Stand Your Ground law coming under scrutiny due to the Zimmerman/Florida incident
- Thread starter dyabolical
- Start Date
Yes, but in this case, there was not even enough evidence to make it a court-case...in the OJ and casey anthony cases there was never a question that they were valid cases. In this case, the point many people are making is that it does not even make it to the level of a court-case. The special prosecutor had to make it all up (go see alan dershowitz talk about it...and no one has refuted him that i know of).
People are just assuming that every time someone shoots someone and the law enforcement folks on the scene judge it to be a legitimate case of self defense and the public prosecutor judges it to be a legit case of self defense, that it must STILL be tried?
so now, the "special prosecutor" has been appointed and has overridden the call made by the public prosecutor that there is not EVEN a case here, and you would think she would have a strong legal basis for this, right? That the public prosecutor must have made some serious error? But there is NO basis for the special prosecutor here to make it into a court case, NONE. according to alan derhsowitz...she has nothing.....and dershowitz is no conservative...just a liberal Harvard Law Professor...
plus the special prosecutor was publicly praying with Martin's mom and Dad...you ever seen a prosecutor pray with the family members of one side of the case?
can anyone seriously believe that this is just a "business as usual" case and we'll just see what the court proceedings turn up? It is obviously political, and a bunch of powerful people are encouraging a guilty verdict. It's NOT just the usual "let the wheels of justice turn and we'll see what comes up" kind of deal. The wheels of justice have already been derailed here.
it IS a lynching
My personal guess ( and i hope i am wrong) is they are hoping to pressure the witnesses to change their testimony slightly, or to be unsure, or to somehow shoot holes in their testimony, and then convict this poor guy.
And if they do that, the message is clear....guns are evil and if you use a gun for self defense, we can come get you.
It's not an ad hominem. You said the following:
1. That you are personally capable of being an unbiased juror in this case
2. That no possible jury could be convened to give Zimmerman a fair trial because people aren't smart enough to separate media narrative from fact
These two statements taken together mean that you believe yourself smarter than anyone else in the entire country because unlike everyone else, you are smart enough to be unbiased. It's not an "ad hominem" (this isn't even an ad hominem, it would be a straw man but it's not even that) to simply re-state what you have claimed and spell out its implications.
The investigator who penned this affidavit has 35 years of police experience, is a gun rights advocate, and is white. Does that empty your quiver?
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/12/zimmerman.affidavit.pdf
Again, what bothers me isn't that some people believe that Zimmerman was in the right - that's why we have trials, to do our best to determine the veracity of events. What bothers me is that some people are SO convinced that Trayvon Martin deserved to get shot that they have already made up their minds that even if Zimmerman is found guilty by a court of law, that the verdict will be inherently unjust. That's insane as the trial hasn't even happened yet.
I don't really care what her ethnicity, race or publicly professed beliefs are, nor her experience.
The facts of this case are:
1. LEOs on the scene did not arrest.
2. Public Prosecutor did not pursue charges, even though some public pressure started building up after a few weeks
3. Special prosecutor was appointed who spent a few weeks and then signed an affidavit that, according to Harvard Professor alan dershowitz, is WITHOUT SUBSTANCE and was signed only to help her re-election.
4. Public pressure in the mainstream media is very much against Mr. Zimmerman.
These are the facts. I'm done feeding this troll.
Now you're just being silly. It's a textbook ad hominem attack. You picked out one small portion of the argument, made an intentionally erroneous assumption and magnified it to overshadow the actual context of the argument. Since you're trying to superimpose an unsupported narcissistic super-ego on me personally, it's absolutely an ad hominem, not a strawman.
Debating with you is like debating a 3 year old. You can't recognize your structural failures, so it's impossible to have an intelligent debate.
Next!
It's not a "small portion of the argument" that you believe yourself capable of being a capable witness but no one else is. It's odd how you don't even try to defend what you actually said or clarify it, but instead accuse me of ad hominem attack (which is incorrect as ad hominem is an attack on the persona rather than their argument, which I have not done) followed up with saying that I debate like a 3 year old. It looks like dissenting voices aren't welcome in this forum so I'll make my exit. A shame, I'd hoped to find a little more constructive discussion on the topic from fellow gun rights advocates.
That's simply not the case for most on here. You're making the classic mistake of assuming the intent of the debater and attacking them, rather than focusing on the flaws of their logic or facts. Just as with the Jerome Ersland case, if the facts ultimately prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman initiated the fight and was not in fear for his life, the majority on this forum will condemn his actions and find a 2nd degree murder charge justified.
Our concern is with the huge amount of misinformation since the story broke nationally, and the subsequent theories being presented as probable or actual fact. Couple that with the professional race baiters, the NBP bounty which the Dept. of Just Us has still failed to quash, and President Obama saying Maritn would look "Just like his son if he had one", the bias is in full swing. Anyone can be suceptible to bias, particularly when under pressure. Pressure is certainly upon the prosecutor, the judge who will preside when selected and the jury when selected. It simply can't be ignored. Any impropriety or overzealous prosecution of the case beyond the norm will absolutely be considered if Zimmerman gets convicted. You can bank on it.
Feel free to unravel that thread if you can, and stop assuming facts you don't have. Your quiver is currently bare.
Similar threads
