What a stupid stupid comparison. So stupid that it enrages me. The reason the rape victim's drinking is irrelevant is because it has absolutely zero impact on whether the guys had the right to rape her, tape her, humiliate her, pee on her, etc. They had no question about her willingness because of her drinking. They knew she didn't want it, her drinking just made it so she couldn't fight back. Trayvon's drug habit isn't relevant to whether this is a valid self defense case, but it is relevant to whether the portrayal of Trayvon from the beginning was bogus.
what are other options for somebody who is pinned down and is absorbing blows and getting their head banged into the concrete? I'd like to see more common sense out of you in the future, please. Work on that for me.
Not act like a vag and shoot the guy. How about fight back? Especially when you're looking for trouble.
There are plenty of other options before it gets to that point. I'd like to see you stop misrepresenting the law in this case. Work on that for me.
again, some of you are trying to imply that GZ didn't act according to "bro code". "be a vag?" -- sorry that doesn't have legal precedent as mattering in court.
you just dodged and deflected. not an effective way to argue....but, equivalent to a white flag from you so I'll accept your surrender and your admitting you're wrong. thanks
Wrong. You've yet to show you understand the law you keep bringing up. Until you do, you haven't even waged a successful attack, defense or anything else. Just like in the other threads where you run away instead of answering direct questions. GZ could have run as soon as the first punch or shove was thrown. He could have screamed that he'd leave, he could have used his MMA training break free and escape. It depends on what the exact situation was, but it appears like there were numerous ways he could have escaped. You have yet to show that he tried all of those or even any of them which is required by law if GZ was the aggressor.
When your rage simmers can you explain why the accurate portrayal of Martin is more important than the portrayal of her?
that's a big stretch on your part when TM was shot, he was on top of GZ. That's the point that mattered.
I've never seen a high person get in a fight. Contrast that with drunk people where I've seen it frequently. Gangsters probably aren't going out shooting up people when high on weed. They tend to require violence, often have harder drugs than mar1juana involved, and are dealing in large sums of cash, drugs, and weapons. mar1juana smoking isn't encouraging the behavior.
take your rape discussion to another thread. It's a poor effort by you to distract and deflect from the TM/GZ topic. I can guarantee you that the prosecution isn't trying to draw parallels to the rape case to try to convict GZ. red herring. NEXT
The portrayal of her was totally irrelevant and was being used as a way to say she wasn't really raped. In Trayvon's case the portrayal of him was meant to show that he was just a little kid, not capable of violence, who was gunned down like a dog.
Red herring that's very ironic from you. Anyone ever watched the Scooby doo kids when Fred would blame that kid red herring every episode
Not necessarily... at least according to the law. That could be what matters most but it depends at least in part on who started the confrontation and what the person who started it but still used self defense did in an effort to escape. Of course I'm only going by the law (the one you keep bringing up, but seem unwilling or unable to demonstrate was followed by GZ in this case).
The problem is that the Stand Your Ground law means that you don't have to legally consider all options for your safety. You don't have to retreat. This is also one of the reasons why I expect Zimmerman to be acquitted. Once the prosecution fails to show any intent on Zimmerman's part the fact that he put himself into that situation by following Martin doesn't matter that much. This is why my primary problem with this situation hasn't been about race, age or other background but with the law itself.
Edit: it isn't worth arguing with some of the people here who have already decided he is guilty because of the media blitz and their own biases. I'm still waiting for the prosecution to produce evidence that doesn't leave me with a reasonable doubt that he wasn't in fear of his life when he pulled the trigger. When that happens I will join the guilty side. Until then he is innocent until proven guilty.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>Next season on "The Newsroom," Will McAvoy heroically forces ACN to break from Zimmerman coverage to Egypt coverage.</p>— daveweigel (@daveweigel) <a href="https://twitter.com/daveweigel/statuses/352460755582459905">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Zimmerman caught in another lie. http://news.yahoo.com/judge-allows-school-records-zimmerman-trial-132653623.html
My understanding is that GZ isn't using stand your ground law. The law I referenced is specifically from Florida and has to do with an aggressor using a self defense claim.
