• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict

Not really. The federal government has a habit of getting involved in "state" matters. Moreover, as a significant member of the Obama admin, his influence carries more weight than most.

If he had any, his shame should anyway.
 
It appears now the feds have instructed Florida to not return Z's gun to him, they want all evidence held.

Does that mean they are indeed planning to waste our tax dollars on their 'fuel the race wars' nonsense?
 
From the LA Times:



It has begun.

What do you think?

Holder is an idiot, Chicago is tearing itself apart with violence because citizens are helpless to defend themselves.
 
None of this would even have been covered if it wasn't likely to split the American people over a politically charged issue. **** like this happens every day in Chicago. Where's the news coverage?

...That's right, because black people killing black people isn't likely to cause political outcry. Kill anyone else though, and there's sudden outrage.

On the media splitting up the American people, remember the Dorner case? A guy killed a couple of cops and was hiding out in a house, which the police promptly set on fire and burned to the ground, killing him in the process.

But you can't cover that beyond a quick five-minute blurb because it would unite Americans against the police and by extension the government. What about all those other police brutality cases with far more horrific results? Can't cover those because they'd have the same effect...

So you cover some random not-black guy getting beat up by some random black guy and then shooting him. Then you add emotionally weighted "news" reports and just make some **** up and boom. Another hot-button issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the actually important things going on in the world, forcibly diverting attention from the goings-on of the international community, etc. This is racially charged, but not the way people think it is and far more.... problematic overall.
 
No matter the race of the people involved, I find it unsettling that Florida law allows for a man to Stalk a teenage boy in his car and then on foot, call the police, ignore the responder telling him to stop following him, get into a confrontation with the teenager, and shoot the kid if at any point in the altercation he feels like his life is in danger. The jury's decision was pretty much the only option they had given Florida Law, and I hope I am not alone in thinking that it is a bit concerning.
 
No matter the race of the people involved, I find it unsettling that Florida law allows for a man to Stalk a teenage boy in his car and then on foot, call the police, ignore the responder telling him to stop following him, get into a confrontation with the teenager, and shoot the kid if at any point in the altercation he feels like his life is in danger. The jury's decision was pretty much the only option they had given Florida Law, and I hope I am not alone in thinking that it is a bit concerning.

even without SYG laws, he was justified in shooting TM.... and I'm not concerned at all that the law allows for one to defend himself from harm or death...I'd be very concerned if it didn't.

all the events leading up to the confrontation were legal and just... and that goes for both fellows.

where **** went downhill is when one fellow made the choice to initiate violence without justifiable provocation.

a simple conversation would have cleared up the concerns of both individuals...but the initiation of violence precluded that from happening , and we are where we are as a result of that choice.
 
No matter the race of the people involved, I find it unsettling that Florida law allows for a man to Stalk a teenage boy in his car and then on foot, call the police, ignore the responder telling him to stop following him, get into a confrontation with the teenager, and shoot the kid if at any point in the altercation he feels like his life is in danger. The jury's decision was pretty much the only option they had given Florida Law, and I hope I am not alone in thinking that it is a bit concerning.

Please explain how the so-called stand your ground law got Zimmerman acquitted. Here's the jury instruction that mentions stand your ground:

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.

Do you even know what the SYG laws mean? How could he have retreated? Slithered out from under Trayvon Martin and run away? How could he have retreated? It is for people like you that the law was written. From your armchair quarterback position, you postulate away on how, once Zimmerman's nose was probably/possibly broken, he was straddled and having his head boinked against the concrete, he had dozens of options besides wrestling for his gun and shooting the attacker.
 
all the events leading up to the confrontation were legal and just... and that goes for both fellows.

where **** went downhill is when one fellow made the choice to initiate violence without justifiable provocation.


We don't know that this is what happened.

We don't know that this is what happened.

I'm not sure what people aren't getting here.

And to be perfectly clear: I agree with the acquittal. The state didn't make it's case; and it's possible that Zimmerman's stated version is true.

But that's it. Period. The possibility.

That's enough to acquit, and that is a fair and reasonable decision within the justice system.


But to say we know what happened is flatly, utterly, undeniably untrue.
 
We don't know that this is what happened.

We don't know that this is what happened.

I'm not sure what people aren't getting here.

And to be perfectly clear: I agree with the acquittal. The state didn't make it's case; and it's possible that Zimmerman's stated version is true.

But that's it. Period. The possibility.

That's enough to acquit, and that is a fair and reasonable decision within the justice system.


But to say we know what happened is flatly, utterly, undeniably untrue.

yeah, i see that is a rather worthless argument.

the same could be said about every criminal case we talk about, or have ever talked about...and will ever talk about

we all know we weren't there.. we all know we don't know "exactly" what happened...this is why we rely on the evidence to draw the picture for us.
 
even without SYG laws, he was justified in shooting TM.... and I'm not concerned at all that the law allows for one to defend himself from harm or death...I'd be very concerned if it didn't.

all the events leading up to the confrontation were legal and just... and that goes for both fellows.

where **** went downhill is when one fellow made the choice to initiate violence without justifiable provocation.

a simple conversation would have cleared up the concerns of both individuals...but the initiation of violence precluded that from happening , and we are where we are as a result of that choice.

It went downhill when Zimmerman got out of his car to follow a teenage boy on a hunch.
 
Please explain how the so-called stand your ground law got Zimmerman acquitted. Here's the jury instruction that mentions stand your ground:



Do you even know what the SYG laws mean? How could he have retreated? Slithered out from under Trayvon Martin and run away? How could he have retreated? It is for people like you that the law was written. From your armchair quarterback position, you postulate away on how, once Zimmerman's nose was probably/possibly broken, he was straddled and having his head boinked against the concrete, he had dozens of options besides wrestling for his gun and shooting the attacker.

With SYG, Zimmerman could shoot him even if Zimmerman started the fight. That made a guilty charge nearly impossible. The rest of your argument is just speculation. I watched the trial, and at no point was it proven that Martin had Zimmerman pinned down and was beating Zimmerman up with any certainty. He could have done that to himself, for all we know. Not to mention, Martin has no bruising on his fists, which would have come along with punching Z "20-30 times". Where you there? If not, I suggest you abandon that part of your argument. BTW, he could have just stayed in his car, eliminating the need for a "retreat". Personally, I think that in itself warranted a Manslaughter charge.
 
Last edited:
With SYG, Zimmerman could shoot him even if Zimmerman started the fight. That made a guilty charge nearly impossible. The rest of your argument is just speculation. I watched the trial, and at no point was it proven that Martin had Zimmerman pinned down and was beating Zimmerman up with any certainty. He could have done that to himself, for all we know. Not to mention, Martin has no bruising on his fists, which would have come along with punching Z "20-30 times". Where you there? If not, I suggest you abandon that part of your argument.

Did it say that in the jury instructions? No, it did not. Because it isn't necessarily true. SYG does not allow someone to beat the crap out of someone else, pull a gun and shoot them in the head. I don't know where you've gotten your perspective on SYG laws, but they're dead wrong.

Under SYG laws, if you punch someone in the nose? That does not give you license to shoot them. SYG isn't about retaliation. It's about being in fear of your life. As was Zimmerman. If you choose not to accept what the jury accepted? *shrug* Then I guess you will continue posting nonsensical nonapplicable opinions.

Thank God our legal system is such that a defendant doesn't have to PROVE it happened the way he said....that it's up to the State to prove that it didn't.

God bless America.
 
Did it say that in the jury instructions? No, it did not. Because it isn't necessarily true. SYG does not allow someone to beat the crap out of someone else, pull a gun and shoot them in the head. I don't know where you've gotten your perspective on SYG laws, but they're dead wrong.

Under SYG laws, if you punch someone in the nose? That does not give you license to shoot them. SYG isn't about retaliation. It's about being in fear of your life. As was Zimmerman. If you choose not to accept what the jury accepted? *shrug* Then I guess you will continue posting nonsensical nonapplicable opinions.

Thank God our legal system is such that a defendant doesn't have to PROVE it happened the way he said....that it's up to the State to prove that it didn't.

God bless America.

I never said it did. What I SAID was that even if Zimmerman had started to fight, he could have shot Martin when he started losing. That pretty much eliminates the possibility of him being found guilty. The ruling was correct, the law, in my opinion, is not.
 
Last edited:
I never said it did. What I SAID was that even if Zimmerman had started to fight, he could have shot Martin when he started losing. That pretty much eliminates the possibility of a guilty charge.

Self-defense statutes without SYG provide for that possibility. If someone punches you in the nose, you do not have the right to shoot them in the head. You always, under any self-defense laws in the United States, have the right to defend yourself against great bodily harm -- no matter who starts the fight.

Nonetheless, the state failed to prove that George Zimmerman acted in other than self-defense...having absolutely nothing to do with the SYG law

They failed to prove George Zimmerman started the fight. Game over.
 
Self-defense statutes without SYG provide for that possibility. If someone punches you in the nose, you do not have the right to shoot them in the head. You always, under any self-defense laws in the United States, have the right to defend yourself against great bodily harm -- no matter who starts the fight.

Nonetheless, the state failed to prove that George Zimmerman acted in other than self-defense...having absolutely nothing to do with the SYG law

They failed to prove George Zimmerman started the fight. Game over.

Like I said, I think the ruling was correct, given Florida Law ( and the state's poor performance). Look, I live in Kentucky, So I can tell you with full certainty that up here we only consider Self- Defense applicable if you react with equal force. Martin had his skittles, Zimmerman had a gun. Up here, he would have very likely been found guilty. Its SYG that gave Zimmerman the option to shoot an unarmed teenager when he got scared.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, I think the ruling was correct, given Florida Law ( and the state's poor performance). Look, I live in Kentucky, So I can tell you with full certainty that up here we only consider Self- Defense applicable if you react with equal force. Martin has his skittles, Zimmerman had a gun. Up here, he would have very likely been found guilty. Its SYG that gave Zimmerman the option to shoot an unarmed teenager when he got scared.

The state could not prove that Zimmerman did anything but meet force with force. They could not prove that Zimmerman acted unreasonably when he thought his life was threatened. He would not have been found guilty in Kentucky...which is ridiculous conjecture in the first place. In fact, barring the political bull**** that went on in this case, I doubt he would have been charged in your state.

Here's what your state would have to prove:

KRS § 503.060
Improper use of physical force in self-protection.


Notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 503.050, the use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is not justifiable when:

(1) The defendant is resisting an arrest by a peace officer, recognized to be acting under color of official authority and using no more force than reasonably necessary to effect the arrest, although the arrest is unlawful; or

(2) The defendant, with the intention of causing death or serious physical injury to the other person, provokes the use of physical force by such other person; or

(3) The defendant was the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon the other person under this circumstance is justifiable when:

(a) His initial physical force was nondeadly and the force returned by the other is such that he believes himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury; or

(b) He withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(1) Doesn't apply.
(2) No evidence presented in GZ's trial supports that premise.
(3) No evidence presented in GZ's trial supports that premise.

Please note (3)(a). Being the initial aggressor does not preclude a claim of self defense.

Clear as day. You are wrong.
 
The state could not prove that Zimmerman did anything but meet force with force. They could not prove that Zimmerman acted unreasonably when he thought his life was threatened. He would not have been found guilty in Kentucky...which is ridiculous conjecture in the first place. In fact, barring the political bull**** that went on in this case, I doubt he would have been charged in your state.

Here's what your state would have to prove:



(1) Doesn't apply.
(2) No evidence presented in GZ's trial supports that premise.
(3) No evidence presented in GZ's trial supports that premise.

Please note (3)(a). Being the initial aggressor does not preclude a claim of self defense.

Clear as day. You are wrong.


:lol:, your cherry picking. Like I said, I live here, I have seen a plenty of trials, so its not going to work on me. If Martin was trying to strangle Zimmerman, it might have been different, but all Zimmerman had to show was a bloody nose and few scratches, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out he just got scared when he started to lose. I would appreciate it if you gave me the link to the page you got KRS 503.060 on, so I may disprove you without searching online forever. To save some time, I just typed in "Self-Defense" into a legal dictionary, here is an excerpt that might interest you: "Generally a person may use REASONABLE FORCE when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. Martin's fists may have hurt, but they weren't deadly.
 
which was, and is, still a perfectly legal action...

both were acting and behaving fine... right up until violence was initiated.

I think this is a point that a lot of the race baiters are avoiding. They both did nothing illegal until Treyvon attacked the Zim. It's one of those chain of events things that could have been prevented if any one thing didn't happen.
 
:lol:, your cherry picking. Like I said, I live here, I have seen a plenty of trials, so its not going to work on me. If Martin was trying to strangle Zimmerman, it might have been different, but all Zimmerman had to show was a bloody nose and few scratches, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out he just got scared when he started to lose. I would appreciate it if you gave me the link to the page you got KRS 503.060 on, so I may disprove you without searching online forever. To save some time, I just typed in "Self-Defense" into a legal dictionary, here is an excerpt that might interest you: "Generally a person may use REASONABLE FORCE when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. Martin's fists may have hurt, but they weren't deadly.

interesting opinion....

see if you can answer this hypothetical..
if i start beating on you, how can you tell if my fists merely hurt, or if they are deadly?
how can you tell that my bashing your head into the concrete is merely hurtful, and not deadly?
 
No matter the race of the people involved, I find it unsettling that Florida law allows for a man to Stalk a teenage boy in his car and then on foot, call the police, ignore the responder telling him to stop following him, get into a confrontation with the teenager, and shoot the kid if at any point in the altercation he feels like his life is in danger. The jury's decision was pretty much the only option they had given Florida Law, and I hope I am not alone in thinking that it is a bit concerning.

Wow, you could just come out and say the only info you received about the case came from MSNBC. So off base it's staggering.
 
With SYG, Zimmerman could shoot him even if Zimmerman started the fight.

Again with the info from MSNBC? Good lord, do you WANT to look as foolish as you do?
 
interesting opinion....

see if you can answer this hypothetical..
if i start beating on you, how can you tell if my fists merely hurt, or if they are deadly?
how can you tell that my bashing your head into the concrete is merely hurtful, and not deadly?

First of all, that would be very rude of you. :lol: I've seen the pictures of Zimmerman's "Injuries" and I can tell you, I was more beat up after a schoolyard brawl in elementary school. He got scared and shot him, Its pretty obvious to me. Then there's the fact we cant conclusively prove Martin is the one that made those "injuries" but, nevertheless, I've never known a mere fistfight to be fatal. If you hit me, it would hurt, and not much else. And unless you bashed my head over and over again very, very, hard, all I would have is a nice headache.
 
:lol:, your cherry picking. Like I said, I live here, I have seen a plenty of trials, so its not going to work on me. If Martin was trying to strangle Zimmerman, it might have been different, but all Zimmerman had to show was a bloody nose and few scratches, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out he just got scared when he started to lose. I would appreciate it if you gave me the link to the page you got KRS 503.060 on, so I may disprove you without searching online forever. To save some time, I just typed in "Self-Defense" into a legal dictionary, here is an excerpt that might interest you: "Generally a person may use REASONABLE FORCE when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. Martin's fists may have hurt, but they weren't deadly.

There is a "reasonable man" consideration, Democrat152. A reasonable man would no doubt think his life was in jeopardy if he'd had his nose probably/possibly broken, had a man straddling him and boinking his head against a 1,000# slab of concrete, and started wrestling for his gun. That's the story Zimmerman told. And the state could not disprove it.

As to cherry-picking, it's your law. It's in your best interest to understand it -- in case somebody has pinned YOU down on the ground and is beating YOUR head against a sidewalk. Learn to use Google; it's your friend. Here's the link: http://legallyarmed.com/resources/kylaws23.pdf It's on Page 22. (All you have to do is Google part of what I posted, and it will come up. For future reference.)
 
Back
Top Bottom