• 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

Democrat152 said:
: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.
Click to expand...

I'm 100% sure had you been in Zimmerman shoes your first thought while someone was on top of you pounding you in the face and slamming your head against a concrete sidewalk would have been "this is only going to hurt it's not deadly". LOL. Fact is people trip, hit their head on hard objects such as sidewalks and die, much less when somebody else is pounding their head against one. Years ago I knew a man that was being held down on a asphalt parking lot and got punched in the face while his head was against the parking lot. He ended up with a crushed check bone, broken jaw and I don't remember all what else. He was very lucky he lived and he had about a six month or so recovery. I see no need or use in allowing somebody to kill you or damn near kill you, especially when they started the fight to begin because you are not 100% sure they are not going to kill you. If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd bet Martin would have done what Zimmerman did.
 
Democrat152 said:
I don't watch MSNBC...I watch CNN. You know, since its not beholden to one party.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, on both statements. :roll:

Neither is likely true, and we are still left with you having a very uninformed opinion.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
I'm 100% sure had you been in Zimmerman shoes your first thought while someone was on top of you pounding you in the face and slamming your head against a concrete sidewalk would have been "this is only going to hurt it's not deadly". LOL. Fact is people trip, hit their head on hard objects such as sidewalks and die, much less when somebody else is pounding their head against one. Years ago I knew a man that was being held down on a asphalt parking lot and got punched in the face while his head was against the parking lot. He ended up with a crushed check bone, broken jaw and I don't remember all what else. He was very lucky he lived and he had about a six month or so recovery. I see no need or use in allowing somebody to kill you or damn near kill you, especially when they started the fight to begin because you are not 100% sure they are not going to kill you. If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd bet Martin would have done what Zimmerman did.
Click to expand...

First of all, your acting as if Zimmerman is an infant. He was a grown man, and could have fought back. And like I said before, I have seen worse "injuries" in schoolyard fights. Then there's the fact Zimmerman had legs (it keeps being overlooked), and could have kicked him off. That, and according to Zimmerman's story, after he shot Martin he said "All right, you got me" and got off of him. Apparently Zimmerman didn't know he had shot him in the heart when he recounted his version of events......
 
Arbo said:
Yeah sure, on both statements. :roll:

Neither is likely true, and we are still left with you having a very uninformed opinion.
Click to expand...

Says the guy whose only argument is speculation on what I watch for news. :roll:
 
MaggieD said:
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.)
Click to expand...

That's his Story- keep the story part in mind. Martin had no bruising on his fists, which one would think would go along with punching Zimmerman "20-30" times. That and all the other inconsistencies in his story. Plus, he coulden't have hit his head on that sidewalk to many times, there was not even any blood back there. My brother fell down the stairs and hit his head on a vase and had to get stitches, which is nothing compared to getting your head slammed on a sidewalk. And on to Kentucky law, I came upon a court case in which a shootout between two men resulted in one being convicted of murder. And they both had guns. I seriously doubt Zimmerman would have had a chance.
 
Democrat152 said:
That's his Story- keep the story part in mind. Martin had no bruising on his fists, which one would think would go along with punching Zimmerman "20-30" times. That and all the other inconsistencies in his story. Plus, he coulden't have hit his head on that sidewalk to many times, there was not even any blood back there. My brother fell down the stairs and hit his head on a vase and had to get stitches, which is nothing compared to getting your head slammed on a sidewalk. And on to Kentucky law, I came upon a court case in which a shootout between two men resulted in one being convicted of murder. And they both had guns. I seriously doubt Zimmerman would have had a chance.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for those of you whom are against a person defending themselves against an attack if the attacker is black, the verdict was not guilty....That you can't accept that, it's just too damned bad....We are a society of innocent until proven guilty, and all the speculation you wish to apply doesn't matter, what matters are the facts, and the prosecution had a piss poor case from the start.
 
Democrat152 said:
That's his Story- keep the story part in mind. Martin had no bruising on his fists, which one would think would go along with punching Zimmerman "20-30" times. That and all the other inconsistencies in his story. Plus, he coulden't have hit his head on that sidewalk to many times, there was not even any blood back there. My brother fell down the stairs and hit his head on a vase and had to get stitches, which is nothing compared to getting your head slammed on a sidewalk. And on to Kentucky law, I came upon a court case in which a shootout between two men resulted in one being convicted of murder. And they both had guns. I seriously doubt Zimmerman would have had a chance.
Click to expand...

Then show me, in that Kentucky statute I posted, exactly which one the state could have proved against Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt. #1? #2? #3? And explain yourself.

You've lost here. You can't even admit you've been given food for thought.
 
Democrat152 said:
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.
Click to expand...

yeah, it would be rather rude eh..I'll be polite, i promise :lol:

on cinco de mayo, 2001, i punched my brother in law.. just a single solitary punch, with a lot of pent up anger behind it. ( he's 6' 225, i'm 6'4" 250)
he didn't bleed, i didn't cut him..in fact, he showed very little outward injury.
within seconds, he had pissed himself, started foaming at the mouth, and went into convulsions.. a few minutes later, he stopped breathing.
by the time his breathing stopped, my anger had passed, so I started CPR while the wife called the ambulance.
7 months later, he was released from the hospital.

that single punched caused massive damage to his brain housing group.

don't tell me that punches merely "hurt".. I know better.
had I not stuck around to watch, in satisfaction, him flopping around and foaming... he'd be dead... and I would be in prison for murder.( rightfully so)
he's stuck with not remembering anything about an entire year.. he doesn't remember me punching him, he doesn't remember the hospital stay, the multiple operations, the therapy... he remembers nothing.
he was an asshole of the highest order, and i took a year from his life and gave him a lifelong medical problem... and I did so illegally ( for which I plead guilty and have paid a price)


there are plenty of fatal fistfights... lots, in fact... it's an absurd notion to say there aren't, utterly absurd.
 
Thrilla said:
yeah, it would be rather rude eh..I'll be polite, i promise :lol:

on cinco de mayo, 2001, i punched my brother in law.. just a single solitary punch, with a lot of pent up anger behind it. ( he's 6' 225, i'm 6'4" 250)
he didn't bleed, i didn't cut him..in fact, he showed very little outward injury.
within seconds, he had pissed himself, started foaming at the mouth, and went into convulsions.. a few minutes later, he stopped breathing.
by the time his breathing stopped, my anger had passed, so I started CPR while the wife called the ambulance.
7 months later, he was released from the hospital.

that single punched caused massive damage to his brain housing group.

don't tell me that punches merely "hurt".. I know better.
had I not stuck around to watch, in satisfaction, him flopping around and foaming... he'd be dead... and I would be in prison for murder.( rightfully so)
he's stuck with not remembering anything about an entire year.. he doesn't remember me punching him, he doesn't remember the hospital stay, the multiple operations, the therapy... he remembers nothing.
he was an asshole of the highest order, and i took a year from his life and gave him a lifelong medical problem... and I did so illegally ( for which I plead guilty and have paid a price)


there are plenty of fatal fistfights... lots, in fact... it's an absurd notion to say there aren't, utterly absurd.
Click to expand...

10 y/o Joanna Ramos was punched in the head by an 11 y/o girl during a fight over a boy. one single punch to the head from an 11 y/o....6 hours later she was dead.
 
Thrilla said:
punches to the head are no joke... that's for damn sure.
Click to expand...

That's right, and for those in here trying to minimize, or even ignore the outward injuries to Z that night have NO clue what could have been the outcome, had a beating like that continued....But for the 'pot stirrers' in this world that doesn't matter, all that matters is how much they can stir the pot.
 
Democrat152 said:
Plus, he coulden't have hit his head on that sidewalk to many times, there was not even any blood back there..
Click to expand...

an outright lie. the first cop on the scene said there was blood back there. the EMTs said there was blood back there. an eyewitness said there was blood back there. multiple crime scene photos show there was blood back there.

when you lie about something so obviously true...it makes it very difficult to take anything you say seriously
 
Thrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

But this isn't like every other criminaol case; it is no doubt similar to some.

Because the "evidence," as you say, is exceedingly weak. That is, said "evidence" could never be used in a prosecutorial fashion. It was used by the defense to cast doubt on the alleged fault of Zimmerman.

That's fine. That's normal defense procedure. But it does not cast Martin as the assailant. We're talking about one witness...who was the defendant!--and then another witness who had zero idea how the two men got into the position they were in.

We just don't know. Zimmerman's story could be true...and that's all the defense needed.

There's been a lot of talk about assumptions on the part of Martin's supporters; what's amazing is the same people who point out that we don't know if those assumptions are true are the ones who assume everything against the dead person.

Based on...effectively nothing.

Rooting for one's "team" is antithetical to truth in matters like this.
 
Democrat152 said:
Says the guy whose only argument is speculation on what I watch for news. :roll:
Click to expand...

You can continue to attempt your spin, but the clear reality, based on your own words, is you have no clue when it comes to the Martin/Zimmerman case. Keep digging dude.
 
Democrat152 said:
Martin had no bruising on his fists,
Click to expand...

Can you explain how bruising occurs?

And if you know and understand that... um, how can that process happen, when your heart is not beating?

Thanks.
 
Strucker said:
But this isn't like every other criminaol case; it is no doubt similar to some.

Because the "evidence," as you say, is exceedingly weak. That is, said "evidence" could never be used in a prosecutorial fashion. It was used by the defense to cast doubt on the alleged fault of Zimmerman.

That's fine. That's normal defense procedure. But it does not cast Martin as the assailant. We're talking about one witness...who was the defendant!--and then another witness who had zero idea how the two men got into the position they were in.

We just don't know. Zimmerman's story could be true...and that's all the defense needed.

There's been a lot of talk about assumptions on the part of Martin's supporters; what's amazing is the same people who point out that we don't know if those assumptions are true are the ones who assume everything against the dead person.

Based on...effectively nothing.

Rooting for one's "team" is antithetical to truth in matters like this.
Click to expand...

the evidence was exceedingly weak?...wtf?.. did you even pay attention to the evidence?

all the evidence points to TM being the assailant.... all of it.

injuries on TM's knuckles, GZ's broken nose and cuts on his head...I don't know what more you require, but a reasonable person can only draw a single conclusion as to who the assailant was.

the only assumption by the Zim supporters I take exception to is over TM's character.... they have been letting loose with extremely reasonable assumptions of the event of that night though, assumptions which are corroborated by the physical evidence.

it doesn't really matter if TM supporters accept the evidence... it is what it is and it all points to TM being the assailant
 
Arbo said:
Can you explain how bruising occurs?

And if you know and understand that... um, how can that process happen, when your heart is not beating?

Thanks.
Click to expand...


the autopsy report noted injuries to Trayvon's knuckles..... and a gunshot wound.... that's the extent of his injuries.
Zim had a broken nose, 2 black eyes, and 2 cuts on the back of his head.

it's simply false to say he had no injuries to his hands.... let the folks who say thins argue with the medical examiner who did the autopsy
 
Democrat152 said:
That's his Story- keep the story part in mind. Martin had no bruising on his fists, which one would think would go along with punching Zimmerman "20-30" times. That and all the other inconsistencies in his story. Plus, he coulden't have hit his head on that sidewalk to many times, there was not even any blood back there. My brother fell down the stairs and hit his head on a vase and had to get stitches, which is nothing compared to getting your head slammed on a sidewalk. And on to Kentucky law, I came upon a court case in which a shootout between two men resulted in one being convicted of murder. And they both had guns. I seriously doubt Zimmerman would have had a chance.
Click to expand...


false, the medical examiner who did the autopsy noted injuries to TM knuckles.

any other false claims you would like us to address ?
 
God, what a moron we have as a president. That idiot, again, tried to churn up racism, where there is none. What the hell kind of jerk president does that? Is he trying to incite violence by falsely claiming that race was involved here? Sharpton, Jackson, etc... the usual race peddlers, and now Obama. Political and financial gain is what obviously motivates these people.

He might be Trayvon? What, a thug that punches someone because they are following him? Oh, just to point out what an idiot our mixed race president is, Zimmerman is the guy like him, mixed race. What a piece of garbage.
 
Democrat152 said:
First of all, your acting as if Zimmerman is an infant. He was a grown man, and could have fought back. And like I said before, I have seen worse "injuries" in schoolyard fights. Then there's the fact Zimmerman had legs (it keeps being overlooked), and could have kicked him off. That, and according to Zimmerman's story, after he shot Martin he said "All right, you got me" and got off of him. Apparently Zimmerman didn't know he had shot him in the heart when he recounted his version of events......
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I've just been around the block a time or two and can spot somebody that doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about from a mile off.
 
Seeing as how "Stand Your Ground" wasn't a part of this case, I think it is incredibly telling that the guy in charge of the Justice Department - you know, the department tasked with enforcement of laws and prosecutions involving the Federal Government - doesn't know what law the legal situation is in this case.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Seeing as how "Stand Your Ground" wasn't a part of this case...
Click to expand...
What the wha?

Um, it was central to the Zimmerman case.

The jury instructions:

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.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
What the wha?

Um, it was central to the Zimmerman case.

The jury instructions:

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.
Click to expand...

how does one retreat when another person is on top of them?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
What the wha?

Um, it was central to the Zimmerman case.

The jury instructions:

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.
Click to expand...

Where exactly can one retreat to if someone is on top of them beating them?

Again, SYG had nothing to do with the case...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom