Breitbart MUST be destroyed.

[Craig4]

But not amazed enough to point out what is wrong. Eric Holder said Darren Wilson did nothing wrong, the jury found that Trayvon Martin was the cause of his own death, Mueller said not only did Trump not work with the Russians to fix the election, but no other American did either, and AOC's guru admitted that the Green New Deal was simply a plan to implement socialism in the U.S. Bernie Sanders understood that and said it would be necessary to nationalize the entire energy sector of the economy to fight "climate change". Here's a link to a Gallup poll that says Democrats have a better feeling about socialism than capitalism.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...r-socialism-capitalism-gallup-poll/988558002/

You obviously haven't read the Mueller report. Go back and do the assigned reading and then try to participate. If you have read the report, you are a liar, moral coward and poltroon.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's too bad every statement from the jurors referred to it when making a judgement (including the sole nonwhite juror, who stated explicitly that it allowed Zimmerman to get away with murder, on national tv and in subsequent interviews)

"Stand your ground" is widely misunderstood, and the jury never received instructions about what "stand your ground" means (because, get this, they didn't need it). Their verdict was unpopular. It's an easy scapegoat. None of that makes it actually legally relevant to the case. It wasn't. According to Zimmerman's defense, Zimmerman was underneath Martin when he shot Martin. In that circumstance, if Martin was a threat to Zimmerman, then safe retreat was obviously not possible. If safe retreat is not possible, there is no duty to retreat in ANY state, and stand your ground isn't relevant. Now, you can disbelieve Zimmerman's account. You can think he's responsible for the start of the conflict. But no side in this trial was arguing that Zimmerman could have retreated at the point where he pulled the trigger. Not the defense, and not the prosecution. Stand your ground was never actually in play. And if you think it was, you don't know what stand your ground is.

 

[Mumbles]

"Stand your ground" is widely misunderstood, and the jury never received instructions about what "stand your ground" means (because, get this, they didn't need it). Their verdict was unpopular. It's an easy scapegoat. None of that makes it actually legally relevant to the case. It wasn't. According to Zimmerman's defense, Zimmerman was underneath Martin when he shot Martin. In that circumstance, if Martin was a threat to Zimmerman, then safe retreat was obviously not possible. If safe retreat is not possible, there is no duty to retreat in ANY state, and stand your ground isn't relevant. Now, you can disbelieve Zimmerman's account. You can think he's responsible for the start of the conflict. But no side in this trial was arguing that Zimmerman could have retreated at the point where he pulled the trigger. Not the defense, and not the prosecution. Stand your ground was never actually in play. And if you think it was, you don't know what stand your ground is.

Of course, given the frantic cries for help that ended *instantly* when Martin was shot, collapsing his lungs, it's far more likely that Zimmerman pulled his gun after beginning to lose the fight that he had obviously started, but you can keep justifying violence against black teens for walking home from the store, and I'll go back to ignoring your posts.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course, given the frantic cries for help that ended *instantly* when Martin was shot, collapsing his lungs, it's far more likely that Zimmerman pulled his gun after beginning to lose the fight that he had obviously started

In which case, get this, stand your ground still doesn't apply.

I'll give you a moment to wrap your head around that.

 

[Cabbage]

In which case, get this, stand your ground still doesn't apply.

I'll give you a moment to wrap your head around that.

Looks to me like if Zimmerman began the fight, stand your ground is absolutely relevant: It applies to Martin's right to stand his ground, which he was denied.

 

[Ziggurat]

Looks to me like if Zimmerman began the fight, stand your ground is absolutely relevant: It applies to Martin's right to stand his ground, which he was denied.

Martin wasn’t on trial, so no, it’s not relevant. And Martin wasn’t denied a right, he was shot and killed.

 

[Upchurch]

And Martin wasn’t denied a right, he was shot and killed.

That would be denying him an unalienable right, I’d think.

 

[Cabbage]

Martin wasn’t on trial, so no, it’s not relevant.

The events leading up to the murder are absolutely relevant.

And Martin wasn’t denied a right, he was shot and killed.

This may be the stupidest thing you've ever posted. And that's saying quite a lot for its stupidity.

 

[Ziggurat]

The events leading up to the murder are absolutely relevant.

The events are. The legal status of Martin’s actions, not so much. Because again, Martin was not on trial. Martin can never be put on trial. A hypothetical legal defense for an impossible trial don’t matter.

 

[Cabbage]

The events are. The legal status of Martin’s actions, not so much. Because again, Martin was not on trial. Martin can never be put on trial. A hypothetical legal defense for an impossible trial don’t matter.

If Zimmerman started it and ultimately could not retreat due to getting his ass whipped, he should bear responsibility for resorting to lethal force. That may or may not be what the law says, but that is absolutely what it should say. Martin's right to stand his ground trumps Zimmerman's right to use lethal force since Zimmerman was the instigator.

Picking a fight and getting your ass whipped does not grant one a license to commit murder.

 

[Upchurch]

This may be the stupidest thing you've ever posted. And that's saying quite a lot for its stupidity.

I’ve seen worse.

 

[Ziggurat]

If Zimmerman started it and ultimately could not retreat due to getting his ass whipped, he should bear responsibility for resorting to lethal force. That may or may not be what the law says, but that is absolutely what it should say.

That is what the law says. And stand your ground doesn't come into play in that scenario.

 

[Cabbage]

That is what the law says. And stand your ground doesn't come into play in that scenario.

Great, you just agreed with me! Zimmerman bears responsibility and should be punished.

(Of course, I know you didn't intend it. Just thought it was kind of funny.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Great, you just agreed with me! Zimmerman bears responsibility and should be punished.

(Of course, I know you didn't intend it. Just thought it was kind of funny.)

Why is it funny that I agree that *if* A then B? Do you think that means I agree that A? Do you think the conditional you included isn't important?

 

[Cabbage]

Why is it funny that I agree that *if* A then B? Do you think that means I agree that A? Do you think the conditional you included isn't important?

Oh, your post was actually what you intended? I thought you accidentally got it backwards, and that's what I thought was funny. I didn't expect you to actually agree with me. First time for everything, I guess; I'm just a little shocked, is all.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

You obviously haven't read the Mueller report. Go back and do the assigned reading and then try to participate. If you have read the report, you are a liar, moral coward and poltroon.

I didn't read the Mueller report and your comment had nothing to do with what I said in the post to which you responded. I'm surprised your comment doesn't break any of the rules here. In any case, I won't be reading any more of them.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I didn't read the Mueller report and your comment had nothing to do with what I said in the post to which you responded. I'm surprised your comment doesn't break any of the rules here. In any case, I won't be reading any more of them.

How 'bout if we get Bretibart to cover his posts?

 

[Upchurch]

I didn't read the Mueller report and your comment had nothing to do with what I said in the post to which you responded.

Well, it’s relevant in that you are factually misinformed about what the Mueller report says. I’m guessing you got your fake information from sources like Breitbart and Trump?

 

[kmortis]

Keep the Zimmerman/Martin posts to the appropriate threads.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis