No, that statement is outright hyperbole and sarcasm. Get a grip, people. Then relax.
How does it belong in Great Debates, then?
No, it’s not. These people were, according to you, attempting to cause you harm for no reason. They would actually be committing a felony.
In FLA, if you had used lethal force to defend your life, you would have a chance to tell your story to a judge and a judge would decide if your action was justifiable homicide. If the SA had seen similar cases and the judge(s) had ruled that what ws done was in fact justifiable according to FLA law, there would be no point in charging you for defending your life.
If a group of individuals were chasing someone, treed them, and then killed them, they would have a chance to tell the judge why they felt that your actions had put their lives in danger. I believe that would be a very hard case to make. “Your honor, this guy was threatening to jump on us so we shot him.” ???
It should be hyperbole but given the source. No. This person has repeatedly made statements of “proof” about a lack of blood by referring to a grainy post-incident video when it was documented in the police report.
It’s hyperbole, but sadly, not that much.
Bricker, you probably know the statistics about convictions and executions of minorities versus whites better than anyone here…but here’s the link.
No, I don’t need that link. It’s one reason I oppose the death penalty. The death penalty – and harsh treatment by the justice system in general – is strongly tied to the race of the accused.
You are right. This is also one good reason why pure capitalism is immoral/unethical/unworkable. The different races/ethnicities/religions/regions almost inevitably oppress each other, so the government has to step in to help, at least partially, to level the playing field.
I agree that the government’s proper role is to ensure equal treatment under the law.
Where I suspect we may disagree is when the expectation of equal treatment begins to morph into a plan to ensure equal outcomes. A level playing field does not guarantee a tie score.
That’s like me saying I care about the plight of some alien on some far distant planet.
Maybe, in some extremely distant, uninvolved, largely theoretical way, you care about equal treatment. However, your obsession with the letter of the law largely crowds out any concern for equal treatment, when it comes to your actual behavior.
Please realize your credibility with me on this issue is pretty close to zero.
I think that just makes **Bricker **look better. I disagree with him on many issues, but you’re barking up the wrong tree here by assigning a pretty malicious motive to someone who disagrees with you on certain issues. He’s worked as a public defender - using his legal skills for everyone who came to him. Based on his posting history here I have no reason to believe he didn’t work equally hard for all of them. Why should we care about your uninformed opinion?
I think I shall throw myself under the nearest bus. How can I go on, knowing I have disappointed you so? Has a more wretched creature than I ever shambled across the surface of the Earth? I think not.
Look, my whole career as a PD was, in essence forcing the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide that equal treatment to poor people accused of crimes – forcing them to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every element of the crime, and not prevail if they could not.
Conservatism=supporting the status quo, those in power. etc.. (Roughly speaking, anyway).
The status quo in this country is to screw minorities, especially ones that are newer to the country.
Even if there’s no intentional racism, (and I make no absolute judgement about that, in Bricker’s case, I admit), there is effective racism.
It’s like those stories where someone is cleaning their gun and accidentally shoots someone. The intent isn’t there, but the effect is.
Yes. Martin did have a right to stand his ground. Unfortunately for him, he approached Zimmerman, the two had a short conversation, and Martin started punching Zimmerman and beating his head on the ground until Zimmerman believed his life was in danger.
Martin attack wasn’t nearly as effective as Zimmerman’s defense.
You probably shouldn’t be posting on a message board about what you saw that night.
And you’re confusing fact with speculation.
I disagree with your premise, and therefore with your conclusion. You’re saying anyone who takes a line of political reasoning that you dislike is effectively a racist. It’s poor logic, and poor politics.
A criminal court case has to be built one step at a time - in court. Internet speculation isn’t admissiable. There is an eyewitness, George Zimmerman, who, according to George Zimmerman’s brother, said that Martin approached Zimmerman from behind. The two men exchanged some “what are you doing here” comments and Martin began punching and beating Zimmerman.
Zimmerman has also given a statement to the police. Whatever Zimmerman said to the police after he was read his Miranda right’s will be produced in court.
From what I’ve seen so far, there is no one who is willing to swear in court and under oath that something else actually happened that night.
There a quite a few people who dispute Zimmerman’s story, for whatever personal reasons they may have, but none of them are considered “eyewitnesses”.
And what is your threshold for disbelief when it comes to his statement? It should be released in a couple of weeks, you know.
I’m wondering if there is any limit to what GZ can say before you start doubting his story. I strongly suspect your threshold is higher than most people in this thread, but the question is how high.
Inside the courtroom, it doesn’t matter what you or I think - it matters what can proved or disproved (disproven?). Saying that Zimmeman is a liar isn’t enough to prove he lied. :smack:
Producing no witnesses or evidence to contradict his story isn’t going to make your “feelings” any more admissable to the court. If there is a trial.
I can only judge by what I’ve seen released as evidence. An eyewitness that said the she didn’t see the confrontation, or the fight, or the shooting but insists that Zimmerman is guilty because Zimmerman didn’t apply CPR to Martin isn’t much of a witness for the State. Would you call a witness that has sworn that she/he didn’t actually see anthing?
When new evidence presents itself, I’ll readdress my position BASED on that new evidence.
Times 2.