Left Hypocricy and the Courts

tekkychick said:
In this case, there is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin.

The question is self-defense or not.

Racism here is - if Zimmerman had been black and Martin had been white, no one would be defending Zimmerman. It's because Martin is black that Zimmerman has so many defenders who ALSO don't know all the evidence or facts.
Click to expand...

Or maybe if the left hadn't tried to bandwagon this, everyone could have waited until all the facts were in and seen what the outcome of the trial was.
But instead the liberals decided that Zimmerman was automatically guilty; because they THOUGHT he was white and since Trayvon was Black, well then he just has to be guilty.

The left doesn't want justice.
They want revenge for what they PERCEIVE as an injustice.
Most of you don't care if Zimmerman was acting in self defense or if the evidence shows that he was justified in shooting Trayvon and that's shown by the repeated lies that the left have and continue to tell.
1 - He was not told to not follow Trayvon
2 - The left's continual use of "young boy", when referring to Trayvon
3 - The hyperbole of saying Trayvon was only armed with a bag of skittles and a can of Ice Tea.
There are plenty more.

The left wears their sack cloth, sits in the ashes, and wails about how Zimmerman is OBVIOUSLY guilty; but then they do the same thing about people who it was found were falsely jailed.

You have convinced yourself that Zimmerman is guilty and nothing's going to make you change your mind.
Plus we now have Poet making comments like "...I have no intentions of "rioting" and "breaking up shit", as my hyperbole suggested, should a "not guilty" verdict ensue, but I predict that the backlash will be severe, and heads "will roll", metaphorically, and undoubtedly, "physically", as well..."
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this would only be a strawman if 12 people on a jury could all have the same 'reasonable' idea of what constitutes self defense. since they don't, the claim of self defense MUST be accepted unless facts can be proven otherwise by law enforcement investigations.
Click to expand...
That's insane. You could kill anyone you wanted that way and not be held accountable by the mere expediente of claiming "Self Defense".
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's insane. You could kill anyone you wanted that way and not be held accountable by the mere expediente of claiming "Self Defense".
Click to expand...
that is not true. the stand your ground laws specifically provide that it does not apply if evidence indicates that it was not self defense. It does not stop law enforcement from investigating the incident.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that is not true. the stand your ground laws specifically provide that it does not apply if evidence indicates that it was not self defense. It does not stop law enforcement from investigating the incident.
Click to expand...

When it comes to firearms, the left only see in black and white.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that is not true. the stand your ground laws specifically provide that it does not apply if evidence indicates that it was not self defense. It does not stop law enforcement from investigating the incident.
Click to expand...
...and that goes right back to my point. You don't know for a fact that the "Stand Your Ground Law" applies here. That's why this is before a jury.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
When it comes to firearms, the left only see in black and white.
Click to expand...
and when you gun nuts hear "Gun" you throw the rule of law right out the window.

The man took another human life with what appears to be specious, at best, justification. Now you may be all for a fanatical interpretation of gun laws and if people have to die to justify your views then well fuck them.....as obviously guns are more important to you than people. Well that's not the way the majority of Americans feel.

As for me, I'm siding with the rule of law and may justice be served.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
...and that goes right back to my point. You don't know for a fact that the "Stand Your Ground Law" applies here. That's why this is before a jury.
Click to expand...

no, this is before a jury because faux public outrage demanded that the state and the courts ignore the law and lynch zimmerman under the false pretense of some fair trial.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's insane. You could kill anyone you wanted that way and not be held accountable by the mere expediente of claiming "Self Defense".
Click to expand...

Not exactly. A defense, like the the insanity defense, allows you to avoid being found guilty if the jury accepts it at trial. An immunity functions the same way, except, in addition, you can't be arrested or detained pre-trial. In both cases, if the jury rejects the defense/immunity, you will be found guilty and given a sentence.

How rational this is, I suppose, depends on the process with which an immunity is granted. If anyone can simply claim "It was in self-defense", and that's that, they get to go free for the next few months (ahoy Mehico!), then clearly it's absurd and a threat to public order. If there is some process by which the immunity has to be approved by the prosecutor, grand jury, or judge or something, then it's less absurd.

But I still think it'd make more sense to simply make it a defense and leave the issue of pre-trial detention up to the prosecutors judgement of the defendants danger to society, as is the case with practically all other crimes. I see no reason why claiming self-defense should be treated any differently. Is a person innocent due to self-defense any more innocent than anyone else not guilty of the crime? Anyway, plenty of thugs claim self-defense in the clear cases of outright murder. For some reason, though, the right seems to think that 100% of such cases necessarily consist of elderly grannies shooting escaped serial killers, and that prosecutors and grand juries, are, with regards to this specific kind of defendant, people void of common sense who can in no way be trusted to not prosecute or not detain. In regards to all other kinds of defendants, though, they can be trusted, and no modification of the justice process is necessary.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Or maybe if the left hadn't tried to bandwagon this, everyone could have waited until all the facts were in and seen what the outcome of the trial was.
But instead the liberals decided that Zimmerman was automatically guilty; because they THOUGHT he was white and since Trayvon was Black, well then he just has to be guilty.

The left doesn't want justice.
They want revenge for what they PERCEIVE as an injustice.
Most of you don't care if Zimmerman was acting in self defense or if the evidence shows that he was justified in shooting Trayvon and that's shown by the repeated lies that the left have and continue to tell.
1 - He was not told to not follow Trayvon
2 - The left's continual use of "young boy", when referring to Trayvon
3 - The hyperbole of saying Trayvon was only armed with a bag of skittles and a can of Ice Tea.
There are plenty more.

The left wears their sack cloth, sits in the ashes, and wails about how Zimmerman is OBVIOUSLY guilty; but then they do the same thing about people who it was found were falsely jailed.

You have convinced yourself that Zimmerman is guilty and nothing's going to make you change your mind.
Plus we now have Poet making comments like "...I have no intentions of "rioting" and "breaking up shit", as my hyperbole suggested, should a "not guilty" verdict ensue, but I predict that the backlash will be severe, and heads "will roll", metaphorically, and undoubtedly, "physically", as well..."
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be any doubt as to Zimmerman's guilt if Zimmerman were black and Trayvon caucasian.
 
tekkychick said:
In this case, there is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin.

The question is self-defense or not.

Racism here is - if Zimmerman had been black and Martin had been white, no one would be defending Zimmerman. It's because Martin is black that Zimmerman has so many defenders who ALSO don't know all the evidence or facts.
Click to expand...


Leave it to a partisan hack like USF, who has sided with the Murderer Zimmerman since day one btw, to confuse the two.

What Zimmerman did is MURDER, it took malice of forethought and deliberation.

Today there are MILLIONS AND MILLIONS locked up for nothing more heinous than exercising their right to personal responsibility and doing what they like in the privacy of their own home, something USF supposedly supports unless he's arguing with a Liberal.
 
Corrected:
tekkychick said:
In this case, there is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin.

The question is self-defense or not.

Racism here is - if Zimmerman had been black and Martin had been white, no one would be defending Martin. It's because Martin is black that he has so many defenders who ALSO don't know all the evidence or facts.
Click to expand...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no, this is before a jury because faux public outrage demanded that the state and the courts ignore the law and lynch zimmerman under the false pretense of some fair trial.
Click to expand...
So to hell with the rule of law then? You couldn't possibly know if a stand your ground situation applies here and he killed a kid! I can assure you. The outrage over the egregiously irresponsible abdication of responsibility by the local police department is hardly fake. It's for real. You're argument is also hypocritical as hell for someone who is so anti-police. In almost every instance where police implment the law you oppose. Except now in this case involving a gun issue you're opposed the courts being involved? You call that ignoring the law and you want to tell us about faux outrage? Seriously?
 
Panda Hugger said:
Not exactly. A defense, like the the insanity defense, allows you to avoid being found guilty if the jury accepts it at trial. An immunity functions the same way, except, in addition, you can't be arrested or detained pre-trial. In both cases, if the jury rejects the defense/immunity, you will be found guilty and given a sentence.

How rational this is, I suppose, depends on the process with which an immunity is granted. If anyone can simply claim "It was in self-defense", and that's that, they get to go free for the next few months (ahoy Mehico!), then clearly it's absurd and a threat to public order. If there is some process by which the immunity has to be approved by the prosecutor, grand jury, or judge or something, then it's less absurd.

But I still think it'd make more sense to simply make it a defense and leave the issue of pre-trial detention up to the prosecutors judgement of the defendants danger to society, as is the case with practically all other crimes. I see no reason why claiming self-defense should be treated any differently. Is a person innocent due to self-defense any more innocent than anyone else not guilty of the crime? Anyway, plenty of thugs claim self-defense in the clear cases of outright murder. For some reason, though, the right seems to think that 100% of such cases necessarily consist of elderly grannies shooting escaped serial killers, and that prosecutors and grand juries, are, with regards to this specific kind of defendant, people void of common sense who can in no way be trusted to not prosecute or not detain. In regards to all other kinds of defendants, though, they can be trusted, and no modification of the justice process is necessary.
Click to expand...
I agree with you whole heartedly but that's not what STY is advocationg. What he is essentially saying is that if you have a claim of "Self Defense" that you are above the law.
 
Panda Hugger said:
Zimmerman waived his right to a stand your ground immunity. I'm not sure why this is.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I was unaware of that.....not that I really care. My concern was that this case recieved due process of law and not be decided in some precinct. He is before a court and a jury and I'm sure that justice will be served. Therefore if he's found guilty or innocent Im ok with that. Justice will have been served and the rule of law enforced. That is what matters to me.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
So to hell with the rule of law then?
Click to expand...
you know better than that with me

Mott the Hoople said:
You couldn't possibly know if a stand your ground situation applies here and he killed a kid!
Click to expand...
as i've said, the SYG law has a method built within it to deny the defense to those it doesn't apply to. That was not allowed in this instance because of faux public outrage.

Mott the Hoople said:
I can assure you. The outrage over the egregiously irresponsible abdication of responsibility by the local police department is hardly fake. It's for real. You're argument is also hypocritical as hell for someone who is so anti-police. In almost every instance where police implment the law you oppose. Except now in this case involving a gun issue you're opposed the courts being involved? You call that ignoring the law and you want to tell us about faux outrage? Seriously?
Click to expand...
Mott, maybe you should step back a bit from your own outrage and try again at reading what my position is on this.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
as i've said, the SYG law has a method built within it to deny the defense to those it doesn't apply to. That was not allowed in this instance because of faux public outrage.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you intend with the first sentence.

Zimmerman and his lawyers chose not to pursue a stand your ground defense. Public outrage or none, that was their decision and choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top