Politics | Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88271)5/16/2012 11:56:51 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation   of 89447
 
Wrong, Zimmerman had as much right to walk in his neighborhood as Martin did.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (88287)5/16/2012 12:39:02 PM
From: Cautious_Optimist   of 89447
 
The evidence supports Trayvon Martin's rights to Stand His Ground.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88289)5/16/2012 12:40:08 PM
From: joseffy   of 89447
 
Give it up, lefty.

Your Trayvon scam is up in smoke.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (88288)5/16/2012 12:48:10 PM
From: Cautious_Optimist   of 89447
 
Zimmerman was stalking Martin.

Zimmerman profiled Martin, who was rightfully walking back from the store.

Zimmerman determined that Martin as an "asshole" that always gets away.

Zimmerman has a record of losing control, and not just once.

Zimmerman was told to back off.

Untrained self appointed neighborhood watcher Zimmerman had a loaded gun in his waist.

Martin had a right to stand his ground against such a threat, that included the deadly weapon that ultimately cost him his life -- he obviously did not. react with enough of his own force to stop Zimmerman.

The fact that you are blinded to the prosecutors case is because, IMO, you profile the Trayvon Martins of the world, too. Pretty obvious what I am saying. But you don't stalk them with a loaded weapon.

Sooner or later someone will come for you, if you allow these things vigilante acts to happen.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88289)5/16/2012 12:50:54 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations   of 89447
 
Wrong. There's no evidence Zimmerman attacked Martin. There is evidence Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Are you so eaten up by white guilt you think black youths have a right to assault white people who look at them?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (88292)5/16/2012 12:57:54 PM
From: Cautious_Optimist   of 89447
 
Ummm, evidence Martin was not Standing his Ground to a threat??

What evidence would THAT be???

Why do you think the Stand Your Ground law was passed, if not for situations like Martins??

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88291)5/16/2012 1:00:08 PM
From: joseffy   of 89447
 
Cautious--the typical lefty--can't admit he was WRONG.

LOL

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88291)5/16/2012 1:13:44 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation   of 89447
 
It's not a crime to suspect a young black guy wandering slowly through a neighborhood at night in the rain when most local robberies are commited by young black guys. Profiling, stalking ie watching and even following ... is legal. It's what crime watch groups DO by definition.

It's even legal for liberals to profile Zimmerman as a white racist who disobeyed a police order in order to chase down, attack and murder a harmless black child. Though it's not rational given the evidence.

Zimmerman's record of "losing control" is exaggerated and may be entirely mythical. One incident some years before involve him shoving (once) an undercover officer he thought was assaulting an underage friend of his in a bar.

Zimmerman being told 'we don't need you to do that' .. follow Martin .... isn't an order. And besides it seems Zimmerman turned around and was returning to his vehilcle after getting that message. He was only 35 yards from his vehicle when he was assaulted.

As for being self appointed, ALL neighborhood crime watchers are volunteers ... aka self-appointed. His neighborhood newsletter referred to him as the captain of the neighborhood watch, meaning his participation was well known and recognized.

And having a loaded gun on him seems to have been a prudent move on his part.


Martin had a right to stand his ground against such a threat, that included the deadly weapon that ultimately cost him his life -- he obviously did not. react with enough of his own force to stop Zimmerman.

There's no evidence Zimmerman constituted ANY kind of threat to Martin. There's NO evidence he assaulted Martin, however there is evidence Martin assaulted Zimmerman. 'Standing your ground' doesn't mean attacking someone who isn't attacking you.

I'm not blind to the prosecution case ... I simply don't see a case other than a witch hunt designed to drum up racial division.



IMO, you profile the Trayvon Martins of the world, too.

So do you. The very fact that you think blacks are too dangerous to be followed or watched tells what you think of them.


Sooner or later someone will come for you, if you allow these things vigilante acts to happen.

I get it. You're saying its people like me who make it dangerous for you by provoking those dangerous blacks. If every white was a fearful liberal, blacks wouldn't be so dangerous.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88293)5/16/2012 1:17:40 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations   of 89447
 
No. Show me any evidence Zimmerman was a threat.

There is evidence Martin was a threat ... the wounds on Zimmerman's head, the broken nose, the wounds on Martin's hands. Those are all physical evidence that Zimmerman was the victim of an assault.

Stand your ground laws exist so liberals can't demand that people flee their homes when people invade them before using deadly force. I heard of an incident in Ohio which has no stand your ground law. A man was in a house with a woman when an ex-boyfriend of the woman broke in and attacked them. The man used a bat against the attacker and was charged with a crime ... they said he had a duty to flee the house before using force. This incident was described on NPR about a month ago.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (88295)5/16/2012 1:25:12 PM
From: Cautious_Optimist   of 89447
 
Dude, profiling race to impute criminality to a person walking home from the store is immoral and illegal. Its called "racisim" and you are making the case here for Martin's defense.

Zimmerman wasn't just innocently walking, and attacked by Martin. That is beneath you.

<<It's not a crime to suspect a young black guy wandering slowly through a neighborhood at night in the rain when most local robberies are commited by young black guys. Profiling, stalking ie watching and even following ... is legal. It's what crime watch groups DO by definition. >>

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (5)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.