by mouthy 480 Replies latest social current
Nonsense, it was TM that came back for trouble looking for a fight.
GZ did not avoid. Burden is on him since he was carrying.
One person was obsessed with fighting.
Interesting that, despite your rhetoric against american gun owners, you are defending the gun carrier that created the situation and did not avoid the fight.
Exacly case closed, get over it.
If there is so much concern about young black boys being gunned down, Chicago really could use some help, somehow I don't think we'll be hearing anything from Sharpton and Jackson about that though.
One person went out that day looking for trouble, armed with a weapon.
Nonsense, it was TM that came back for trouble looking for a fight.
Says Zimmerman.
I'm not saying it's right, but so what if Martin wanted to confront the nutjob following him around? He deserves to die for that?
GZ did not avoid. Burden is on him since he was carrying.
Bollocks, GZ broke no laws, and 8 women jurors agreed with that.
6 Women jurors.
Bollocks, GZ broke no laws, and 8 women jurors agreed with that.
Wrong. Otherwise you must be agreeing juries always get it right. Sheriff Lawrence Rainey must have been totally innocent too.
Oh, and BTW, sometimes the law, like the ones in FL, aren't always right.
EP didn't say he broke any laws. He said everything he did was WRONG.
It's disgraceful how something like this has become such circus with no logic to support it.
"We will pursue civil rights charges with the Department of Justice, we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state, and we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed," Jealous said.
Racial profiling doesn't necessarily have anything to do with racism. A person may have a tendency to associate race with a certain crime because of exposure. For example, “there's been a string of robberies in our neighborhood, and ninety-percent of the time, the burglar is white, black, hispanic, etc.
How can racial profiling have any application to civilians? Hypothetically, let's say a certain race statistically commits more crime in one area than another and as a result, a civilian starts to stereo type this race in connection with a crime. How can a civilian legally violate your rights?
A civilian has no power. A civilian can't question, detain or apprehend you like a police officer. Sure, a civilian can watch you, follow you and call the police on you. Since when is that a civil rights violation?
George Zimmerman operated within his legal rights considering the “Stand Your Ground” statute. I personally wouldn't have shot an unarmed adolescent, so I can understand the opposition to this controversial statute, but not from the NAACP. In this case, they can't be taken in good faith. The fact that there's no evidence of anything race related and racial profiling has no application to civilians, the furor that the NAACP and like minded individuals is stirring up is completely pointless.
It was an interesting defense:
"It was Trayvon Martin's responsibility to remove himself from the situation set up by my client, of thinking he was up to no good and following him. This is all trayvon Martin's fault."
"Oh and our client is a wimp and a fattie and could not have defended himself."
EP didn't say he broke any laws. He said everything he did was WRONG.
WRONG by whose standards, EP's? The Law is what dictates what is or isn't WRONG here not EP.
