Where are the Zimmerman supporters now?

Damocles said:
Zimmerman's case was NOT a stand your ground case, you are comparing pizza with tires. First of all the NRA did not hire Zimm's attorney's nor pay for them. What more do you expect them to do for this woman other than protecting the existence of the law?

The reality is: Zimmerman's case and this woman's were entirely different. The main difference is, and we're repeating ourselves here, that Zimmerman DID NOT USE stand your ground.
Click to expand...
Again you are evading my point. Zimmy was released originally by both the local police and the DA who cited stand your ground laws it wasnt until therexwas public outrage that he was even charged at all. This woman wasnt even permitted a fair defense using that defence? So why aren't the people who publicly defended Zimmy outraged? Are you tryi g to tell me that this womens being black isn't playing a role here? That its just totally a coincident?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
In other words you dont believe race played a role here. This is the sort of shit that drives the black people I know crazy. That you can just passively accept this given that regions well documented reputation. You wont admit that something here just dont seem right?
Click to expand...
So, reality cannot dent your insistence that it isn't "right" because she unsuccessfully claimed something that Zimmerman didn't claim at all and you therefore think the NRA is at fault?

What drives people crazy is emotive nonsense in place of intelligent conversation and the attempt to say another is racist when they point out inconvenient reality.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Ahh and that justifies 20 years? In addition that is the prosecuters claim. They never provided any evidence to prove their claim. How comes yall come rushing to Zimmy' s defense for killing an innocent black kid but your ok with them giving her 20 years for firing a warning shot?
Click to expand...

You just seem content to ignoring the FACTS that:
1 - she left the house
2 - she retrieved the gun from her car
3 - she returned to the house
4 - she fired a random shot that endangered children

I have always just laughed at the other posters constantly referring to you and Ohio and just considered it to be attempts at being humorous; but now it looks like it has some merit. :palm:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
how are the that different and how can you justify a 20 year sentence? I have no doubts if this was a white man sentenced to 20 years youd be outraged? Why the double standard?
Click to expand...

You are definitely delusional and my only prayer is that not all those in Ohio suffer from your affliction.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
thats completely irrelevent to my point. Why wasnt she afforded the same level of reasonabe doubt as Zimmy and why arent they defe ding her right to defend herself and how could they not be outraged at such a grossly dispropotionate sentence? Why is her case so different thar when Zimmy kills a black kid they reflexively jump to his aid but when a black woman fires a warning shot in self defense and hurts no one ther aer ok with a 20 year sentence?
Click to expand...

TRAYVON - ASSAULTED - ZIMMERMAN - AND - WAS - SHOT - IN - SELF - DEFENSE

where as

SHE - LEFT - THE - HOUSE - TO - GET - THE - GUN - FROM - HER - CAR - AND - THEN - RETURNED - TO - THE - HOUSE - PRIOR - TO - FIRING - THE - SHOT.

Please explain how you are attempting to correlate the two incidents.
 
NOVA said:
Zimmerman did not claim "stand your ground".....he claimed 'self defense'

Alexander admitted it was not 'self defense' and claimed 'stand your ground'

Completely different cases under different circumstances.....you're comparing apples and oranges......typical strawman bullshit as usual.....

Pinheads try to equate equivalency where none exists, it's just something you can't stop yourself from repeating, all its show is , YOU"VE GOT NOTHING>
Click to expand...

Does this mean you don't agree with "stand your ground" laws?
 
Over the past week, I've heard endlessly from various talking heads that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law had nothing to do with George Zimmerman's acquittal for killing Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, they said, was actually acquitted on ordinary grounds of self defense. I've gotten really tired of hearing this obvious misconception, and today Mark Follman and Lauren Williams finally demolish it for good. You should read the whole thing, but here's the key bit:

The jury instructions—and a reason for their verdict: Just because Zimmerman's defense team didn't bring up Stand Your Ground in the trial (more on that below), that doesn't mean the law was irrelevant to the jury's decision. To the contrary, Judge Debra Nelson made clear in the jury instructions (PDF) that they should consider the law:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

​
And consider it they did. According to the most outspoken juror, known only as Juror B-37, Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict. She told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in Zimmerman's case "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/stand-your-ground-did-indeed-play-role-zimmerman-trial

​
 
christiefan915 said:
Over the past week, I've heard endlessly from various talking heads that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law had nothing to do with George Zimmerman's acquittal for killing Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, they said, was actually acquitted on ordinary grounds of self defense. I've gotten really tired of hearing this obvious misconception, and today Mark Follman and Lauren Williams finally demolish it for good. You should read the whole thing, but here's the key bit:

The jury instructions—and a reason for their verdict: Just because Zimmerman's defense team didn't bring up Stand Your Ground in the trial (more on that below), that doesn't mean the law was irrelevant to the jury's decision. To the contrary, Judge Debra Nelson made clear in the jury instructions (PDF) that they should consider the law:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

​
And consider it they did. According to the most outspoken juror, known only as Juror B-37, Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict. She told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in Zimmerman's case "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/stand-your-ground-did-indeed-play-role-zimmerman-trial

​
Click to expand...

:thisisgettinggood:​
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top