It's already at war with itself. Don't you see how young blacks view white people?I really hope this trial is not the keystone that causes our nation to find itself at war with itself.
Supposedly part of the coroner's report that wasn't heard by the jury was the fact that TM showed signs of liver damage from it. Zimmerman was possibly right in his comment that TM may have been on something at the time other than having had some Marijuana.Quite familiar with "Lean" many years as a medic, what killed Trayvon was hate, his.
Wasn't in his blood stream. MJ was found. And a coroner could find liver damage but short of some absolute proof he took any substance it would be speculation.Supposedly part of the coroner's report that wasn't heard by the jury was the fact that TM showed signs of liver damage from it. Zimmerman was possibly right in his comment that TM may have been on something at the time other than having had some Marijuana.
I actually wouldn't fault the jury for concidering the SYG part of it. As you mention, if they concidered 776.012 which covers justifiable use of force, it is part of it.I've seen several commentators correct both Holder and other commentators on the same panel they're participating on that Zimmerman's was not a SYG law. The only channel I have kept totally away from is MSLSD, but CNN, HLN, Faux News and others have all had at least passing mention of that fact. The problem is that not only is the general public terminally ignorant about it, even the juror who Anderson Cooper interviewed said it was part of the basis for the acquittal in deliberations. She may be right in a weird kind of way, as SYG is basically just part of FL's self defense code sections, but you're absolutely right that SYG itself is not in question when a combatant is pinned under his attacker trying to escape (or retreat, whichever) and getting his culo beat.
I groaned so loud when I heard that juror say that, that my wife came out of the other room to see if I had hurt myself. I don't think it necessarily hurt the jury's credibility per se, but it sure didn't add to it either.
Blues
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
I actually wouldn't fault the jury for concidering the SYG part of it. As you mention, if they concidered 776.012 which covers justifiable use of force, it is part of it.
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
It is so simple a law that Holder and the others just can't seem to get a grasp of it.
oh boo hoo poor eric. win some lose some sucka. any lawyer knows that!
Think about this..... if the stand your ground law did not exist in Florida, then that would make Travon Martin a criminal because he did not flee from Zimmerman.
OK - now take this a step farther. Holder stated that the defender in a self defense situation (even under SYG) has a duty to retreat.
Holder stated that Zimmerman had a duty to retreat.
Therefore, without even realizing it or intending to, HOLDER DECLARED MARTIN THE AGGRESSOR, establishing Zimmerman's claim to self defense.
It doesn't matter if the issue if SYG or traditional self defense. If it is the defender who has the duty to retreat, and Zimmerman had a duty to retreat, then Martin was the aggressor. End of story.
Thank you for clearing that up, Mr. AG.
The New World Order is behind schedule. Nothing would please the African Marxists and other stinking Liberals who denigrate our White House more than a race war to hasten their agenda.
~ Yesterdays Prophecies-Today Headlines ~
Proof once again that a wasted mind is a terrible thing."African Marxists"? Someone needs to loosen that tinfoil hat it is WAY to tight..
First of all, Mr. AG, this was not an SYG defense, so your argument is moot. Zimmerman's defense was based entirely on the argument that he had no safe retreat - and a jury acquitted him.
But let's take your argument a little further. You said, "...people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat,..." In context, your argument is aimed at Zimmerman. You have stated that Zimmerman had a duty to retreat. Now, prosecution testimony was that MARTIN was the threatened party. Therefore, under your own argument, HE should have been the one with the duty to retreat. But your statement regarding duty to retreat, however, was directed at Zimmerman. Given your argument, therefore, one can only draw one conclusion - if Zimmerman had the duty to retreat, then MARTIN was the aggressor. In other words, Mr. AG, you have just declared Martin to be the aggressor and Zimmerman the victim/defender. Thank you for clearing that up for us.
You just confirmed the jury's verdict.
All the air would have escaped.I wonder what Eric Holder would have done if his head was being bounced off the concrete?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?