Is there a family who has exploited such a tragedy more than these people? It seems every other day they are engaging the black racist rait baiters to push their cause and further divide this country. Let the system play out. I can't imagine traveling all over the country if a family member of mine was murdered, trademarking sayings etc. I would be holed up in my house full of grief unable to take care of myself, let alone give speached and travel to a vigil in NYC.
Of course if Zimmerman is aquitted I highly doubt we hear an apology from Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
Is there a family who has exploited such a tragedy more than these people? It seems every other day they are engaging the black racist rait baiters to push their cause and further divide this country. Let the system play out. I can't imagine traveling all over the country if a family member of mine was murdered, trademarking sayings etc. I would be holed up in my house full of grief unable to take care of myself, let alone give speached and travel to a vigil in NYC.
Of course if Zimmerman is aquitted I highly doubt we hear an apology from Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
I made a mistake in my first sentence. First, no one was murdered here. This was classic self-defense in my mind, and certainly "stand your ground" at least.
I agree with you 14, the masses will make their intent known. This was strictly a political charge of second degree murder; Angela Corey should be ashamed of herself. The masses certainly will not be happy about the outcome of this case either way as far as I am concerned. If he is found guilty, it will be "well what took you so long to arrest him." If he is found innocent (like I believe he will be), then...well I don't even want to think about what will happen in that instance.
I made a mistake in my first sentence. First, no one was murdered here. This was classic self-defense in my mind, and certainly "stand your ground" at least.
I agree with you 14, the masses will make their intent known. This was strictly a political charge of second degree murder; Angela Corey should be ashamed of herself. The masses certainly will not be happy about the outcome of this case either way as far as I am concerned. If he is found guilty, it will be "well what took you so long to arrest him." If he is found innocent (like I believe he will be), then...well I don't even want to think about what will happen in that instance.
The number of DJ's posts that contain an "oh-god-I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you "
OVER/UNDER 62.5%
OVER -130
UNDER +120
Now this meets the definition of projection coming from a poster who prefaces every argument with his profession, his experience, his 'knowledge' and how many unions he 'busted' last year.
The number of DJ's posts that contain an "oh-god-I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you "
OVER/UNDER 62.5%
OVER -130
UNDER +120
Now this meets the definition of projection coming from a poster who prefaces every argument with his profession, his experience, his 'knowledge' and how many unions he 'busted' last year.
You have to be able to show that your life was in danger or at least serious bodily injury.
If you look at this case. The standard should be easily met because there is medical evidence and witness statements to support Zimmermans claim that his head was being pounded into the ground.
Mattbrot, how does this make me the ignorant one as you have suggested?
I'm sorry that you are one of the ones who can't see past the cute teenage boy being killed by a man in his late 20's.
You have to be able to show that your life was in danger or at least serious bodily injury.
If you look at this case. The standard should be easily met because there is medical evidence and witness statements to support Zimmermans claim that his head was being pounded into the ground.
Mattbrot, how does this make me the ignorant one as you have suggested?
I'm sorry that you are one of the ones who can't see past the cute teenage boy being killed by a man in his late 20's.
Trayvon Martin aside, I'm interested to see what everyone's opinion is on the "Stand Your Ground" Law.
I would have no problem if it specifically mentioned protecting ones own home, family, and property.
From what it sounds like, and I may be wrong, if you are even about to get into an altercation you can shoot someone with justification.
i don't see a problem with it. it's basically just a self defense law. i'm not sure it says you can just shoot someone if you get into an altercation though. the force you use has to be reasonable under the circumstances.
Trayvon Martin aside, I'm interested to see what everyone's opinion is on the "Stand Your Ground" Law.
I would have no problem if it specifically mentioned protecting ones own home, family, and property.
From what it sounds like, and I may be wrong, if you are even about to get into an altercation you can shoot someone with justification.
i don't see a problem with it. it's basically just a self defense law. i'm not sure it says you can just shoot someone if you get into an altercation though. the force you use has to be reasonable under the circumstances.
You have to be able to show that your life was in danger or at least serious bodily injury.
If you look at this case. The standard should be easily met because there is medical evidence and witness statements to support Zimmermans claim that his head was being pounded into the ground.
Mattbrot, how does this make me the ignorant one as you have suggested?
I'm sorry that you are one of the ones who can't see past the cute teenage boy being killed by a man in his late 20's.
I am just referring to how you have painted a picture in your mind of how it happened (which includes lots of speculation) and are convinced without a doubt that this is the case. Your comment in post #11 is a perfect example. -- I do not want to go over this again. If you want to debate it just go back and reread the long thread where you and I went back and forth quite a bit. I am pretty sure that both of our points will be exactly the same as in that thread.
And the statement about the cute teenage boy has nothing to do with my stance in this discussion.
You have to be able to show that your life was in danger or at least serious bodily injury.
If you look at this case. The standard should be easily met because there is medical evidence and witness statements to support Zimmermans claim that his head was being pounded into the ground.
Mattbrot, how does this make me the ignorant one as you have suggested?
I'm sorry that you are one of the ones who can't see past the cute teenage boy being killed by a man in his late 20's.
I am just referring to how you have painted a picture in your mind of how it happened (which includes lots of speculation) and are convinced without a doubt that this is the case. Your comment in post #11 is a perfect example. -- I do not want to go over this again. If you want to debate it just go back and reread the long thread where you and I went back and forth quite a bit. I am pretty sure that both of our points will be exactly the same as in that thread.
And the statement about the cute teenage boy has nothing to do with my stance in this discussion.
I am just referring to how you have painted a picture in your mind of how it happened (which includes lots of speculation) and are convinced without a doubt that this is the case. Your comment in post #11 is a perfect example. -- I do not want to go over this again. If you want to debate it just go back and reread the long thread where you and I went back and forth quite a bit. I am pretty sure that both of our points will be exactly the same as in that thread.
And the statement about the cute teenage boy has nothing to do with my stance in this discussion.
Which parts of the discussion was speculation?
Lacerations on the back of his head?
Witness statements that corroborated Zimmermans account?
Lack of evidence on Trayvon's body to show that Zimmerman layed hands on him?
35+ similar phone calls to police under similar circumstances and no single outcome even close to this?
I am just referring to how you have painted a picture in your mind of how it happened (which includes lots of speculation) and are convinced without a doubt that this is the case. Your comment in post #11 is a perfect example. -- I do not want to go over this again. If you want to debate it just go back and reread the long thread where you and I went back and forth quite a bit. I am pretty sure that both of our points will be exactly the same as in that thread.
And the statement about the cute teenage boy has nothing to do with my stance in this discussion.
Which parts of the discussion was speculation?
Lacerations on the back of his head?
Witness statements that corroborated Zimmermans account?
Lack of evidence on Trayvon's body to show that Zimmerman layed hands on him?
35+ similar phone calls to police under similar circumstances and no single outcome even close to this?
I think every state should have a stand your ground law.
Here is the relevant portion of the statute per your comment
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of
this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger
of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape
such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the
assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates
clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the
assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
I don't disagree.
The reality is the limitation portion of the so-called "Stand Your Ground" Law is incorporated into nearly every self-defense statute in every state where by the actor must be, to summarize, in reasonable fear, may not participate in actions which are beyond the scope of the danger presented (i.e. cannot shoot someone who is 10 feet away holding a butter knife), and reasonable under the circumstances.
Additionally, most states have language that summarizes the so-called Bernhard Goetz holding in that the actor must be acting reasonably based on the subjective characteristics of the actor. In other words, a 25 year old muscular man will be held to a different standard than an 85 year old woman.
I think every state should have a stand your ground law.
Here is the relevant portion of the statute per your comment
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of
this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger
of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape
such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the
assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates
clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the
assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
I don't disagree.
The reality is the limitation portion of the so-called "Stand Your Ground" Law is incorporated into nearly every self-defense statute in every state where by the actor must be, to summarize, in reasonable fear, may not participate in actions which are beyond the scope of the danger presented (i.e. cannot shoot someone who is 10 feet away holding a butter knife), and reasonable under the circumstances.
Additionally, most states have language that summarizes the so-called Bernhard Goetz holding in that the actor must be acting reasonably based on the subjective characteristics of the actor. In other words, a 25 year old muscular man will be held to a different standard than an 85 year old woman.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.