I understand people have different opinions, but why do they have to lie?

[Grim17]

I don't understand why Martin supporters and race baiter's feel it's necessary to make false comparisons and lie, when doing so makes both the country, as well as our judicial system look bad? If you don't know what I'm talking about, then this photo that my liberal aunt posted on her Facebook page should explain it perfectly.





Obviously that picture attempts to portrait the Zimmerman verdict as one that was based on race, to paint the judicial system as racially biased, and to imply that the "stand your ground" law is one that only benefits people who aren't black. There's just one problem with that picture though... it's a big fat LIE.


First there's the case of Marissa Alexander, who attempted to justify her actions in court using the "stand your ground" defense. Her efforts failed and the reason they failed had nothing to do with race. She was threatened and trapped inside her home by her ex-husband, who refused to leave. She managed to escape the danger and got out of the house, but instead of going to a neighbors house for safety or calling the police, she went out to her car, got her gun, and went back into the house to confront him... The stand your ground law allows a person to meet force with force with no legal obligation to retreat. In her case however, she did retreat, fled the house and was no longer in danger or being threatened. By going back into the house with her gun, she willfully injected herself back into that threatening position, she became the aggressor, and by law forfeited any right to claim legal self defense... That's exactly why the judge in the case ruled against her, and it had nothing to do with her being black.

So the claim in that picture that the stand your ground law failed to protect her, is nothing but a lie...


Next is the Cece McDonald case and this one couldn't be any more dishonest... First, the prosecutor offered her a plea deal 2 days before the trial and she took it, so the case never went to trial... Second, and this is a biggie.... Minnesota doesn’t even have a stand your ground law, therefore it couldn't have possibly failed her.

Lie, lie, big fat stinking lie... That's all that picture is...


I just don't get how people can use lies like this to justify their beliefs or prop up some agenda, when they know full well that those lies stir up racial hatred in our society, cause people to commit acts of violence against innocent people, and weakens the publics confidence in our judicial system, leading more and more people to take justice into their own hands... Are your beliefs that weak, or is your agenda that important, that using lies and deception is the only way to bring them legitimacy?

 

[PeteEU]

I don't understand why Martin supporters and race baiter's feel it's necessary to make false comparisons and lie, when doing so makes both the country, as well as our judicial system look bad?

Because it is bad.. it is not the first case of injustice by a long shot. Your legal system is riddled with innocent people in jail and clearly guilty people getting off because the happen to be able to afford a good lawyer.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, then this photo that my liberal aunt posted on her Facebook page should explain it perfectly.


View attachment 67150560


Obviously that picture attempts to portrait the Zimmerman verdict as one that was based on race, to paint the judicial system as racially biased, and to imply that the "stand your ground" law is one that only benefits people who aren't black. There's just one problem with that picture though... it's a big fat LIE.

Is it now?

First there's the case of Marissa Alexander, who attempted to justify her actions in court using the "stand your ground" defense. Her efforts failed and the reason they failed had nothing to do with race. She was threatened and trapped inside her home by her ex-husband, who refused to leave. She managed to escape the danger and got out of the house, but instead of going to a neighbors house for safety or calling the police, she went out to her car, got her gun, and went back into the house to confront him... The stand your ground law allows a person to meet force with force with no legal obligation to retreat. In her case however, she did retreat, fled the house and was no longer in danger or being threatened. By going back into the house with her gun, she willfully injected herself back into that threatening position, she became the aggressor, and by law forfeited any right to claim legal self defense... That's exactly why the judge in the case ruled against her, and it had nothing to do with her being black.

First off all..are you saying that she returned to defend her home? Aint that legal anymore?

Secondly, think about it. She escaped her attacker, did not contact the police and went back to defend her property according to you, and got 20 years. Zimmerman was told by the police to stand down, do not approach Martin, and yet he did so and defied the police... and he got off for murder? And you are saying it has nothing to do with race? HAHAH good one. The cases are very similar.. but with much different outcomes.

Next is the Cece McDonald case and this one couldn't be any more dishonest... First, the prosecutor offered her a plea deal 2 days before the trial and she took it, so the case never went to trial... Second, and this is a biggie.... Minnesota doesn’t even have a stand your ground law, therefore it couldn't have possibly failed her.

Lie, lie, big fat stinking lie... That's all that picture is...

Yes I agree if true. But saying that, the plea deal could easily have been the better of options open to her even though she might be innocent. There has been recent studies showing that a lot of people are in jail on plea deals, not because they are guilty but because the alternative of going to trial would have put them at great risk of a much longer sentence because the legal system was stacked against them. And that is just wrong..

I just don't get how people can use lies like this to justify their beliefs or prop up some agenda, when they know full well that those lies stir up racial hatred in our society, cause people to commit acts of violence against innocent people, and weakens the publics confidence in our judicial system, leading more and more people to take justice into their own hands... Are your beliefs that weak, or is your agenda that important, that using lies and deception is the only way to bring them legitimacy?

Grim.. the right uses lies on a daily basis and yet you defend most of them constantly.. and you are accusing the "left" of lies when even in this case the very fact that Martin went from the victim to the accused, shows how ****ed up the system is in the US if you are black and poor. Martin is dead, he cant defend himself and yet he in the end was turned into the culprit and Zimmerman to the victim. I would wager that if Martin had lived, that he would have been charged for assault and Zimmerman not.. just because Martin is black... and that is despite Zimmerman was stalking the poor kid.

The reason that you think that the US and US justice system is portrait in a bad light is simple... it deserves it! Time and time again the US injustice system has shown its true colors and you could often get better justice in a banana dictatorship than in the US.

 

[reinoe]

I don't understand why Martin supporters and race baiter's feel it's necessary to make false comparisons and lie, when doing so makes both the country, as well as our judicial system look bad? If you don't know what I'm talking about, then this photo that my liberal aunt posted on her Facebook page should explain it perfectly.


View attachment 67150560


Obviously that picture attempts to portrait the Zimmerman verdict as one that was based on race, to paint the judicial system as racially biased, and to imply that the "stand your ground" law is one that only benefits people who aren't black. There's just one problem with that picture though... it's a big fat LIE.


First there's the case of Marissa Alexander, who attempted to justify her actions in court using the "stand your ground" defense. Her efforts failed and the reason they failed had nothing to do with race. She was threatened and trapped inside her home by her ex-husband, who refused to leave. She managed to escape the danger and got out of the house, but instead of going to a neighbors house for safety or calling the police, she went out to her car, got her gun, and went back into the house to confront him... The stand your ground law allows a person to meet force with force with no legal obligation to retreat. In her case however, she did retreat, fled the house and was no longer in danger or being threatened. By going back into the house with her gun, she willfully injected herself back into that threatening position, she became the aggressor, and by law forfeited any right to claim legal self defense... That's exactly why the judge in the case ruled against her, and it had nothing to do with her being black.

So the claim in that picture that the stand your ground law failed to protect her, is nothing but a lie...

The moral of the lesson is that if someone barges into your home you don't have a right to stand your ground, but only if you're Black.

Hilariously you claim that Marissa Alexander injected herself into danger but somehow George "I'm looking for streetsigns in backyards" Zimmerman didn't.

 

[Grim17]

Because it is bad.. it is not the first case of injustice by a long shot. Your legal system is riddled with innocent people in jail and clearly guilty people getting off because the happen to be able to afford a good lawyer.

The Zimmerman verdict wasn't because he had a good lawyer... It was because the state had no case against him in the first place.

Is it now?

Absolutely.

First off all..are you saying that she returned to defend her home? Aint that legal anymore?

She tried to use the stand your ground defense to justify her actions, but it did not apply. Once she escaped the man (her ex-husband) he went from being an attacker, to a tresspasser... You call police for a tresspasser, you don't get a gun, put yourself back into the dangerous situation you had just escaped, fire the gun and claim you fired it in self defense.

Secondly, think about it. She escaped her attacker, did not contact the police and went back to defend her property

She was attacked and she had a right to stand her ground and meet force with force... She chose to flee and escaped the threat of great bodily harm, therefore she didn't have to defend herself. Getting a gun, going back and confronting the man, made her the aggressor, and her actions were no longer in self defense. Once she left the house, the threat of great bodily harm no longer existed, and there was no longer any force that she needed to meet with force.

The stand your ground law doesn't give someone who has been attacked and escaped the threat, the right to go get a weapon, return at a time of their choosing, and then claim that they were standing their ground and acting in self defense... It doesn't work that way... If it did, people would be able confront and shoot anyone who has ever physically thretened them in their entire life, and get away with it.

according to you, and got 20 years. Zimmerman was told by the police to stand down, do not approach Martin, and yet he did so and defied the police... and he got off for murder?

Here we go again... Did you bother watching the trial, or looking at any of the evidence, or take the time to read any of statements from witnesses?

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to discuss this case with someone who doesn't even know the basic facts surrounding it.

And you are saying it has nothing to do with race? HAHAH good one.

That's right, it doesn't have anything to do with race... Again, I believe you should learn the facts first, then maybe we can talk... I'd start with the FBI's investigation of Zimmerman and that should answer the race question for you.

The cases are very similar.. but with much different outcomes.

Those cases are nothing alike, and you would have known that if you'd bothered to read Florida's self defense statutes and learned the facts of both cases...

 

[Grim17]

The moral of the lesson is that if someone barges into your home you don't have a right to stand your ground, but only if you're Black.

No, the moral of the story is, you haven't the first clue what in the hell you are talking about.

Hilariously you claim that Marissa Alexander injected herself into danger but somehow George "I'm looking for streetsigns in backyards" Zimmerman didn't.

She was threatened with great bodily harm, and escaped that threat... She chose to get her gun and confront him, making her the attacker, not someone acting in self defense... Zimmerman wasn't lucky enough to have escaped from Martin's attack, and after 45 seconds of screaming for help in vein, finally had to use deadly force in order to stop it.

The facts sure have a way of ruining some peoples agendas...

 

[sharon]

I don't understand why Martin supporters and race baiter's feel it's necessary to make false comparisons and lie, when doing so makes both the country, as well as our judicial system look bad? If you don't know what I'm talking about, then this photo that my liberal aunt posted on her Facebook page should explain it perfectly.


View attachment 67150560


Obviously that picture attempts to portrait the Zimmerman verdict as one that was based on race, to paint the judicial system as racially biased, and to imply that the "stand your ground" law is one that only benefits people who aren't black. There's just one problem with that picture though... it's a big fat LIE.


First there's the case of Marissa Alexander, who attempted to justify her actions in court using the "stand your ground" defense. Her efforts failed and the reason they failed had nothing to do with race. She was threatened and trapped inside her home by her ex-husband, who refused to leave. She managed to escape the danger and got out of the house, but instead of going to a neighbors house for safety or calling the police, she went out to her car, got her gun, and went back into the house to confront him... The stand your ground law allows a person to meet force with force with no legal obligation to retreat. In her case however, she did retreat, fled the house and was no longer in danger or being threatened. By going back into the house with her gun, she willfully injected herself back into that threatening position, she became the aggressor, and by law forfeited any right to claim legal self defense... That's exactly why the judge in the case ruled against her, and it had nothing to do with her being black.

So the claim in that picture that the stand your ground law failed to protect her, is nothing but a lie...


Next is the Cece McDonald case and this one couldn't be any more dishonest... First, the prosecutor offered her a plea deal 2 days before the trial and she took it, so the case never went to trial... Second, and this is a biggie.... Minnesota doesn’t even have a stand your ground law, therefore it couldn't have possibly failed her.

Lie, lie, big fat stinking lie... That's all that picture is...


I just don't get how people can use lies like this to justify their beliefs or prop up some agenda, when they know full well that those lies stir up racial hatred in our society, cause people to commit acts of violence against innocent people, and weakens the publics confidence in our judicial system, leading more and more people to take justice into their own hands... Are your beliefs that weak, or is your agenda that important, that using lies and deception is the only way to bring them legitimacy?

Marissa Alexander left her car keys in the house.

 

[buck]

I wonder when certain people will realize that George Zimmerman wasn't even exonerated under the SYG law. IT was normal self defense.

Getting rid of the SYG law would have had zero effect on the George Zimmerman trial.

 

[Fishstyx]

Hilariously you claim that Marissa Alexander injected herself into danger but somehow George "I'm looking for streetsigns in backyards" Zimmerman didn't.

Facts matter. Thats the exact reason that Zimmerman's defense never requested a Stand Your Ground hearing. SYG didn't apply to here, it was basic self defense.

 

[Oceandan]

Pssssssssssssst, it's all about a narrative. If the facts don't fit the narrative, change em, no one will know. Well ok the low information crowd won't know.

Editing the 911 call, "effin coons", "white.............Hispanic", "hunted down like a rabid dog" (I double cringe at this comparison of TM to a rabid dog, then again frederica wilson isn't know for intelligence), SYG, "police told him not to follow", "he got out of his car after the police told him not to", the litany of lies continues ad infinitum.

 

[Anniegetyourgun]

You forgot to add that Marissa shot at a wall that her children where directly behind. Luckily none of them were injured but that had a lot to do with her charges too.

I've seen a couple of people on my FB feed compare the zimmerman trial to the Alexander case. I don't even bother responding to them. If they can't take the time to look into the case and see why it took the jury 11min to find her guilty than its not worth my time to argue with them!

 

[KLATTU]

]

Because it
First off all..are you saying that she returned to defend her home? Aint that legal anymore?
. Zimmerman was told by the police to stand down, do not approach Martin, and yet he did so and defied the police... .



the US.

Liberals on this forum have been telling quite a few lies or misinformed statements about the Zimmerman trial, but this is by far # 1.
AS has been demonstrated many times on this forum , Zimmerman was advised " we don't need you to do that ( follow him)" . That is a far cry from ' he was told to stand down".

There was no evidence that he followed him after that . In fact this visual shows he most likely did not.

 

[Zyphlin]

Because it is bad.. it is not the first case of injustice by a long shot. Your legal system is riddled with innocent people in jail and clearly guilty people getting off because the happen to be able to afford a good lawyer.

Because it's bad it's then people should lie and mislead about it?

If it's bad, be honest about it and criticize it...there should be plenty of examples since it's so bad. But when you have to mislead and be dishonest, that calls into question how "bad" it must be.

First off all..are you saying that she returned to defend her home? Aint that legal anymore?

Well, a couple huge issues here...but a wonderful way to highlight my point about people lying, misleading, and being dishonest in order to show why it's "bad".

First, the picture talked about the "failure" of being "protected" by the terms of the "Stand your ground" style laws not the "Castle Doctrine", which is a similar but different style of law.

Second, even in terms of the Castle Doctrine, it allows the individual the choice to meet force with force. What it doesn't legally give you the ability to do is to meet force with retreating and then at a later time initiate force as is the case here.

Third, the notion of defending her "property" is a murky one here and again for no reason surrounding race. The home was her Husbands property soley prior to their marriage and was BOTH of their property after the marriage. The Husband had as much legal right and ability to be in that house and with the "property" within it as she does. You're running into a huge legal grey area trying to latch onto "protecting her property" from someone who also owns the property.

Fourth, it also fails to mention that she was offered a 3 year plea deal to attempt to significantly mitigate her jail time. What she did was illegal, and had a good chance of being proven so in a court of law, but it seems with such a low plea deal the prosecutor realized that while she technically violated the law, there was an understandable quality to it that made it unlikely she'd be a significant threat to the community. Her and her laywer chose to ignore the plea deal, and thus suffered the unfortunate reality of mandatory minimums.

Secondly, think about it. She escaped her attacker, did not contact the police and went back to defend her property according to you, and got 20 years. Zimmerman was told by the police to stand down, do not approach Martin, and yet he did so and defied the police... and he got off for murder? And you are saying it has nothing to do with race? HAHAH good one. The cases are very similar.. but with much different outcomes.

Where to begin....

The escalation to (attempted) deadly force from Marisa came after unquestionable, CLEAR evidence that she had vacated the situation that she claimed necessitated said force. Where as in the Zimmerman case, evidence suggests (Within a reasonable doubt) that his escalation to deadly force occured directly coinciding with Trayvon escalating the conflict and at a point where he could not vacate said force.

Your second issue here, and shows you clearly actually are ignorant of what's occured during this case, is your claim that "The police" told Zimmerman to "Stand down" and "not approach Martin". On the contrary, all that was stated in that regard was that they don't NEED him to follow Martin, and there's no indisputable evidence that he DID followed Martin after that point. Note, PRIOR to that point, there were three instances of the DISPATCHER asking Zimmerman questions that required him to continue to observce Martin in order to answer.

There is actual, tangable, legitimate judicial arguments that are SUBSTANTIALLY different in both cases...yet you highlight and wantonly relish in your ignorance of American Law and these cases and then proclaim to proport that it's "race" based on.....no evidence SAVE for your ignorant and/or dishonest comments.

Yes I agree if true. But saying that, the plea deal could easily have been the better of options open to her even though she might be innocent. There has been recent studies showing that a lot of people are in jail on plea deals, not because they are guilty but because the alternative of going to trial would have put them at great risk of a much longer sentence because the legal system was stacked against them. And that is just wrong..

The plea system and the issues surrounding it do have some issues, but you attempting to leap upon that is basically just strawmanning. You start your thread off trying to say how it's good to bash the legal system because it's bad and act like the OP's incorrect in suggesting people were lying and being dishonest in order to do it....and then you basically go "well yeah, they're being dishonest here but....PLEAS SUCK".

Pleas may suck, but that doesn't change the fact that there's no evidence what so ever what she could've argued in terms of the "Stand your ground" law and how it may or may not have protected her, because she choose to took a plea. Additionally, BECAUSE she choose to take a plea, we've got no way of knowing the enterity of the evidence of the case to really form a rational legal basis of belief regarding her potential guilt of any particular crime itself.

Grim.. the right uses lies on a daily basis and yet you defend most of them constantly..

And you typically condemn them. And yet you sit here defending this. You sit here trying to lambast and criticize Grim for acting hypocritically in the very same post YOU act hypocritically. Astounding.

the very fact that Martin went from the victim to the accused

You should learn what "facts" are. One, Martin never became "the accused". Second, there's no clear cut evidence either way as to who was the first "victim" of a physical confrontation. Third, narratives designed by the media prior to all facts coming out are not relevant what so ever to the legal system within the U.S. Fourth, the notion within the United States legal system that a person attack CAN come the aggressor is not one that I have an issue with nor is it one based around race.

The reason that you think that the US and US justice system is portrait in a bad light is simple... it deserves it!

It deserves it so much that people must lie and mislead to attack it. Brilliant.

There's a lot of issues with our legal system. But forgive me if I don't give a damn about the opinions of a foreigner who demonstrates a clear lack of understanding for how the system works and a completely and unabashed ignorance of the laws and cases he's talking about regarding it. Your opinion about our legal system is as much use and seemingly based on as much actual factual, truthful statements as the opinions on it from my neighbors dog.

 

[Zyphlin]

Marissa Alexander left her car keys in the house.

Which still doesn't change that she extracted herself from the situation, retrieved lethal force, and reinstated herself into the situation which LEGALLY negates the ability to claim "Stand your ground".

 

[Grim17]

Which still doesn't change that she extracted herself from the situation, retrieved lethal force, and reinstated herself into the situation which LEGALLY negates the ability to claim "Stand your ground".

Now if she had gone to her car, retrieved her gun, and her ex had approacher her there and threatened her, then she could have argued the stand your ground defense.

 

[Grim17]

I didn't like the way the picture came out so small, so here is a bigger version:

 

[ric27]

Because it is bad.. it is not the first case of injustice by a long shot. Your legal system is riddled with innocent people in jail and clearly guilty people getting off because the happen to be able to afford a good lawyer.

Having money definitely helps....I can't deny that

First off all..are you saying that she returned to defend her home? Aint that legal anymore?

Secondly, think about it. She escaped her attacker, did not contact the police and went back to defend her property according to you, and got 20 years. .

That tidbit caught my attention....defending property *in general terms not about this case in particular*

In most jurisdictions justifiable deadly force is authorized in defense of self or others. You're not justified in deadly force to protect property. Using deadly force against an intruder in your home you are protecting yourself and others not the home itself.

This is where many simply **** up

The use of deadly force to protect yourself, or your family is justified, but not to protect property.

 

[Slyfox696]

My question is why people who think the Martin case is evidence that system is racially biased never compare George Zimmerman to OJ Simpson.

 

[Black Dog]

My question is why people who think the Martin case is evidence that system is racially biased never compare George Zimmerman to OJ Simpson.

Good point.

 

[ric27]

The Zimmerman verdict wasn't because he had a good lawyer... It was because the state had no case against him in the first place.

Disagree

Having good counsel was critical in Z's verdict

Many individuals are locked up due to ****ty counsel and circumstantial evidence

 

[Grim17]

Disagree

Having good counsel was critical in Z's verdict

Many individuals are locked up due to ****ty counsel and circumstantial evidence

There's no denying that O'Mara and West put up a very good defense, but that doesn't change the fact that the state had no case to begin with... Remember, the local DA didn't file any charges to begin with and Zimmerman wasn't arrested, because they knew they had no evidence and couldn't get a conviction if they took the case to court.

 

[MaggieD]

I don't understand why Martin supporters and race baiter's feel it's necessary to make false comparisons and lie, when doing so makes both the country, as well as our judicial system look bad? If you don't know what I'm talking about, then this photo that my liberal aunt posted on her Facebook page should explain it perfectly.


View attachment 67150560


Obviously that picture attempts to portrait the Zimmerman verdict as one that was based on race, to paint the judicial system as racially biased, and to imply that the "stand your ground" law is one that only benefits people who aren't black. There's just one problem with that picture though... it's a big fat LIE.


First there's the case of Marissa Alexander, who attempted to justify her actions in court using the "stand your ground" defense. Her efforts failed and the reason they failed had nothing to do with race. She was threatened and trapped inside her home by her ex-husband, who refused to leave. She managed to escape the danger and got out of the house, but instead of going to a neighbors house for safety or calling the police, she went out to her car, got her gun, and went back into the house to confront him... The stand your ground law allows a person to meet force with force with no legal obligation to retreat. In her case however, she did retreat, fled the house and was no longer in danger or being threatened. By going back into the house with her gun, she willfully injected herself back into that threatening position, she became the aggressor, and by law forfeited any right to claim legal self defense... That's exactly why the judge in the case ruled against her, and it had nothing to do with her being black.

So the claim in that picture that the stand your ground law failed to protect her, is nothing but a lie...


Next is the Cece McDonald case and this one couldn't be any more dishonest... First, the prosecutor offered her a plea deal 2 days before the trial and she took it, so the case never went to trial... Second, and this is a biggie.... Minnesota doesn’t even have a stand your ground law, therefore it couldn't have possibly failed her.

Lie, lie, big fat stinking lie... That's all that picture is...


I just don't get how people can use lies like this to justify their beliefs or prop up some agenda, when they know full well that those lies stir up racial hatred in our society, cause people to commit acts of violence against innocent people, and weakens the publics confidence in our judicial system, leading more and more people to take justice into their own hands... Are your beliefs that weak, or is your agenda that important, that using lies and deception is the only way to bring them legitimacy?

Race baiting by racists.

I hope you posted what you posted here on that photo. We've got to start doing that.

 

[ric27]

There's no denying that O'Mara and West put up a very good defense, but that doesn't change the fact that the state had no case to begin with... Remember, the local DA didn't file any charges to begin with and Zimmerman wasn't arrested, because they knew they had no evidence and couldn't get a conviction if they took the case to court.

Actually, the state *believe it or not* had a very good chance/probability with manslaughter but they blew it

The state lost focus on that specific charge

 

[Grim17]

Actually, the state *believe it or not* had a very good chance/probability with manslaughter but they blew it

The state lost focus on that specific charge

Actually, no they didn't... The entire case came down to the self defense claim, and there is no way the state could change the known facts on that issue.

 

[ric27]

Actually, no they didn't... The entire case came down to the self defense claim, and there is no way the state could change the known facts on that issue.

That's your opinion.

From my perspective it should have been manslaughter from the get go. Focus 100% on that and *more than likely* disprove Z's self defense

Add, the thirds...again from my perspective

The facts and the law only count for a third

The likability/dis likability of the defendant is another third

The relative skills of counsel at presenting their case are the final third.

And finally, where the case is heard and by which judge, can also be a factor.

The state gave a half assed attempt.....a little more oomph and the state gets their guilty verdict

 

[Redbeard]

The state failed to prove reckless endangerment with the m2, which would also be an element of proof in manslaughter.