Suppose George Zimmerman did what he was told... did what he was trained to do as a Neighborhood Watchman. ]
Ummm he did exactly what he was supposed to do, he seen someone suspicious and he called the police, he kept an eye on him. There was no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after the dispatcher told him to not follow him. Again you are trying to make up your own case with no evidence, exactly why the prosecutors failed.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Do they know the case was not tried under stand your ground? Even if it was Zimmerman would still be in the clear, self defense is not a law it is a RIGHT.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Do they know the case was not tried under stand your ground? Even if it was Zimmerman would still be in the clear, self defense is not a law it is a RIGHT.
If everyone practiced "stand your ground", it might have looked like this...
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
If everyone practiced "stand your ground", it might have looked like this...
Stand your ground is a right if you are not the aggressor, I don't see what you have against it to be honest with you. It basically says you do not have to cower in the face of a threat. Even NY understands this right, they ask if you can escape to try to but that is common sense, if not and you have a fear for your life you have every right to defend yourself using deadly force. I can think of 2 cases in Schenectady alone, one incident was on Eastern Ave, someone broke into the house of a man in a wheelchair, the owner blew him away with a shotgun. Another case was on Albany St, someone broke into the owners store and went towards him with a screwdriver, again the burglar was shot and killed. So what exactly is your problem with protecting your life and property.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Stand your ground is a right if you are not the aggressor, I don't see what you have against it to be honest with you. It basically says you do not have to cower in the face of a threat. Even NY understands this right, they ask if you can escape to try to but that is common sense, if not and you have a fear for your life you have every right to defend yourself using deadly force. I can think of 2 cases in Schenectady alone, one incident was on Eastern Ave, someone broke into the house of a man in a wheelchair, the owner blew him away with a shotgun. Another case was on Albany St, someone broke into the owners store and went towards him with a screwdriver, again the burglar was shot and killed. So what exactly is your problem with protecting your life and property.
George Zimmerman was the aggressor. He caused the event. He stalked Martin and shot him when he could have walked away. Zimmerman's life was not in danger nor was the life of any other person who lived in that neighborhood. The ONLY person who's life was in danger was Martins, and he lost it because Zimmerman wanted it to end that way.
My cartoon is just a cartoon, but it does have a point. Could Martin have shot Zimmerman if he was walking home alone on a rainy night and being followed by a Creepy Cracker??? If Martin had the gun and Zimmerman didn't... under your own stand your ground view... Martin could have said he was in fear of losing his life and just shot Zimmerman.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Stand your ground is a right if you are not the aggressor, I don't see what you have against it to be honest with you. It basically says you do not have to cower in the face of a threat. Even NY understands this right, they ask if you can escape to try to but that is common sense, if not and you have a fear for your life you have every right to defend yourself using deadly force. I can think of 2 cases in Schenectady alone, one incident was on Eastern Ave, someone broke into the house of a man in a wheelchair, the owner blew him away with a shotgun. Another case was on Albany St, someone broke into the owners store and went towards him with a screwdriver, again the burglar was shot and killed. So what exactly is your problem with protecting your life and property.
George Zimmerman was the aggressor. He caused the event. He stalked Martin and shot him when he could have walked away. Zimmerman's life was not in danger nor was the life of any other person who lived in that neighborhood. The ONLY person who's life was in danger was Martins, and he lost it because Zimmerman wanted it to end that way.
My cartoon is just a cartoon, but it does have a point. Could Martin have shot Zimmerman if he was walking home alone on a rainy night and being followed by a Creepy Cracker??? If Martin had the gun and Zimmerman didn't... under your own stand your ground view... Martin could have said he was in fear of losing his life and just shot Zimmerman.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
No, he could have just shot Zimmerman if Zimmerman was beating on him.
Or he could have just shot Zimmerman and SAID that he was beating on him. Then Martin could have scratched the back of his head and whined about "I was in fear for my life" the way Zimmerman did.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The jury looked at all the evidence. In the 9/11 case, we are supposed to believe the facts, but not in the Zimmerman case?
I believe the jury in the Martin Murder case came to a fair decision, with the evidence presented to them.
Sometimes there is a murder, but not enough evidence to convict the murderer.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I believe the jury in the Martin Murder case came to a fair decision, with the evidence presented to them.
Sometimes there is a murder, but not enough evidence to convict the murderer.
There wasn't enough evidence to convict him of anything, the only reason this went to trial is because of the fake outrage by the media and race baiters, the prosecutors knew they had nothing and it showed throughout the whole trial.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
In the Casey Anthony case, there was a murder, and supposedly not enough evidence to convict the murderer. In the Zimmerman case, there was plenty of evidence, no question as to whether he pulled the trigger and killed Trayvon Martin, and under the law, that was not murder. So George Zimmerman is not a murderer who got away with it. If the person going into people's houses gets shot by an occupant, under the law, that won't be murder, either. The Trayvon Martin case is a tragedy, a young kid died, but it has been presented as a white guy shooting a black kid who was just passing through, and that is not what happened. There was afight. People have been using this as an excuse for claims that young black males are at risk of being murdered by white people just for innocently walking down the street, and that is wrong, and it is so far away from reality as to be hilarious if you didn't have people like are president exploiting this tragic death for their own obscene benefit. Bill Cosby and Dr. Benjamin Carson are two people who spoke intelligently on this case, from a black perspective, without resorting to race-baiting for personal gain. IMO, that is.
Look at the cop in the picture...What an unrealistic depiction. Where is the tasar, pepper spray, body armor and the other 20 cops in riot gear that would have riddled the black guy holding the gun with 100 rounds?
There wasn't enough evidence to convict him of anything, the only reason this went to trial is because of the fake outrage by the media and race baiters, the prosecutors knew they had nothing and it showed throughout the whole trial.
We agree the prosecution never had their heart into this case. They made half of the Defense case for them.
If Zimmerman were black, and Martin was lily white, the outcome of the Prosecution case and the jury's verdict might have been very different.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
