Obama Is Using Race To Divide This Country With The Zimmerman Verdict

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's the whole part:

 

 

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Shorter version: whether or not the defense used SYG law in their arguments, here's what Florida's SYG laws says and you can use it to acquit George Zimmerman.

[calfoxwc]

Okay, Heck. Let's make this simpler. Experts say that "Stand Your Ground" had nothing to do with this trial.

 

It was mentioned, blah blah, was it was not actually a part of the trial. With no Syg law, the trial would have

 

been the same, and the verdict would have been the same. Hell, man, even critics of the Stand Your Ground law admit

that "Stand Your Ground" mentioned, is a HUGE RED HERRING. So, again, Steve was absolutely correct.

 

Here:

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/despite-outcry-zimmermans-acquittal-was-not-based-on-stand-your-ground-laws/2131629

http://exposethemedia.com/2013/07/18/despite-backlash-stand-your-ground-laws-did-not-apply-to-zimmerman-case/

Sen. Tom Lee, Republican from Brandon, who was president of the Florida Senate when stand your ground legislation was passed in 2005.

“I have yet to talk to anyone who believes the stand your ground provisions were remotely relevant to this case,” said Lee, who believes the law is working the way it was intended. “For me, this case centered on your right to defend yourself.”

More legitimately, this trial was about the anti gun lobby of the left, and staying in the good graces of the leftwing

major subgroup of the black vote core.

So, yes, it was NOT a part of the Zimmerman case. And YES, it is most certainly considered a Red Herring. Even a HUGE red herring.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/18/stand-your-ground-critics-admit-it-was-a

[calfoxwc]

The judge was out of line. The trial was not about SYG.

That she brought it up, was a bone tossed to Obamao, Holder, and the

democrat left who wants to go after gun laws. That's what I think. There isn't

any other explanation, except maybe the judge is a stupidass incompetent. Take your choice....

 

IOW's, if the Zimmerman defense was "SYG", it would not have applied. The judge was inferring

that Zimmerman could, or not, have simply avoided the situation. But she also said he had a right

to be where he was, doing what he was doing.

 

And she refused to admit serious evidence against the prosecution talking points. And the prosecution

sandbagged other evidence for about six months, according to the one defense attorney. With no

order or reprimand from the judge. That withholding of evidence was illegal. And the judge stayed out of it

for months.

 

And, the same judge harrassed Zimmerman and his legal counsel over not testifying, I think, in front

of the jury, but that may not be true.

 

See the big picture? Put the puzzle pieces together, and you get a kangaroo court.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're mixing up two different things.

 

I'm not stating that the jury used SYG laws to acquit Zimmerman. I'm not stating that the defense used it. I'm simply saying that the judge told the jury they could use it if they like.

 

Because clearly she did. You can read it right there.

 

You guys seem to be employing this logic (I know, I know, a logic debate with Cal) that says that because SYG laws weren't used in the trial (except that they were in the jury's instructions) they shouldn't be discussed by anyone. Like, when John McCain says we should revisit these laws and decide whether or not they're wise, doesn't he know they are a red herring???

 

I don't know what part of that makes sense.

 

If you guys love SYG laws so much then you should be happy to debate them.

[heckofajobbrownie]

The judge was out of line. The trial was not about SYG.

That she brought it up, was a bone tossed to Obamao, Holder, and the

democrat left who wants to go after gun laws. That's what I think. There isn't

any other explanation, except maybe the judge is a stupidass incompetent. Take your choice....

 

Well, there you go. So I'm right. She did bring it up. Because mentioning the law in Florida to jurors in a Florida murder case taking place in Florida is stupidass incompetent.

[heckofajobbrownie]

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds an overwhelming racial gap divides public attitudes on the Trayvon Martin case and the fairness of the criminal justice system.

By a vast 86% to 9%, African-Americans disapprove of the verdict acquitting George Zimmerman of criminal charges in Martin's death, while whites approve by 51% to 31%. Blacks, by 81% to 13%, favor federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman; whites are opposed, 59% to 27%.

A new Pew Research poll finds roughly as many satisfied with the verdict in the case as dissatisfied, 39% to 42%, with 19% offering no opinion.

 

[calfoxwc]

Polls don't make it a case of Stand Your Ground.

And, yes, she mentioned it, and it was not part of the case.

IOW's, "Stand Your Ground" was not pertinent.

 

So, if Zimmerman;s legal counsel went with that, based on

the false assumption that it was pertinent, then Zimmerman "could have"

avoided the confrontation. Yeah, by not staying home, right?

 

It was not what the case was about. Experts all over are saying that.

 

Not sayin it wasn't mentioned. It should not have been. You're wrong to say

it was what the case was about.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm not saying that's what the case was about, Silly Old Man. I'm saying it was in the jury's instructions, so not irrelevant.

 

Also not posting poll numbers to make the case for SYG being part of the trial, Silly Old Man. That's separate. Just to add to the discussion.

 

And now I've spoken with you way longer than I should have. Back to work.

[heckofajobbrownie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi54TEbXdLc

[calfoxwc]

You posted McCain ? Ouch.

 

Nobody takes him seriously. HE is the "silly old man",

 

you lizard lipped tuna head.

 

Anyways, thanks for discussing it a bit with me.

 

(oh, yeah, and you're wrong. @@)

[heckofajobbrownie]

Because you guys are so sick in the head that you'll only accept something that comes from someone with a "R" next to their name.

[calfoxwc]

Wrong, McCain doesn't rate an R. Unless it's R for Rino, and

 

we don't need no stinkin Rinos. Want me to post a whole bunch

 

of em who are pro 2nd Amendment to prove it?

 

Nah. You don't. Then I would be cherry...picking, ....too.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And this is the problem. You guys are actually to the point were John McCain - John McCain, lifelong conservative and the Party's nominee for president in 2008 - is not sufficiently conservative for you, so much so that you consider him an apostate.

 

John McCain.

[calfoxwc]

Somewhere along the way, McCain started to be influenced by the liberal dark side.

 

I honestly think he's lost his marbles, and it's just starting to show the last 6 years or so.

[Stewy]

Because you guys are so sick in the head that you'll only accept something that comes from someone with a "R" next to their name.

 

 

Lol..the irony Liberalism is a mental disorder. Being smart enough to recognize "R" as the lesser of two evils is hardly being sick in the head.

 

Liberalism is a mental disorder, so says psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter:

.http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/psychiatrist_co.html

 

 

Among Rossiter's observations:

The roots of liberalism — and its associated madness — can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.

 

A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity — as liberals do.

 

A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population — as liberals do.

 

And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state — as liberals do.

 

Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.

[Westside Steve]

great, ten thousand words later and you admit it's not a stand your ground case. wonderful. stand your ground is a red herring so Obama and Eric Holder can whip up the natives. don't forget 2014 is right around the corner.

 

PS, there isn't really any white culture. there is no separate antisocial behavior that all or most whites affect because of their skin color.

 

responsibility education work ethic honor family self respect is just part of human American culture one would hope with no bearing race. maybe only in fantasy land but still a good blueprint for any society.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

And "there is a separate antisocial behavior that all or most blacks affect because of their skin color?"

[heckofajobbrownie]

great, ten thousand words later and you admit it's not a stand your ground case. wonderful. stand your ground is a red herring so Obama and Eric Holder can whip up the natives. don't forget 2014 is right around the corner.

 

 

It's not a red herring. You're simply repeating what you've been repeating for weeks as if nothing new has happened. The judge told them about SYG law in the jury's instructions and then the jurors ...used SYG law in their decision.

 

COOPER: Did you feel like you understood the instructions from the judge, because they were very complex. I mean reading them, they were tough to follow.

 

JUROR: Right. And that was our problem. It was just so confusing what went with what and what we could apply to what. Because there was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading it over and over and over again, we decided there is just no way -- other place to go.

 

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second-degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied.

 

JUROR: Right. Well because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or that he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."

 

 

...So how is it a red herring again, Steve? You've got the judge explaining SYG ground to the jury, and instructing them that they can use it to acquit George Zimmerman. Then you've got a juror saying they used SYG law to acquit George Zimmerman. So how is it a red herring again? Just not involved in this case at all, is it, bud?

 

And even if had never been mentioned in the trial, what's wrong with revisiting a bunch of laws that were recently put on the books and deciding whether or not they set the legal bar at the wrong place? People can't actually believe that these are bad laws. It's only for the midterm elections, right?

 

Jeez.

[calfoxwc]

The right to self defense does not mean the same thing as 'Stand your Ground".

 

You don't have to run for your life so you can avoid getting beaten/murdered/etc...

 

That's "Stand Your Ground".

 

Zimmerman was mma "ground and pound" by an experienced mma style street fighter, who

had him pinned to the ground, and was pounding his face and beating his head into the sidewalk.

 

So, Zimmerman is supposed to run when he can't get up? He's supposed to flee when he

has no ability to flee?

 

That's what is so-o-o-o-o stupid about all this. Stand Your Ground means, if you are fishing, for example,

and some heck type of guy wanders out of the woods with a machete, stoned and irritated, and he's

coming at you, you don't have to try to escape from him, you can stand your ground and shoot him

as he comes at you.

 

Zimmerman was pinned to the ground, could not get up. There is no op to flee the confrontation.

 

The judge was out of line, and I believe she brought it up for political purposes - she did other things

to help the prosecution. Obamao already stepped in it and took Martin's side for racial and votes reasons only.

 

The juror equated "Stand Your Ground" with Zimmerman's case of self-defense, but it was not. The judge screwed that up.

Zimmerman's legal counsel NEVER used Stand Your Ground. It's because the situation was not part of that.

IOW's, Stand Your Ground is only part of Self-defense.

 

What kind of stupidass judge overrides the defense with

a part of the law that doesn't apply?

 

A political hack, pro-prosecution dishonest one. IOW's, the prosecution desperately wanted to save face

by getting Zimmerman on the stand, and bringing Stand Your Ground into it, then trying to discredit Zimmerman

by arguing that Stand Your Ground didn't apply to him.

 

It's ignorant, and completely disingenuous, to figure after the fact, that Zimmerman should have fled

back to his car because he knew he was going to be sucker confronted by Martin before it happened.

 

Enough with the lefty ulterior motives and the lib politically-self-serving false narratives

[calfoxwc]

RED FREAKIN HERRING.

********************************

here:

 

I'll post it again so Heck will eventually understand and quit parroting the pro-Martin judge.

******************************************************

The right to self defense does not mean the same thing as 'Stand your Ground".

 

You don't have to run for your life so you can avoid getting beaten/murdered/etc...

 

That's "Stand Your Ground".

 

Zimmerman was mma "ground and pound" by an experienced mma style street fighter, who

had him pinned to the ground, and was pounding his face and beating his head into the sidewalk.

 

So, Zimmerman is supposed to run when he can't get up? He's supposed to flee when he

has no ability to flee?

 

That's what is so-o-o-o-o stupid about all this. Stand Your Ground means, if you are fishing, for example,

and some heck type of guy wanders out of the woods with a machete, stoned and irritated, and he's

coming at you, you don't have to try to escape from him, you can stand your ground and shoot him

as he comes at you.

 

Zimmerman was pinned to the ground, could not get up. There is no op to flee the confrontation.

 

The judge was out of line, and I believe she brought it up for political purposes - she did other things

to help the prosecution. Obamao already stepped in it and took Martin's side for racial and votes reasons only.

 

The juror equated "Stand Your Ground" with Zimmerman's case of self-defense, but it was not. The judge screwed that up.

Zimmerman's legal counsel NEVER used Stand Your Ground. It's because the situation was not part of that.

IOW's, Stand Your Ground is only part of Self-defense. What kind of stupidass judge overrides the defense with

a part of the law that doesn't apply?

 

A political hack, pro-prosecution dishonest one. IOW's, the prosecution desperately wanted to save face

by getting Zimmerman on the stand, and bringing Stand Your Ground into it, then trying to discredit Zimmerman

by arguing that Stand Your Ground didn't apply to him.

 

It's ignorant, and completely disingenuous, to figure after the fact, that Zimmerman should have fled

back to his car because he knew he was going to be sucker confronted by Martin before it happened.

 

Enough with the lefty ulterior motives and the lib politically-self-serving false narratives

[Westside Steve]

Horseshit.

You're only yammering about it because Obama and Holder are trying to change the subject. So in your mind who was standing his ground in this situation?

 

it couldn't be Zimmeman, he was attacked.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm just telling you the facts. You've got the judge explaining SYG in the jury's instructions, which you're not disputing because it's right there in front of your face, and one of the jurors on record saying they used the law to acquit George Zimmerman, which you're not disputing because it's right there in front of your face.

 

What do you want me to tell you?

 

Yes or no, Steve. Do you believe this juror when she says she used the SYG law to acquit George Zimmerman? And if the answer is that you do, because she said so, then how on earth is SYG not relevant to this case?

 

Look. When you first stated that it wasn't part of the defense, you were correct. But pretending that it did not come into the case at the end is, well, sort of silly when you're looking at statements from the actual people involved saying it was involved.

[Westside Steve]

JUROR: Right. Well because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or that he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right. [CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, 7/15/13]

 

So I really can't help it if jurors don't understand.

I think you understand but you can't help but defend Holder and Obama.

They, and you, are just playing to your audience.

 

Zimmerman was physically attacked whether you like it or not. He was not standing his ground he was defending himself. I'm sorry it upsets you. Don't worry the president is getting plenty of traction from his base and that's all that matters right?

 

And it really is like the Seinfeld joke about not wanting to be tried by people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

....

 

 

 

 

You're missing his point

[Westside Steve]

No you are missing, actually avoiding, mine. This is not a stand your ground case. No one was standing his ground. No one used it as a defense.

This is simply a case of self defense.

 

WSS

[MLD Woody]

What Heck is saying and what you THINK Heck is saying are two different things

[Westside Steve]

I don't think you have a clue number one about it.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Heck is grabbing at straws to say that the judge brought it up to the jury, and the one juror,

 

referred to it - to defend the left's antagonism toward gun ownership in general, and

 

"Stand Your Ground" laws are part of that in states where they have it. Not the same as "Castle Doctrine"....

 

I have no doubt that the left will go after "Castle Doctrine" etc, if they are successful in going after "Stand Your Ground" laws.

 

They won't be, though. That's what I think.

 

We are saying, that the situation was NOT a "Stand Your Ground" case. That is true - the defense didn't use it to defend

Zimmeran. "Stand Your Ground" is PART of SELF-DEFENSE. Not equal to it.

 

Heck either isn't grasping the concept, or as usual, he refuses to admit what's true.

 

He's cherry-picking the judges improper inclusion of an element of self-defense that does not apply.

 

Damn, it isn't that hard.

[MLD Woody]

I don't think you have a clue number one about it.

WSS

No... no... lol

 

But you guys keep posting, it is funny