Oh sure, a racist WOULD say something like that! :dubious:
Who are you, and what have you done with Bricker?
(Just raggin’ you, hoss! That was good.)
Does it help?
This should be the first post in every thread on this subject.
I don’t approve of “hate crime” laws, I do not want to witness the spectacle of lawyers arguing over what someone was thinking at a particular moment in time. Seems to me that this law more or less depends upon that sort of telepathy, in that it suggests that if someone can say they were in fear of grievous bodily harm, they cannot even be legally arrested.
“Of course I shot that Hawking fellow, he was coming right for me, with an evil glint in his eye, as if he intended to crush my foot beneath his wheelchair! Because that’s how he rolls!..”
Edit: By the way, why was Zimmerman in handcuffs if he were not under arrest?
The law does seem to shift burdens a bit, too much. But, it was in place. Maybe it should be changed, but to retroactively blame police for following it seems to be wrongfully-place ire.
elucidator I honestly answered your question. I tried to respond to your “Dallas” comment. Please tell me what point you were trying to make. Also, why make this into a gun/no gun issue? I do believe that is a factor as to positions people are taking on this, but you have gun carrying people supporting you, why alienate them? Hell, there are probably lawyers on your side, why insult all of us with a broad brush? Unfortunately, I now see your position as based in prejudice against guns. And I see you as a bit petty based on your lawyer comments. Thank you though for reminding me why I stay out of GD.
As an aside, not directed anywhere, I talked to a good friend yesterday who is black and corporate counsel for a big company. He grew up in a fancy schmancy part of the US, but he told me to be more understanding of people, especially blacks, who have an issue with the police and tend to believe the worse about them. He’s been pulled over several times for DWB (driving while black) and been frisked etc. He reminded me I almost always assume police are there to help. But I still think objectiveness has to sneak in at some point, no matter what your prejudices are–be they “trust the police” or “fear the police.”
Yes it’s crazy. In short, it means all a murderer has to do is claim he was threatened or under attack and he gets a free pass. Of course it is in his best interest to make sure the target dies.
Offered without comment.
Too lazy to link but there is a GQ thread on the subject.
This case is a perfect demonstration of why the law is bad. Who was defending himself? Martin was walking while talking on his cell phone. Some guy (with a gun), not in uniform, no badge, no marked vehicle, starts stalking him. Martin feels threatened. The law (as I understand it) gives Martin the right to stand his ground and beat the shit out of the guy. At what point does it pass from being Martin’s self defense to Zimmerman’s. You could make the argument that this law makes it legal to have a full-blown shootout. Taken to its extreme, Florida could have Mexican style drug gang violence and the cops wouldn’t even be able to arrest anybody.
I would think a just court would find that under the circumstances the law applied to Martin and not Zimmerman because Zimmerman was the stalker.
This whole thing is messed up. The Florida legislature and all those that lobbied for the law should be held culpable.
Thank you, and here is another pic I saw. It does appear that there is something the matter with Zimmerman’s nose.
Anyway, I have a feeling that better pictures are coming up the pike.
Also, if you look at this video, there appears to be some kind of red discoloration on the back of Zimmerman’s head.
I don’t see discolorations on his head, but his nose does look red and swollen.
But that shirt and jacket are spotless. Not even a wrinkle.
brazil, repeatedly linking to possibly altered photographs on wildly biased and completely disreptutable websites doesn’t make quite the point you’re hoping to.
Lol, what photographs on the internet are NOT “possibly altered”?
Lol, nice ad homenim.
Exactly what is my point, in your view? This is the last time I’m asking.
Promise?
None. But the one on the Daily Caller was *admittedly *altered.
Whatever. Anyone with approximately one more functioning brain cell than you possess doesn’t need my help to be convinced of the bias of the websites you’ve linked to.
Ask as many times as you like, if it never ceases to amuse you. Me, I got bored with that game quite some time ago.
This.
How does one get a “broken nose”, and have not a single spot of blood anywhere on their face or clothing? It’s not possible.
Whoa, hold it! What? When was it “admitted”? Not that I’m shocked that it was, only that they admitted it. Advise.
Also, I don’t know how many of you have taken a hard hit to the back of the head, but in my experience it doesn’t leave one quite so sprightly.