State's Rights

Superfreak said:
And Again... you are clearly fucking ignorant with what the Libertarian position is. The Individuals rights are FIRST AND FOREMOST what they protect. If the locals fuck up an individuals rights, the State should step in, if the State in turn fucks up the individuals rights then the Feds should step in. THAT is the Libertarian view.

what is so fucking hard about the above that confuses you ? The INDIVIDUAL comes FIRST. Their rights are to be protected. If they are not, then you keep going as high as you need to in the government to protect them. Period.
Click to expand...
:hand:
 
Derp Derp said:
Actually they invited the Feds in.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when pressured, the same with releasing the 911 tapes. In the meantime, they were erroneously defending Zimmerman to Martin's father, stating that he had a squeaky Caen record, but who shot Artin after being told but the dispatcher not to pursue him.
 
Rana said:
Yeah, when pressured, the same with releasing the 911 tapes. In the meantime, they were erroneously defending Zimmerman to Martin's father, stating that he had a squeaky Caen record, but who shot Artin after being told but the dispatcher not to pursue him.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course when they were pressured but it was the right thing to do and they did invite the Feds in. We should keep in mind that we still don't know all the facts.
 
Darla said:
They didn't charge him because they agreed it was self-defense. The state had nothing to say until the feds came in.

Again, this is textbook.
Click to expand...
That's not correct. They didn't charge him because they felt that they did not have enough evidence to obtain a manslaughter conviction in court.
 
Superfreak said:
great... you have shown that the city, after 24 days, has not charged someone yet. You and I both agree that they should have. Now... do you know the difference between city and State? do you understand why it is silly to proclaim that the state has failed? While I feel they have more than enough to at least toss Zimmerman in jail for the duration of the investigation, there is still due process in this country.

Or are you suggesting that the State jump into every murder investigation within a month? How has the State failed?
Click to expand...

Okay SF you got me. I should have said "authorities", not State. Mea culpa.

I'm outraged that Sanford accepted self-defense and refused to charge the man. What evidence do they have that Martin attacked Zimmerman either offensively or defensively? How does Zimmerman get to patrol his neighborhood with a gun and make the decision that it's okay to shoot somebody based on.... his looks? his speech? I think Zimmerman's claims are absurd and that the "stand your ground" statute seems to allow someone to shoot first and ask questions later. I would like to see the justification that this gorilla felt intimidated by a smallish teenager.

As astonishing as it sounds, Sanford police have refused to charge Zimmerman — although the state attorney's office now says it will convene a grand jury next month to investigate the case. The cops have been balking in large part because, under the stand-your-ground statute, they're virtually obligated to accept his argument that he was acting in self-defense — even if it was Martin who may have felt more threatened, according to recordings of 911 calls by neighbors that were released over the weekend. The 2005 Florida law permits anyone, anywhere to use deadly force against another person if they believe their safety or life is in danger, and it's the state's usually futile task to prove that the act wasn't justified.
 
Derp Derp said:
That's not correct. They didn't charge him because they felt that they did not have enough evidence to obtain a manslaughter conviction in court.
Click to expand...

Mott, sit down, I have shocking news: Even at the height of southern apartheid and lynchings, the sheriff never got on tv and said "we didn't charge him cause he only killed a n*gger'.

No really, it's true.
 
Superfreak said:
And Again... you are clearly fucking ignorant with what the Libertarian position is. The Individuals rights are FIRST AND FOREMOST what they protect. If the locals fuck up an individuals rights, the State should step in, if the State in turn fucks up the individuals rights then the Feds should step in. THAT is the Libertarian view.

what is so fucking hard about the above that confuses you ? The INDIVIDUAL comes FIRST. Their rights are to be protected. If they are not, then you keep going as high as you need to in the government to protect them. Period.
Click to expand...

If you believe that's the Libertarian position, it's too bad you or Billy didn't bother to say anything to STY who was stating that the feds had no right to intervene.

THat may not be what you believe. But you are not the national spokesman for libertarianism.

Further, and far more importantly, state's rights have always been used in these cases to prevent federal interference. You know that. We all know that. This argument that "then that's not the real state's rights!" is a bunch of fucking horseshit that libertarians always pull out of their asses. Oh Libertarianism would too work! It's just never been tried! And in places it was tried and failed, well that wasn't real Libertarianism!

Uh huh.
 
Darla said:
If you believe that's the Libertarian position, it's too bad you or Billy didn't bother to say anything to STY who was stating that the feds had no right to intervene.

THat may not be what you believe. But you are not the national spokesman for libertarianism.

Further, and far more importantly, state's rights have always been used in these cases to prevent federal interference. You know that. We all know that. This argument that "then that's not the real state's rights!" is a bunch of fucking horseshit that libertarians always pull out of their asses. Oh Libertarianism would too work! It's just never been tried! And in places it was tried and failed, well that wasn't real Libertarianism!

Uh huh.
Click to expand...

We're not the spokesmen for the Libertarian party, but clearly STY is. I didn't read any further than that.
 
Johnny Rocketfingers said:
We're not the spokesmen for the Libertarian party, but clearly STY is. I didn't read any further than that.
Click to expand...

No he isn't. But wouldn't it be a good thing for LIbertarians to debate this among themselves? Wouldn't that be good for the board even? I see liberals debating things among themselves all the time. YOu want to educate people about Libertarians Billy, go for it.

That's what this board is for. You should absolutely have this debate with STY, and so should SF.
 
Superfreak said:
Let me guess.... you are AGAIN going to try and label groups on the whole, despite the FACT that Christie just showed you demographics that state you are wrong. You even thanked her for the post.
Click to expand...

What demographics showed she was wrong? She said: "It's weird how it's mostly white males who cry about state's rights, and who also tend to join the Libertarian party, the party that loves sausage - but not browned. Why they can't attract women is no mystery..."

Look at the Cato report again. They've broken down memberships into five different political factions and the biggest disparity in members based on gender is in the Libertarian party. It's 18% points. The next highest one is a tie between ambivalents and populists, an 8% gender difference. I'd say Darla more than made her point when you compare all the parties in the report.
 
christiefan915 said:
What demographics showed she was wrong? She said: "It's weird how it's mostly white males who cry about state's rights, and who also tend to join the Libertarian party, the party that loves sausage - but not browned. Why they can't attract women is no mystery..."

Look at the Cato report again. They've broken down memberships into five different political factions and the biggest disparity in members based on gender is in the Libertarian party. It's 18% points. The next highest one is a tie between ambivalents and populists, an 8% gender difference. I'd say Darla more than made her point when you compare all the parties in the report.
Click to expand...

I can see you do not have your special Superfreak glasses on. You are going to get yourself very mixed up that way! You can't read what posts actually say Christie!
 
Darla said:
No he isn't. But wouldn't it be a good thing for LIbertarians to debate this among themselves? Wouldn't that be good for the board even? I see liberals debating things among themselves all the time. YOu want to educate people about Libertarians Billy, go for it.

That's what this board is for. You should absolutely have this debate with STY, and so should SF.
Click to expand...

We do quite often, or rather, have in the past.
 
Darla said:
I can see you do not have your special Superfreak glasses on. You are going to get yourself very mixed up that way! You can't read what posts actually say Christie!
Click to expand...

I was surprised myself that the gap was so big compared to the other groups. I'm still googling on this topic.
 
I'd like to ask something else. Not to be inflammatory, though I am sure it will be taken that way, just as something for you guys to think about. You all profess (other than STY) to be outraged by this. What's interesting is that 500,000 people signed petitions for the DOJ to take action. An incredible amount of pressure was brought to bear. I signed it and also passed it around. A lot of my friends did as well. I believe that both Christie and Rana did also.

Did any of you who were outraged do anything about it?

And I don't believe for one moment that if everyone had been silent that the decision of the local authorities not to press charges would have stood. Claiming otherwise is horseshit. But that aside- it's a good thing to think about.
 
Darla said:
I'd like to ask something else. Not to be inflammatory, though I am sure it will be taken that way, just as something for you guys to think about. You all profess (other than STY) to be outraged by this. What's interesting is that 500,000 people signed petitions for the DOJ to take action. An incredible amount of pressure was brought to bear. I signed it and also passed it around. A lot of my friends did as well. I believe that both Christie and Rana did also.

Did any of you who were outraged do anything about it?

And I don't believe for one moment that if everyone had been silent that the decision of the local authorities not to press charges would have stood. Claiming otherwise is horseshit. But that aside- it's a good thing to think about.
Click to expand...

Outrage, and rage in general, are very useful emotions. I however, would prefer they be kept out of the legal arena, along with any emotion really. But that's not what you're asking.

But that being said, I think it should be investigated like any other crime. Why wouldn't it be? It can be demonstrated that the claim of self defense isn't rock solid.
 
Darla said:
I'd like to ask something else. Not to be inflammatory, though I am sure it will be taken that way, just as something for you guys to think about. You all profess (other than STY) to be outraged by this. What's interesting is that 500,000 people signed petitions for the DOJ to take action. An incredible amount of pressure was brought to bear. I signed it and also passed it around. A lot of my friends did as well. I believe that both Christie and Rana did also.

Did any of you who were outraged do anything about it?

And I don't believe for one moment that if everyone had been silent that the decision of the local authorities not to press charges would have stood. Claiming otherwise is horseshit. But that aside- it's a good thing to think about.
Click to expand...


Yes, I signed and passed it around, too.
 
Johnny Rocketfingers said:
Outrage, and rage in general, are very useful emotions. I however, would prefer they be kept out of the legal arena, along with any emotion really. But that's not what you're asking.

But that being said, I think it should be investigated like any other crime. Why wouldn't it be? It can be demonstrated that the claim of self defense isn't rock solid.
Click to expand...

This is where the outrage comes into play, it wasn't being investigated, properly, by the authorities and the current law lets people claim self defense in cold blooded killings.
 
Rana said:
the current law lets people claim self defense in cold blooded killings.
Click to expand...

No. It doesn't. I've read the Florida law. It's the basis of all other castle laws. It requires the STATE to PROVE that a crime had occurred, as opposed to requiring the ACCUSED to PROVE that they didn't commit a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top