- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,138
- Reaction score
- 807
- Location
- Volunteer State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Pro-zimmerman supporters, who for the most part are white, christian conservatives, love to throw around the admonition "Personal opinion isn't the law".
Yep, that's their mantra when they were being defeated in debate by reason and moral ground.
Another pet peeve of theirs when they painted themselves into a corner in order to defend the shadowy killer of an unarmed teenager, is that they invariably will pull up their next favorite trump card of "it's not illegal" or "he had a right to be where he was" to get out of the bind as if doing something not illegal or having the right to be at some location is all it takes to nullify an unjust killing of another human being.
It's not illegal for someone to cut the big old tree in their own yard either.
It's also not illegal to disregard a firefighter's suggestion of seeking the service of a professional tree cutting service to do the job safely also. But, if you disregard the professional sound advice and didn't exercise due precaution in carrying out a task you are ill-equipped to handle and thus caused the tree to fall down on your neighbor's roof that resulted in the death of a child who happened to be sleeping in the bedroom, you can't then plead that your action isn't illegal or that there is no law against cutting down a tree in your own property.
Then again, i guarantee you won't hear the police chief coming out in public to defend the killer by stating that cutting tree in your property isn't illegal and that a firefighter has no authority to give order or suggestion to prevent a foreseeable tragedy.
You can't also blamed it on the parents for poor parenting and on the child for history of juvenile criminal records, late night parties involving drugs and alcohol that caused the kid to be in the bedroom sleeping into late hours while you were cutting the tree.
Yes, it's not illegal to do-it-yourself to cut down a tree in your own property. And of course, you have the right to be where you are in your own property doing what is not illegal. But, if you do so recklessly that resulted in the death of someone else who was minding their own business, you cannot then expect to cast blame on the victim in order to exonerate your own reckless behavior.
There are many other activities that are not illegal, such as leaving your car engine running in the garage or gas stove unattended and then leaving the scene for an extended period of time from an occupied apartment. If people died because of gas poisoning, gas explosion or fire, there is not excuse for the criminal homicide based on "it's not illegal" argument.
Or playing a prank on a construction worker on highrise structure during work. It's not illegal to play a prank on people to startle them for fun. But, if it is so reckless that it caused a death, whether intended or not, it would be a criminal offense whether you realized it or not. Unless of course you are clinically certified as a mentally retarded person. Otherwise, the standard of reasonable person applies.
Also, there were many activities that were at one time "not illegal" but later became "illegal" due to public outcry of reckless perpetrators getting away for killing innocent people without so much of facing the justice system for their lethal action let alone receiving due punishment.
Such cases would be drunk driving or boating while intoxicated where at one time in the past was not an illegal offense until Mothers Against Drunk Driving took action:
So, what is "not illegal" doesn't make it morally right or ok when that so called "legal" action resulted in the death of an innocent person due to reckless behavior. So, when the justice system is flawed or when the judicial process let the letter of the law gets in the way of justice, then the moral public must demand change in the system of legislation to address the injustice.
If our govenrment can demand and legislate gun owners to conceal their legal weapon via the conceal carry permit, which doesn't result in the death of another person who happens to see the weapon if exposed, why can't the moral public demand the government to legislate that gun owner be responsible for the death of another human being(s) if he willingly leaves the safety of his protected environment to go after some unarmed or armed persons who were just minding their own business in a public place where they have a right to be?
They can't legally be allowed to follow or chase someone and caused the death of that person with their weapon and then turn around claiming self-defense with their self-serving accounts with the benefit of there being no witness to dispute his accounts of the actual fatal encounter and shooting event that occurred.
What irks me most is the hypocrisy of these so-called "conservatives" who come in here day in and day out screaming "it's not illegal" in your face in their futile attempt to put down any reasonable argument putforth by pro-Trayvon supporters. Then, they would go over to the abortion department and shout down abortion proponents for reminding them that women seeking abortion at abortion clinics is also not "illegal".
So, what happens to the mantra "personal opinion isn't the law"?
Also, they talked about zimmerman doing them a great cause by getting rid of a potential criminal thug in the making and donated to his legal defense fund and living expenses.
Well, why don't they donate their money to planned parenthood and other abortion cause to build more abortion clinics in the hoods? Afterall, wouldn't it be that by supporting more abortion in the hooded black neighborhoods where most potential criminals were to be spawned in these poor young single unmarried black girls with unwanted pregancies they would get rid of more future criminal thugs than zimmerman ever dreamed of accomplishing?
So, by their logic, why won't the so-called christian conservatives cross over to the abortion side and support their "it's not illegal to have abortion" instead of protesting and working hard with their personal opinion against them in legistating anti-abortion laws?
Yes, personal opinion isn't law. But, it can effect the change in the society by changing the law to reflect true justice.
Yes, personal opinion isn't law. But, then again our personal opnion doesn't send zimmerman to prison for decades or for life though it may affect public opinion and result in a just public policy. About adherent to law thang, that would be the prosecution and the jury's job. Hence, they have the highest standard encoded by the judicial priniciples and the law.
Yep, that's their mantra when they were being defeated in debate by reason and moral ground.
Another pet peeve of theirs when they painted themselves into a corner in order to defend the shadowy killer of an unarmed teenager, is that they invariably will pull up their next favorite trump card of "it's not illegal" or "he had a right to be where he was" to get out of the bind as if doing something not illegal or having the right to be at some location is all it takes to nullify an unjust killing of another human being.
It's not illegal for someone to cut the big old tree in their own yard either.
It's also not illegal to disregard a firefighter's suggestion of seeking the service of a professional tree cutting service to do the job safely also. But, if you disregard the professional sound advice and didn't exercise due precaution in carrying out a task you are ill-equipped to handle and thus caused the tree to fall down on your neighbor's roof that resulted in the death of a child who happened to be sleeping in the bedroom, you can't then plead that your action isn't illegal or that there is no law against cutting down a tree in your own property.
Then again, i guarantee you won't hear the police chief coming out in public to defend the killer by stating that cutting tree in your property isn't illegal and that a firefighter has no authority to give order or suggestion to prevent a foreseeable tragedy.
You can't also blamed it on the parents for poor parenting and on the child for history of juvenile criminal records, late night parties involving drugs and alcohol that caused the kid to be in the bedroom sleeping into late hours while you were cutting the tree.
Yes, it's not illegal to do-it-yourself to cut down a tree in your own property. And of course, you have the right to be where you are in your own property doing what is not illegal. But, if you do so recklessly that resulted in the death of someone else who was minding their own business, you cannot then expect to cast blame on the victim in order to exonerate your own reckless behavior.
There are many other activities that are not illegal, such as leaving your car engine running in the garage or gas stove unattended and then leaving the scene for an extended period of time from an occupied apartment. If people died because of gas poisoning, gas explosion or fire, there is not excuse for the criminal homicide based on "it's not illegal" argument.
Or playing a prank on a construction worker on highrise structure during work. It's not illegal to play a prank on people to startle them for fun. But, if it is so reckless that it caused a death, whether intended or not, it would be a criminal offense whether you realized it or not. Unless of course you are clinically certified as a mentally retarded person. Otherwise, the standard of reasonable person applies.
Also, there were many activities that were at one time "not illegal" but later became "illegal" due to public outcry of reckless perpetrators getting away for killing innocent people without so much of facing the justice system for their lethal action let alone receiving due punishment.
Such cases would be drunk driving or boating while intoxicated where at one time in the past was not an illegal offense until Mothers Against Drunk Driving took action:
MADD - Archives
"At the time Danny and Ricky were killed, there weren’t any laws against impaired boating, so the boat driver received a six month jail sentence for speeding. After their death, a law was passed prohibiting driving a boat while intoxicated."
"At the time Danny and Ricky were killed, there weren’t any laws against impaired boating, so the boat driver received a six month jail sentence for speeding. After their death, a law was passed prohibiting driving a boat while intoxicated."
So, what is "not illegal" doesn't make it morally right or ok when that so called "legal" action resulted in the death of an innocent person due to reckless behavior. So, when the justice system is flawed or when the judicial process let the letter of the law gets in the way of justice, then the moral public must demand change in the system of legislation to address the injustice.
If our govenrment can demand and legislate gun owners to conceal their legal weapon via the conceal carry permit, which doesn't result in the death of another person who happens to see the weapon if exposed, why can't the moral public demand the government to legislate that gun owner be responsible for the death of another human being(s) if he willingly leaves the safety of his protected environment to go after some unarmed or armed persons who were just minding their own business in a public place where they have a right to be?
They can't legally be allowed to follow or chase someone and caused the death of that person with their weapon and then turn around claiming self-defense with their self-serving accounts with the benefit of there being no witness to dispute his accounts of the actual fatal encounter and shooting event that occurred.
What irks me most is the hypocrisy of these so-called "conservatives" who come in here day in and day out screaming "it's not illegal" in your face in their futile attempt to put down any reasonable argument putforth by pro-Trayvon supporters. Then, they would go over to the abortion department and shout down abortion proponents for reminding them that women seeking abortion at abortion clinics is also not "illegal".
So, what happens to the mantra "personal opinion isn't the law"?
Also, they talked about zimmerman doing them a great cause by getting rid of a potential criminal thug in the making and donated to his legal defense fund and living expenses.
Well, why don't they donate their money to planned parenthood and other abortion cause to build more abortion clinics in the hoods? Afterall, wouldn't it be that by supporting more abortion in the hooded black neighborhoods where most potential criminals were to be spawned in these poor young single unmarried black girls with unwanted pregancies they would get rid of more future criminal thugs than zimmerman ever dreamed of accomplishing?
So, by their logic, why won't the so-called christian conservatives cross over to the abortion side and support their "it's not illegal to have abortion" instead of protesting and working hard with their personal opinion against them in legistating anti-abortion laws?
Yes, personal opinion isn't law. But, it can effect the change in the society by changing the law to reflect true justice.
Yes, personal opinion isn't law. But, then again our personal opnion doesn't send zimmerman to prison for decades or for life though it may affect public opinion and result in a just public policy. About adherent to law thang, that would be the prosecution and the jury's job. Hence, they have the highest standard encoded by the judicial priniciples and the law.
Last edited: