• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holder speaks out against 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Zimmerman verdict


If you read what I wrote, you'd see I said I didn't care what he had to SAY. Actions are a different matter, but that wasn't being discussed.
 
True. While I support Holder's argument, I won't put much stock in his claims until I see actual actions being taken.
 
No,not "Oh well". It's time we started pointing these things out to those who would assume authority they do not have. I'll be sure to bring it up with our representative when I see in about two weeks.
Okay.
 
If you read what I wrote, you'd see I said I didn't care what he had to SAY. Actions are a different matter, but that wasn't being discussed.
Fair enough.
 
Well, I think there should be a balance between self-defense and excessive use of force. SYG tips the balance to the latter. I can't support that.


I can support it... but then again, i'm not one for the nonsense of proportional use of force either.. if I'm justifiably defending myself, there's no amount of force that I would consider "excessive".

there is no balancing act, to me, between self defense and excessive use if force.... the balancing act, to me, is more about the assailant and victim, and I'm utterly unsympathetic to perpetrators, so i don't care if they have any legs to stand on...I'm definitely supportive of tilting the scales towards the victims.
I'm also utterly supportive of proper LEO investigation to ensure the victim is really a victim and not an assailant... i'm not unreasonbable
 
From the LA Times:




It has begun.

What do you think?


LOL !!!

What has begun ? The Criminal AG responds to people who've completley bought into a huge manufactured False Narrative ?

Wow.....when Black young men and ACTUAL Children are dying from gunshot wounds on a almost daily basis in the South Side of Chicago.

What a pathetically corrupt and just stupid ideology.

Take the rights away from private citizens to defend theirselves, their property and their families from the scum the thug culture creates because the NAACP aren't happy with the verdict.

Unreal.

The only good thing is a administration this corrupt will eventually collapse in on itself as voters take note of the disaster thats happening right before them.
 

Here's another one. Someone is on top of you MMA style beating your head into the concrete. Do you have the option to retreat before being able to use deadly force, i. e. Stand Your Ground?
 

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

What would be lovely would be Al Sharpton turning his focus to Chicago.
 
I don't know about that, but I do know that Eric Holder's contempt of Congress and everything else makes him unfit to serve as AG.
 
The fact that SYG laws didnt come into play in the trial or the jury verdict speaks volumes. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
 

The below quote is from the juror interviewed on Anderson Cooper
"He could have ... When George confronted him, and he could have walked away and gone home.

So George in a locked car and armed with the police on the way ... could not take pause and follow instructions from law enforcement yet ... the juror says Trayvon should have "When George confronted him, and he could have walked away and gone home " ...?

In bold are her exact words.

Do you think unarmed teens being followed have different fear reactions than a husky big guy who knows the police are en-route with a car and armed? We do not even know any account but George's fishy tale.
 
Last edited:

No, there is a forensic account. And what we also know is that the jury delivered its verdict.
 
Deflection ... do you agree with the juror that Trayvon should have ..."When George confronted him, and he could have walked away and gone home".

The forensics do not add up. The verdict was not based on forensics according to the juror but because they thought George was scared.
 
I'm not deflecting; I'm stating facts. Your opinion doesn't count, nor does mine, and we now have the words of one of six jurors. That's all. I am satisfied that the jury did a thoughtful job and am therefore accept the verdict. You should too--because the verdict is in.
 

Martin is dead because he made the mistake of attacking an armed man.eace
 

The post was in response to the poster Chez believing a person should not have to run yet the juror states clearly

"When George confronted him, and he could have walked away and gone home " ...?

The jurors are based the verdict on their belief that George was scared ... it was an injustice and you know it. This is a political forum and we are discussing if a person should just run when confronted like the juror said of Trayvon.
 
Last edited:
Martin is dead because he made the mistake of attacking an armed man.eace


Martin is dead because he walked home in the rain in a hoodie and an armed man in a locked car with the police on their way continued pursuit while whining "they always get away".

There is no account of the last few moments and yet ... the juror states clearly "When George confronted him, and he could have walked away and gone home " ...?

I heard the tapes and Trayvon was walking and George even describes the pursuit. Eventually when George was close enough Trayvon turned and stood his ground.
 

Hispanic is the new White.
 
Shouldn't the title of this thread be "Holder Speaks out Against States Rights?"
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…