It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Holder wades deeper into Zimmerman battle, calls for review of ‘stand-your-ground’

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Zimmerman and his lawyers didn't use Stand Your Ground...they waived that and fell onto basic self-defense....but does that matter to you?!

ETA: The "response" from around the nation is only a minute amount of people...how does that equate to what the Nation wants? This is a State issue; not a Federal issue. Do people understand Federalism or Republicanism anymore?


The biggest problem I have with self-defense being used in this way is the fact that we only have Zimmerman's word that it was Travon Martin who initiated the fight. Assuming that both men have the same right to self-defense, it makes a huge difference who actually started the fight. Just because Travon was getting the best of Zimmerman when witnesses finally looked upon the scene doesn't mean that Travon initiated the fight, it only means that he was winning at the time.

Under that premiss, all I have to do is to goad someone into a fight, let them get the best of me for a minute and then shoot them dead and claim self-defense. That's just a little too easy for me.




posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


When someone is screaming and down, you are no longer defending yourself. You have crossed the line at that point, he was yelling and not fighting for like 45 seconds. If say he grabbed him, and that is why he got punched in the face, fine. Jumping on someone that is down and pummelling them is not self defense anymore.
edit on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 19:56:03 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
There are plenty of cases where a group chases down a person trying to flee and serious harms or kills them. So much for fleeing danger.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
The biggest problem I have with self-defense being used in this way is the fact that we only have Zimmerman's word that it was Travon Martin who initiated the fight. Assuming that both men have the same right to self-defense, it makes a huge difference who actually started the fight. Just because Travon was getting the best of Zimmerman when witnesses finally looked upon the scene doesn't mean that Travon initiated the fight, it only means that he was winning at the time.


It is the State who has decided to pursue the notion otherwise though. The State decided it was going to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. Regardless of who started the confrontation, the State needed to prove their case; they failed miserably at it. So just because Zimmerman fired the shot, doesn't mean that Martin didn't start the fight or did start the fight; it merely means that Zimmerman was not guilty of 2nd degree murder in the State's eyes.

You make a lot of assumptions to fit your view that Zimmerman is guilty.


Under that premiss, all I have to do is to goad someone into a fight, let them get the best of me for a minute and then shoot them dead and claim self-defense. That's just a little too easy for me.


You are still making a lot of assumptions to come to your ill-conceived notions. Logically you created this to fit your view rather than letting facts fit it.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Flatfish
 


When someone is screaming and down, you are no longer defending yourself. You have crossed the line at that point, he was yelling and not fighting for like 45 seconds. If say he grabbed him, and that is why he got punched in the face, fine. Jumping on someone that is down and pummelling them is not self defense anymore.


Oh, well excuse me. I had no idea you were there and witnessed the whole thing.

I was a longshoreman for 32 years and in case you hadn't heard, they're a pretty rough crowd. During my tenure, the union where I worked had five different hiring halls and people got shot at every one of them. I've seen more fights and been at more shootings than I even care to describe and I can tell you this, no one sits there for 45 seconds and doesn't fight back. Unless of course, they're knocked out or busy going for their gun.

This you can take to the bank; There are two sides to every coin and a one-sided story is never the whole truth.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I'm not saying that the jury had much choice under Florida law and the case as presented by the prosecution. I think one of the jurors even stated as much and therein lies the problem.

Florida law has a gaping loophole, where a young man who wasn't proven to have done anything other than defend himself, is dead and no one is held accountable in any way.

In case you hadn't noticed, as with the recent laws enacted to combat online gaming in Florida, their republican controlled state legislature isn't very good at writing laws and their poor governor is dumber than a goldfish.


edit on 16-7-2013 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Now they want to go after the 10th Amendment??? It's a States issue, the Federal government needs to butt out of State's affairs in what laws they enact.

Of all the things to use the "Bully Pulpit" for, the current Administration chooses very odd things, this speech included. They are the most reactive Administration I have seen in my lifetime. Not Leading, Not Uniting, that's for sure.

I'm sure they will play this angle up to divert attention to the other scandals that preceded it.Classic diversion.

edit on 16-7-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by XTexan
 


Running from a predator only increases their instinctual drive to attack.

Just seeing this clown makes me mad. It is his leadership of the DOJ that has refused to prosecute black panthers for voter intimidation. It is he that said we are a nation of "cowards" when it comes to race.

Retreat when faced with an attack? Nah, probably won't be doing that.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
This is all I have to say...

www.youtube.com...
edit on 16-7-2013 by jbrown because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
I'm not saying that the jury had much choice under Florida law and the case as presented by the prosecution. I think one of the jurors even stated as much and therein lies the problem.


Their choice was self-defense and the fact that prosecution tried to argue 2nd degree murder; if anything, people should be more up in arms regarding the charges levied as they did not fit the (charged)crime. The prosecution buried itself on this one.


Florida law has a gaping loophole, where a young man who wasn't proven to have done anything other than defend himself, is dead and no one is held accountable in any way.


What is the gaping loophole? Try describing it without evoking emotionally charged instances. The defense claimed self-defense; they demonstrated this. The prosecution claimed 2nd degree murder; they fell flat on their faces with this.


In case you hadn't noticed, as with the recent laws enacted to combat online gaming in Florida, their republican controlled state legislature isn't very good at writing laws and their poor governor is dumber than a goldfish.


Lets keep the hyperbole out of the equation. Self-defense is not a republican/democrat issue. It is a human-right issue of self-preservation.

Here is a question: If the tables were turned, would you be so adamant if Trayvon fired the shot and killed Zimmerman (assuming the media would have cared)?
edit on 16-7-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
"its time to question laws, that senselessly expand the concept of self defense, and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods"

you mean like continuity of government?



/dronestrikeself



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


you mean like this guy ?

he got stomped. but im sure if he had a gun and used it....well...there would be nationwide marches for thug A, B and C.



edit on 16-7-2013 by LurkingRelentlessly because: cahtn spel



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Just because Zimmerman had the luck of not having CCTV watching everything he must be guilty.

Lets put CCTV everywhere so that the wrong person will not be charged with crimes.

As if criminals will perform for the cameras. Make Detroit or Chicago safe cover every inch of the streets with CCTV coverage



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Enough already! Maybe the media should have spent as much time on the false evidence for going to war with Iraq instead of the Zimmerman trial. If our government steps in on this, it clearly shows our government wants to control our court system and laws when they personally don't agree with it.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL

"But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely," Holder said. "By allowing -- and perhaps encouraging -- violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety."


Yeah he would like that wouldn't he? You got to run like a little girl and call daddy for help. Pathetic. That way works wonderful for all the giant liberal cities out there doesn't it. These fools want us to be defenseless, helpless, looking to authority to do everything. To hell with that.


edit on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:25:09 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


Not only that, but how does the stand your ground law even apply in this case? How can you even retreat when your ambushed and someone is on top of you.. Even without "stand your ground" it still would have been a good shoot.

Gs



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I'm a moderate in my views.

But I gotta agree.

If someone is trying to hurt you. You should be able to protect yourself.

I say make a law that requires everyone to carry a gun. You see a crime you stop it.

you know what they say. An armed society is a polite society.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

I totally agree with you. Excellent post.

I don't know how anyone can back this administration.
And yet, they are backing Holder and even cheering him on.
People are idiots ....



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


Never paid attention to the words in that old song. Good post!



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


I floated a similar idea in a crime-ridden city I once lived in. Sort of a universal deputizing. Everyone is responsible for everyone else and everyone is liable for their own actions.

Basically how a society is meant to operate. Brothers keeper and all.

How we have it now with everyone casting off all liability and charging a select corruptible few with all the responsibility has made us all dependent, weak, selfish and corrupted.

Of course my idea was shot down. The cops hated me for it. The parents of all the thugs feared their gangster wannabee kids would be dying for their "harmless" muggings and burglaries and the politicians figured my brand of "extremism" was just the cause to unite against to win their elections.

Sigh.....



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I have to bring this issue here because it seems that Holder is kind of getting a lot of attention lately specially while pushing the racial card with the Zimmerman verdict

Stormdancer777 Brings a great issue on another thread that perhaps Holder is been propped to become the next presidential candidate after Obama for the Democrats.

Perhaps if this is true we may see more from him in the coming days, like Neo so well explain the agenda against citizens rights is in full gear and is fools that will welcome new anti citizens right laws with open arms this days when the "right puppet" is pushing the issue.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join