whether it believed Zimmerman that he couldn't retreat.  As it is, the obligation to retreat (traditionally part of self defense laws and still the law in many states) was taken off the table.  That is very significant. 

    Anybody using the Zimmerman case as a reason to justify amending or eliminating the self defense laws, is either being disingenuous (Holder) or is just confused. The result would have been the same in every other state, given the facts the jury had to consider.

    There may be reasons to reconsider the incorporation of stand-your-ground principles in the self defense laws of Florida (and 23 other states), but the Zimmerman case is not one of them.

    My personal view is that standing one's ground should be your right. Why should anybody give ground to a bully or a criminal? You may want to because it's the prudent thing to do (you might get killed otherwise). But if you have the means to defend yourself, why should you have to retreat?

     

    Because killing another human being, even a bad one, used to be considered a bad thing to do.  But I guess that traditional value is no longer held by those who adopt today's more advanced right-wing moral code.


     

    One thing I'll add. Please don't be so gullible and believe everything the defense lawyer tells you. A criminal defense lawyer has every reason to make it seem like stand your ground wasn't an issue and therefore shouldn't be revised.  Stand your ground is a huge gift to those who make their money defending killers.  If your client admits to killing someone (or if the evidence is overwhelming that your client did kill someone) you basically have two paths to follow if you are not going to plead guilty:  You can try to prove your client insane or otherwise mentally unfit or you can claim self defense.  These are the two "get out of jail free cards" you've got in your deck.  Stand your ground makes one of those cards much, much more powerful, which is a huge gift to criminal defense lawyers.  They are using it to let all sorts of killers walk free.  It's one of the perverse consequences of this "get tough on crime" legislation.  It has turned out to be a great tool for criminals to use to get away with murder.  All you have to claim is that you felt threatened and, voila, the state of Florida says it was okay to shoot.

     



    The state of Florida says it's ok to defend yourself  if your life is in danger or you perceive it to be.  Any person in any state would have the right to defend themselves, if they were being pummeled.  Why would only the victim have restrictions as to what he can and can't do while under attack? 

    The law is only relevant during an attack or perceived danger, not before.  There is no evidence that Martin was in danger or perceived it. 


    So the same law would apply to Martin. 

    Why didn't the prosecution claim self defense on Martins part and prove Z to be the aggressor (attacker) and claim that Martin was merely protecting himself and had every right to bash Z's head in, therefore making the shooting a crime?

    Guess it didn't happen that way?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: In support of

     

     Muz, I agree with you about the jury's decision.  I think they did the right thing given the law and evidence.  We will have to disagree on the relevance of stand your ground.  It is built into the Florida self-defense law,  was part of what the jury was instructed to consider, and was even mentioned by the juror who gave an interview as one of the things they considered.  If there had been a duty to retreat, that could have been emphasized by the prosecution and no doubt would have and would also have affected the jury's deliberation.  Also, I believe the prosecutor who originally met with Zimmerman and the police after the shooting, made the decision not to press charges based on stand your ground.  The law is designed to make it easier to claim self-defense and also to avoid trial and it does that effectively.  What's in question in Zimmerman and other cases is whether that's really a good thing.  Holder is right to raise the question in my opinion.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:

    I admit, I was not much in favor of the Florida law of "Stand Your Ground"...

    But then I read some 400+ boston.com posts on the George Zimmerman thread...

    And I find myself newly enlightened...

    "Justice was carried out," I learned today...

    That poor George Zimmerman...

    Victim of the race-baiting liberal media...

    Received the verdict that was well deserved...

    At first, I was saddened to hear the news...

    I thought the senseless killing of an unarmed boy...

    Should not go unpunished in a land of laws...

    But, alas, that was just the bleeding-heart side of me...

    The side that must have---though I can't remember---been listening to Sharpton/Jackson...

    But I learned today that I was sooooo wrong...

    That the evidence did not support a conviction...

    And that race was not a factor in the case...

    My heart was overjoyed to learn this, on this thoughtful Boston.com thread...

    From all the scholarly, eloquent statements therein...

    So much so that now I have completely changed my mind...

    I now understand the sensibility of "Stand Your Ground"...

    And accept that it must be a good and fair law...

    And, well, since it is the law of Florida...

    I hope Floridians will gather and obey the law...

    I pray that those who weep over the loss of a young boy...

    Well---those with the legal permit to carry firearms...

    Will diligently, peacefully pursue Mr. Zimmerman...

    Not to intentionally harm him, mind you...

    But simply because he seems "suspicious"...

    Well, that is---to the few who might be foolish enough to believe...

    That shooting an unarmed boy seems more suspicious than buying skittles...

    I hope that this group of concerned watchmen...

    Will ignore police warnings to stay where they are...

    As---of course---any innocent, law-abiding watchman would do...

    And gather about Mr. Zimmerman in the dark of eve...

    To confront him regarding his obvious "suspiciousness"...

    And if Mr. Zimmerman so much as raises a hand...

    To strike fear into the watchmen in any way...

    I pray that the group surrounding him will be good citizens...

    And obey the law...

    And Stand Their Ground...

    So that the wise posters on Boston.com...

    Can collectively exalt, saying, "Justice was served"...

     

    So, now, I weep no more---well, except for one...

    Yes, my heart does hurt for one, Aaron Hernandez...

    For if only he had led Odin Lloyd to Florida---rather than North Attleboro...

    And simply waited for the condemned to land a punch out of fear...

    Mr. Hernandez would be declared innocent of all charges...

    And---hallelujah---justice would have been served.

     

     

     

     You do know stand your ground was not used in the Zimmerman case right? It was self defense. I figured you should know that because you are trying to come across as some smart guy I thought you would want to know the facts, or are Libs suppose to still ignore facts?

     




     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to MelWitt's comment:


    Ahhh...what is obvious to me is that GZ was a dic*le*s puzzy who had a little man's complex and wanted to project toughness by holding a gun, whether or not he needed one to protect his family....he never should have gotten out of that vehicle....when he is sued in civil court, he's going to have to testify....that's where all those videos of him changing the story he told cops at different times will come into play....he's going to be broke for the rest of his life because he will not win a wrongful death civil suit...

    Besides, the feds have NO REASON NOT to go after him for a civil rights violation under the law...they will spend lots of taxpayer cash to find many people who will swear on the bible that Little Man George hated African-Americans and then he's in BIG trouble...

    The idiot should have stayed home that night, or at least stayed in the car like they suggested to him ...The kid had a right to walk home a short distance FROM his home without being questioned by someone who didn't live there. It may be legal to follow someone, but C'mon, that doesn't make it right or smart, especially if you get your azz cranked by some kid....Oh yeah, big time grappler..LMFAO!

    I just can't abide stupid, and GZ was extremely stupid.



    So if a woman uses a gun against a man who is assaulting her I guess she is the same right? Guns are the great equalizer so mobs or big guys can't just do what they want. Now keep on typing like some tuff guy.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from NY-PATS-FAN4. Show NY-PATS-FAN4's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to gr82bme's comment:

    Wow, mindless moonbats still foaming at the keyboard - great stuff indeed.  Keep up the good work, maybe Eric Holder will follow through on federal "civil rights" charges.  Yup, that's the ticket - instead of honoring a court's decision to acquit, we'll keep digging at something to put this guy away.  Here's a though - the Department of Justice is just that - justice - it's not the Department of Social Justice or the Department of doing anything under the law to appease a bunch of folks that don't like a law - all for the glory of more liberal votes.  Yup, that's some system you want eh?  Be careful what you ask for - you just may get it.

    Also, can we cease with the "just a little unarmed boy walking through the neighborhood" drivel.  The characture you all so desparately want to believe is as false as all get-out and you know it.  At least make your debate reasonable - you don't like the law and you want Z in jail.  But to cloud your debate with the old "this kid was on the a-team of the choir boys" baloney is just that - baloney.



    On the night he was stalked and killed, that is exactly what he was.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from NY-PATS-FAN4. Show NY-PATS-FAN4's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to raptor64d's comment:

     

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:

     

     

     

    I admit, I was not much in favor of the Florida law of "Stand Your Ground"...

    But then I read some 400+ boston.com posts on the George Zimmerman thread...

    And I find myself newly enlightened...

    "Justice was carried out," I learned today...

    That poor George Zimmerman...

    Victim of the race-baiting liberal media...

    Received the verdict that was well deserved...

    At first, I was saddened to hear the news...

    I thought the senseless killing of an unarmed boy...

    Should not go unpunished in a land of laws...

    But, alas, that was just the bleeding-heart side of me...

    The side that must have---though I can't remember---been listening to Sharpton/Jackson...

    But I learned today that I was sooooo wrong...

    That the evidence did not support a conviction...

    And that race was not a factor in the case...

    My heart was overjoyed to learn this, on this thoughtful Boston.com thread...

    From all the scholarly, eloquent statements therein...

    So much so that now I have completely changed my mind...

    I now understand the sensibility of "Stand Your Ground"...

    And accept that it must be a good and fair law...

    And, well, since it is the law of Florida...

    I hope Floridians will gather and obey the law...

    I pray that those who weep over the loss of a young boy...

    Well---those with the legal permit to carry firearms...

    Will diligently, peacefully pursue Mr. Zimmerman...

    Not to intentionally harm him, mind you...

    But simply because he seems "suspicious"...

    Well, that is---to the few who might be foolish enough to believe...

    That shooting an unarmed boy seems more suspicious than buying skittles...

    I hope that this group of concerned watchmen...

    Will ignore police warnings to stay where they are...

    As---of course---any innocent, law-abiding watchman would do...

    And gather about Mr. Zimmerman in the dark of eve...

    To confront him regarding his obvious "suspiciousness"...

    And if Mr. Zimmerman so much as raises a hand...

    To strike fear into the watchmen in any way...

    I pray that the group surrounding him will be good citizens...

    And obey the law...

    And Stand Their Ground...

    So that the wise posters on Boston.com...

    Can collectively exalt, saying, "Justice was served"...

     

    So, now, I weep no more---well, except for one...

    Yes, my heart does hurt for one, Aaron Hernandez...

    For if only he had led Odin Lloyd to Florida---rather than North Attleboro...

    And simply waited for the condemned to land a punch out of fear...

    Mr. Hernandez would be declared innocent of all charges...

    And---hallelujah---justice would have been served.

     

     

     

     You do know stand your ground was not used in the Zimmerman case right? It was self defense. I figured you should know that because you are trying to come across as some smart guy I thought you would want to know the facts, or are Libs suppose to still ignore facts?

     

     

     



    Nope, didn't know it. My bad. Was working and didn't get to watch the trial. Will say, though, that there was so much talk about it in the news beforehand. Kind of like when the judge says, "The jury will disregard that photo they just witnessed." Kinda hard to undo what has already been pumped into mind, " Wasn't GZ just standing his ground?"

     


    So, I admit I didn't watch the trial. I also admit I wasn't not trying to come across as smarter than anyone else. More compassionate? Yes. More disturbed by the events? Indeed.


    Perhaps it's because I have a son who is near Trayvon Martin's age. If the same set of sequences had happened to my son, I would not be here saying justice was served. Nope, I would be stalking that man until I blew his mothereffin brains out.

    But that's me; perhaps it's not you. I won't make judgment on whether it makes you smarter or dumber than anyone else.

     

     

     

     

     




     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from fatsam72. Show fatsam72's posts

    Re: In support of

    " Reminds me of many of our BBWs on here."

    Big Beautiful Women?

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to gr82bme's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Wow, mindless moonbats still foaming at the keyboard - great stuff indeed.  Keep up the good work, maybe Eric Holder will follow through on federal "civil rights" charges.  Yup, that's the ticket - instead of honoring a court's decision to acquit, we'll keep digging at something to put this guy away.  Here's a though - the Department of Justice is just that - justice - it's not the Department of Social Justice or the Department of doing anything under the law to appease a bunch of folks that don't like a law - all for the glory of more liberal votes.  Yup, that's some system you want eh?  Be careful what you ask for - you just may get it.

    Also, can we cease with the "just a little unarmed boy walking through the neighborhood" drivel.  The characture you all so desparately want to believe is as false as all get-out and you know it.  At least make your debate reasonable - you don't like the law and you want Z in jail.  But to cloud your debate with the old "this kid was on the a-team of the choir boys" baloney is just that - baloney.

     

     



    Also, can we cease with the baloney of judgement on the victim (the one who is dead!)? You do not have to be a choir boy to be "allowed" to enjoy the rights of the Constitition and the rule - and protection - of the law. And you don't have to be white to not be painted as some dangerous person. For all you know he was a good kid. What you read in the press - for any side of any issue - is often frought "news porn", that is with misrepresentation in order to encourage strong emotion and so encourage readership. And having done something wrong where it is not a pattern of behavior that is reasonable to associate with behavior of that day does not have bearing on the events of that day.

     

     

     

    Also - take a look at this "scary" person Martin. He was a scrawny kid. Scrawny. The kid was a stick.

    And if you are intersted in who ACTUALLY was not a choir boy how about this about Mr Z (not that my understanding is he was not convicted of what is stated below but then again.... it doesnt mean he did not do those things and it certainly "paints" a picture of someone who is the antithesis of a choir boy.... certainly a darker picture than of Martin... and if you do not like eith what was printed because you think it has its own agenda or if you do not like it because it is past history then apply the same standards to the twists and turns of what the alternative press was saying in order to paint a negative picture of Martin):

    Zimmerman was arrested in 2005 for "resisting an officer with violence" and "battery of a law enforcement officer." The charges were later reduced and ultimately dropped upon his entrance into an alcohol education program. Later that year, Zimmerman's ex-fiancee sought a restraining order against him over alleged domestic violence. He later filed a counter claim for a restraining order of his own, and both were granted. And in the wake of Zimmerman's 2012 arrest, allegations by a cousin emerged, claiming that he'd molested her for more than a decade.

     

    You picked a creep to be a hero and a kid who did nothing wrong to be the fall guy.

    Bad judgement. But and if you want to prejudge the two you ought to take a good long look at the past history of the creep Mr Z. Out of line, out of control, bad judgement, violent streeks, etc.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The FACTS are one person attacked another and ALLthe evidence shows that person to be Martin.  The prosecution could not even present reasonable doubt to those findings. NONE! Following a suspicious person in order to report his whereabouts to the law, is not a crime.  Repeatedly bashing a persons head on the ground  COULD be considered attempted murder.  At that point a person has a right to defend himself. That's the law!

     

    No one is choosing a hero

    [/QUOTE]

    I can not stop being amazed at the perspective you and many others have on this. Just amazed. If the races were reversed I do not say you personally would feel different but it is clear that so many who agree with you on this would. 

    In any case we must agree to disagree. 

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: In support of

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE

    Healthy discussion of this needless loss of life is productive.  Picking and choosing facts to support a position is not.

    [/QUOTE]


    This right here^ is the most (perhaps the only) intelligent thing I've read in my admittedly cursory review of the forum banter on this overblown case.

     

     

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from agill1970. Show agill1970's posts

    Re: In support of

    I think this case is the most misconstrued, misunderstood, and media manipulated story in the long sad history of white on black violence.  The amount of attention this case has gotten is a damn shame when you look at the actual evidence of what happened that tragic evening.  Yes racial profiling was used by GZ, but considering the neighborhood wasn't far from a high crime rate black neighborhood I give him a pass on that.  And contrary to what almost everyone is saying, he did break off pursuit once told to by authorities, but rather than go back to his vehicle, he went in search of a street sign.  When going back from that location to his vehicle is when he encountered TM, who decided enough was enough and he was going to confront this strange scary man who had been following him and looped back around to find him.  Things went swiftly down hill from there. 

    The story broke soon after that, and whether it was anti 2A agenda, race baiters, or just the misinformation we were repeatedly smacked over the head with, GZ was found guilty in the public eye almost immediately, and even the President stepped in to say something.  So many people want to make this about race, about hate, about negligence, about an innocent being gunned down.  Where was the outcry and media attention when legitamite wrongful deaths largely due to race occured?  Like with Oscar Grant?  Or Aaron Campbell?  Or Steven Washington?  Or I could keep typing until my fingers or keyboard gave out?  There is a horn of plenty when it comes to wrongful death or down right murder of young black men minding their business and being gunned down by white men because of the fear that they have because they are dealing with a young black man.  This, is not one of those cases. 

    I would argue that GZ made some huge mistakes that evening, mistakes that should not be made by a civilian carrying a firearm.  These mistakes helped lay the foundation of the tragic death of TM, but that ultimate fact would not have happened without him (TM) making a horrible mistake in his own right.  While not guilty in a criminal court, I have little doubt he will be found guilty and liable in a civil one when that case ultimately happens. 

     

Share