Jump to content

General Political Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Apparently, even our President's view is somehow "not relevant," or "not appropriate," although you would think that the first African-American President's reflections would be considered important, or at least worthwhile. Behold the comments section on HuffPo after the "Obama Speaks on Zimmerman Verdict" story:

 

I wish obama would stop playing the race card. It is really old.

 

If BO had a city it would look like Detroit.

 

"If I had a son he would look like Trayvon... That could have been me 35 years ago..." Obama your overt Racism is very clear and transparent to us...

 

It's obvious that President Obama no longer bothers to disguise his divisive r/acism. He is completely out of the cIoset on this one.

 

I am very surprised he took to making comments on this case; I think he should have kept his mouth shut beause to me, it will simply fan the flames.

 

"Trayvon could've been me 35 years ago," During your black years? What about your white years – you are ½ white.

 

Blacks continue to depend on WHITES for everything.... when things don't go their way they throw tantrums and act like children. Until the black population start to GROW UP and mature and obey the law they will continue to be disrespected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is authorized to speak on the matter?

 

It is not a question of authorization, any damn fool can ask anyone they want on any subject.  Anyone can speak on the matter.  And they do with increasing frequency.  There is so much "noise" on subjects from people it is hard weigh what is important not important. 

 

Tell me the reason why it we need to know what Sir Charles thinks about Travyon Martin.  

 

I don't care what Sir Charles has to say on the matter, I think it is silly for someone to ask him.  It is not that I disagree his on his view (which I don't BTW), its the fact he is just adding to the noise.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in the views of people like Charles Barkley, Bill Cosby, and Jimmy Carter who have expressed counter-intuitive opinions.  I would find that as interesting as someone like Sean Hannity or George Will condemning the verdict.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin was not on trial.  No one needs to prove squat about what he did or did not do.  Zimmerman's attorneys only needed to cast reasonable doubt on the charges brought against their client.  They succeeded with those six jurors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin was not on trial.  No one needs to prove squat about what he did or did not do.  Zimmerman's attorneys only needed to cast reasonable doubt on the charges brought against their client.  They succeeded with those six jurors.

 

 I certainly agree but everyone claims Martin attacked Zimmerman as if its absolute fact. Of course there was no blood on Martin or the sidewalk but HEY!

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/us/in-wake-of-zimmerman-verdict-obama-makes-extensive-statement-on-race-in-america.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=US_IWO_20130719&_r=0

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there was no blood on Martin or the sidewalk but HEY!

Zimmerman's blood was found on Martin's clothing. Martin had an abrasion on his hand that was likely caused by punching Zimmerman. Zimmerman had no injuries to his hands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, no witnesses... and given that he killed the only other person who really knows what happened that night, I'd hope you understand why many of us have a hard time believing that his account is 100% accurate.  

 

Yes, thank you!  Especially when "You're gonna die tonight!" and "He went for my gun" are exactly the kind of bullshit things someone would make up after the fact when they realized they would need to prove legal self-defense.  Seeing them constantly trotted out as justification for Martin's death has been frustrating.  

 

We'll never know if those things were said or happened, but we must at least acknowledge that it's possible they weren't and Zimmerman simply tragically overreacted to getting his ass kicked by a kid he was stupidly following around like Paul Blart Mall Cop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially when "You're gonna die tonight!" and "He went for my gun" are exactly the kind of bullshit things someone would make up after the fact when they realized they would need to prove legal self-defense.

Those statements are essentially irrelevant; Zimmerman was legally justified in shooting Zimmerman as soon as the kid attacked him. 

 

We'll never know if those things were said or happened, but we must at least acknowledge that it's possible they weren't

Just as we must at least acknowledge that things went down exactly as Zimmerman said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Those statements are essentially irrelevant; Zimmerman was legally justified in shooting Zimmerman as soon as the kid attacked him. 

 

Not exactly. To be justified in using deadly force, he had to reasonably believe it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself. But as you've pointed out, it's apparent that Zimmerman believed so.

 

Getting his head hit against he concrete would seem to meet that threat. Whether or not he disregarded police advice to not follow him is irrelevant, because Zimmerman's act of following Trayvon wasn't illegal.

 

The people who think the legal outcome was wrong just need to read the Florida stand your ground law. After reading it, it's hard to imagine the case turning out any other way.

 

The law itself is bad, IMHO. But the outcome was correct. What a shitshow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law itself is bad, IMHO.

The law is important because it removes the obligation to retreat when facing a deadly threat. Without the law, people could find themselves required to hide in a closet when someone kicks down their door, because maybe he's just planning to steal their television. But then again, maybe he intends to rape and murder them. (And then steal their television.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is important because it removes the obligation to retreat when facing a deadly threat. Without the law, people could find themselves required to hide in a closet when someone kicks down their door, because maybe he's just planning to steal their television. But then again, maybe he intends to rape and murder them. (And then steal their television.)

You're referencing the castle doctrine, which involves protection against invasion of one's home, which I have no problem with.

 

Florida's law expands on that concept to include any lawfully occupied location.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...