• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Holder wants a nation of Cowards

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right


“There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the “if” is important — if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the commonsense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat outside their homes if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. The list of resulting tragedies is long, and unfortunately has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation. We must stand our ground.”



Holder wants the predictors of this nation to run around unchallenged to commit their violent acts. he wants all of us to be helpless sheep to be preyed upon and run away like a scared little children.
so no Mr Holder we aren't or will ever be a nation of cowards that will run away in the face of physical threats we are not sheep that run away from the wolf
the man is dangerous and needs to be removed from office
 
I find it amusing the idea of avoiding senseless confrontation is now considered cowardly, as if the act of trying to deescalate a situation is such a blow to one's pride. :roll:
 
Holder wants the predictors of this nation to run around unchallenged to commit their violent acts. he wants all of us to be helpless sheep to be preyed upon and run away like a scared little children.
so no Mr Holder we aren't or will ever be a nation of cowards that will run away in the face of physical threats we are not sheep that run away from the wolf the man is dangerous and needs to be removed from office

I thought his speech was pretty well done -- he tried to pander; and, of course he did. But there's not much he can do -- I don't think. However, when he said this?

“There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the “if” is important — if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the commonsense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat outside their homes if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. The list of resulting tragedies is long, and unfortunately has victimized too many who are innocent.

Ridiculous. This case had absolutely nothing to do with SYG. And to say that Zimmerman could have retreated while he was firmly planted until Trayvon Martin is ludicrous.

His reaction is all about the mid-terms.
 






Holder wants the predictors of this nation to run around unchallenged to commit their violent acts. he wants all of us to be helpless sheep to be preyed upon and run away like a scared little children.
so no Mr Holder we aren't or will ever be a nation of cowards that will run away in the face of physical threats we are not sheep that run away from the wolf
the man is dangerous and needs to be removed from office


I heard the relevant parts of his speech and didn't take anything away from it that you did ... but then again, you probably had your post written before he even gave his speech, didn't you? Just waited for him to finish before posting it, huh?
 
Yeah, Trayvon should have retreated to his home rather than assaulting Zimmerman.

Zimmerman really couldn't have retreated below the sidewalk.

This was NEVER and SYG case.
 
I thought his speech was pretty well done -- he tried to pander; and, of course he did. But there's not much he can do -- I don't think. However, when he said this?


[/B]Ridiculous. This case had absolutely nothing to do with SYG. And to say that Zimmerman could have retreated while he was firmly planted until Trayvon Martin is ludicrous.

His reaction is all about the mid-terms.

that's not the defense the defense used, but interestingly, the juror who has spoken up referred to it in her interview I understand ... if she or any other juror used that in their deliberations, that would've been a no-no ...
 
that's not the defense the defense used, but interestingly, the juror who has spoken up referred to it in her interview I understand ... if she or any other juror used that in their deliberations, that would've been a no-no ...

SYG is a higher bar to meet, so I'm not sure where your disagreement lies. Good evening bj...
 
that's not the defense the defense used, but interestingly, the juror who has spoken up referred to it in her interview I understand ... if she or any other juror used that in their deliberations, that would've been a no-no ...

I read her interview - I don't remember that. Got a link? Or just a rumor?
 
I thought his speech was pretty well done -- he tried to pander; and, of course he did. But there's not much he can do -- I don't think. However, when he said this?


[/B]Ridiculous. This case had absolutely nothing to do with SYG. And to say that Zimmerman could have retreated while he was firmly planted until Trayvon Martin is ludicrous.

His reaction is all about the mid-terms.
Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck, probably would have if he wasn't carrying and playing cop-wannabee.
 
Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck, probably would have if he wasn't carrying and playing cop-wannabee.

And TM could have continued home. Hindsight is usually 20/20...
 
Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck, probably would have if he wasn't carrying and playing cop-wannabee.

Your comment raises the question of how the whole concept of carrying a deadly weapon raises the potential for lethal violence, rather than diminishes it as the proponents claim.......................
 
I read her interview - I don't remember that. Got a link? Or just a rumor?

looked it up, found this ...

Zimmerman Juror Says Panel Considered Stand Your Ground In Deliberations: 'He Had A Right To Defend Himself' | ThinkProgress

COOPER: Did you feel like you understood the instructions from the judge? Because they were very complex. I mean, reading them, they were tough to follow.

JUROR: Right. That was our problem. It was just so confusing what went with what and what we could apply to what. Because I mean, there was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading did over and over and over again, we decided there’s just no way — no other place to go.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

COOPER: Even though he got out of the car, followed Trayvon Martin that didn’t matter in the deliberations. What mattered was the final seconds, minutes when there was an altercation and whether or not in your mind the most important thing was whether or not George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger?

JUROR: That’s how we read the law. That’s how we got to the point of everybody being not guilty.
 
I find it amusing the idea of avoiding senseless confrontation is now considered cowardly, as if the act of trying to deescalate a situation is such a blow to one's pride. :roll:

If you are able to terminate a pattern of aggression, you might save the life or virginity of someone who cannot
 
" age old requirement...."... umm, i've never lived in a state that had a duty to retreat....it may be "age old" somewhere, but certainly not everywhere in the US.

he's been in DC too long.
 
Your comment raises the question of how the whole concept of carrying a deadly weapon raises the potential for lethal violence, rather than diminishes it as the proponents claim.......................

as usual on this issue you are incorrect. People who are armed stop millions of crimes
 
I find it amusing the idea of avoiding senseless confrontation is now considered cowardly, as if the act of trying to deescalate a situation is such a blow to one's pride. :roll:

does running away from a preditor keep that preidtor at bay you end up with a bullet in your back all your doong is encourging and embolden preditors to continuee
what keeps prodarors at bay is the possible threat that they could meet their match
 
Last edited:
Holder wants the predictors of this nation to run around unchallenged to commit their violent acts. he wants all of us to be helpless sheep to be preyed upon and run away like a scared little children. so no Mr Holder we aren't or will ever be a nation of cowards that will run away in the face of physical threats we are not sheep that run away from the wolf
the man is dangerous and needs to be removed from office

You're so outraged by everything, it's getting very redundant. I think a good example of being cowardly is thinking you have to kill a human being any time you get scared. Using a firearm when it is not absolutely necessary is extremely cowardly. You're willing to take away the life of another human being when you don't need to? That seems to be what you're saying and that's what is truly outrageous. What would happen if you got into a fight (you know, since you are keen on "challenging violent acts") and somebody shoots you?

You're setting a table that's going to turn on you. I think all the kool aid you've been drinking is making you a little edgy. What Holder is saying is the same thing many of us have been saying. Certain laws are creating situations where 2 or more people can kill each other, legally, even though nobody is imminently threatened. Just because you "feel" threatened doesn't mean you are. How about the guy that just killed a 13 year old neighbor because he "felt threatened" even though the kid did NOTHING. I guess that's the kind of thing you condone?
 
looked it up, found this ...

Zimmerman Juror Says Panel Considered Stand Your Ground In Deliberations: 'He Had A Right To Defend Himself' | ThinkProgress

COOPER: Did you feel like you understood the instructions from the judge? Because they were very complex. I mean, reading them, they were tough to follow.

JUROR: Right. That was our problem. It was just so confusing what went with what and what we could apply to what. Because I mean, there was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading did over and over and over again, we decided there’s just no way — no other place to go.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

COOPER: Even though he got out of the car, followed Trayvon Martin that didn’t matter in the deliberations. What mattered was the final seconds, minutes when there was an altercation and whether or not in your mind the most important thing was whether or not George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger?

JUROR: That’s how we read the law. That’s how we got to the point of everybody being not guilty.

this juror is a bit confused...she calls self defense laws "stand your ground"

he certainly had a right to defend himself, but stand your ground didn't give it to him.. it had literally nothing to do with it.
 
as usual on this issue you are incorrect. People who are armed stop millions of crimes

Right. And Superman is real. Even more real are Hispanic Supermen who are so super they think they're white.......................
 
Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck, probably would have if he wasn't carrying and playing cop-wannabee.


Nothing wrong with wanting to be a cop. Nothing at all. Nothing wrong with wanting to be the eyes and ears of cops. Nothing at all.

In fact, as good citizenship, we all should be the eyes and ears for law enforcement - and people are told to do so by local police and even by the DofH.
 
SYG is a higher bar to meet, so I'm not sure where your disagreement lies. Good evening bj...

good evening ... disagreement? just an interesting observation ... also, how many people do you think truly understand what is or is not permissible with SYG? They got no instructions on it, did they? It's possible, if they used SYG, that it meant to her and possibly others that if Trayvon came at him, he had a right to shoot him ... who knows ... it's also why if you're innocent, ask for a judge ... if you're guilty, ask for a jury ... you never know ... BTW Paul, I suspect that the jury probably decided correctly ... they had so little to go on, that that alone created reasonable doubt ... it's done ... now the DOJ will have to decide whether there is reason to pursue a civil rights case ... I'm still guessing no, but after seeing the AG today, I'm less sure ...
 
Zimmerman could have left his gun home, but since he didn't he had no fear of Trayvon.

and would Zimmerman be alive today if he did leave his gun at home what proof do you have that Martin wouldn't have continued to MMA style Zimmerman till he is dead
 
Back
Top Bottom