George Zimmerman

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee George Zimmerman

Viewing 49 posts - 1 through 49 (of 49 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #602911
    simcha613
    Participant

    Why are people on this web site so quick to play the “dan lekaf zechus” card for the benefit of George Zimmerman and automatically assume Trayvon Martin is guilty? IMHO, you can’t say dan kelaf zechus for both people, and since unless proven otherwise murder is an immoral and horrific act, shouldn’t we be dan lekaf zechus for the murder victim and not the murderer? Sometimes I feel like conservatives are just supporting Zimmerman because liberals are supporting Martin (and I am conservative, I just don’t understand the overwhelming support for Zimmerman and the overwhelming anti-Martin feelings on this web site).

    #868234
    Sam2
    Participant

    Nothing in this case is beyond a reasonable doubt.

    #868235
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    IMHO, you can’t say dan kelaf zechus for both people, and since unless proven otherwise murder is an immoral and horrific act, shouldn’t we be dan lekaf zechus for the murder victim and not the murderer?

    That does not make sense.

    Murder is an unlawful killing with malice aforethought. Thus, we don’t know if it was a murder until we know whether it was unlawful. So there is no murderer or murder victim. There is a killer and a killed. So there is no reason to assume either way based on your idea of dan l’kaf zchus.

    I also don’t know where you got this idea that when being dan two people l’kaf zchus, we should start with one side being the “muchzak”–you made that up.

    Also, I have never heard of being dan a goy l’kaf zchus.

    Also, being dan l’kaf zchus is only when it does not make sense to do so–that is when you need a mitzva to do it. When it makes sense to do so, you just do it because it makes sense. In this case, there is so much we don’t know, that forming an opinion either way is absolutely idiotic. What makes sense is to not be dan at all. The prosecutor needs to be dan, and on the basis of what she knows, and she knows more than we do. But we know less than her, and have no obligation to be dan, so it would make no sense to.

    I agree with you though, that some people have taken it too far and have started assuming that zimmerman is not guilty, thus making the same mistake as the liberals and blacks who assume he is guilty. Rather, the proper response is to recognize that we don’t know enough yet, and to condemn the white house and the black leadership for turning this into a race issue and inciting racial crimes all over the country.

    #868236
    Patri
    Member

    Martin may have assaulted Zimmerman, leading Zimmerman to lawfully defend himself with lethal force under Florida’s Stand Your Ground statue.

    The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. In the absence of such proof, Zimmerman remains totally innocent in the eyes of the law.

    #868237
    147
    Participant

    There is 1 bottom line, which Mayor Mike Bloomberg addressed as recently as yesterday afternoon in DC {Yes! He took out time from his busy Pesach schedule to address this urgent issue}:- …. When will these archaic laws in FL be changed, and will it become harder for people to have legitimate guns?

    Guns breed death! No 2 ways about it! Whatever Mike Bloomberg did right or wrong:- He will have 1 wonderful legacy:- Leave our streets & society >> Gunless!!

    This is the 1 & only solution. Period.

    #868238
    akuperma
    Participant

    1. The people saying it was “murder” have a reputation of “crying wolf” (e.g. the Duke Lacrosse team “rape” case, which ended with the prosecutor being disbarred for falsifying evidence). Note that the broadcast network making the charges was caught editing the “911” tape which as broadcast made it appear that Zimmerman was foaming through the mouth racist, but in the original version before editing makes him appear to be someone under attack who discussed race only when the police asked for a description.

    2. The overwhelming tendenacy of the leading Democrats to regard urban crime as a non-issue, while they tend to live in comfortable suburbs or buidlings with private security. The liberal media are indifferent to urban crime – which has been a problem for many people who follow YWN.

    3. Under American law, Zimmerman is supposed to be assume to be innocent, meaning under the poltically incorrect version of law in the American constitution, the prosecutor needs to prove he wasn’t attacked (assume he pleads self-defense). Given the fact that it was Zimmerman who contacted the police (something very few criminals do — usually its the victim who calls 911), there appears to be some substance to Zimmerman’s defense.

    #868239

    it really shouldnt concern us jews so much regarding one goy killing another. it doesnt make a difference if he was guilty or not. of course killing is terrible and all that, but this whole business has no shaichus to anybody.

    #868240
    MorahRach
    Member

    In America you are innocent until proven guilty. All and i mean all of the facts, eye witness statement and evidence leads to Zimmerman telling the truth about the shooting being self defense.

    The media has unfairly portrayed Martin as a saint showing childhood pictures only and botching the 911 tapes, and surveillance video showing zimmermans cuts bruises and bloodied head. Zimmermans neighbors came out saying he had bandages on his eye and nose for days after the incident which the media did not play up. NBC, while discrediting their own organization, lied and edited the 911 tapes trying to portray him as a huge racist.

    Zimmerman tutored black kids on weekends, is a minority himself, and every black celebrity including the biggest Libs ever al sharpton and Jesse Jackson have come out condemning Zimmerman in the worst way. There is a bounty on zimmermans head which Obama has not said boo about. So please. I am not playing the Dan lekuf Zechus card because the Libs are defending Martin, I am because I am an educated person who looks at facts but until after the trial no one can really give an answer.

    #868241
    Feif Un
    Participant

    Eyewitnesses say that they saw Martin attacking Zimmerman. Their stories matched Zimmerman’s story. Martin was also not an angel like his family is portraying him. He was suspended from school for marijuana possession. A deleted Twitter account was found through web archives which had pictures of him dressed as a gang member, making gang signs, and writing very violent messages.

    Not all liberals are supporting Martin. They are against the law in Florida. I don’t know enough about it, so I can’t speak for it, but it appears that Zimmerman did follow the law. If you don’t like the law, fine, try and change it. But don’t fault someone for following the law as it exists.

    #868242
    oomis
    Participant

    I am of the belief that initially the knee-jerk reaction might have been that Zimmerman was Jewish, and therefore the media jumped all over him. Now, they realize they were mistaken, but the hype was too great to knock the story down from its very public height.

    If Zimmerman shot this young man with no good reason to do so, he is guilty. Plain and simple. If however, he saw someone who looked suspicious and then responded to his “What are you doing here?” type comments (if any) with an abrasive attitude and clear intention to do harm, then Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself. Only the two of them know what actually happened, and one of the two is dead.

    Zimmerman WAS injured unquestionably, with wounds to the back of his head and grass stains on the back of his shirt, which proves he was on the ground, whereas Trayvon Martin had no other mark on him except obviously for the lethal shot (which would tend to indicate that he probably had the upper hand in their struggle). I doubt that Trayvon Martin was one of the Lamed-Vov Tzaddikim, but it still is unfortunate for his family who loved him, that he ended up dead. This whole thing reminds me a bit of the Bernhard Goetz story.

    I am just thankful that no one rioted against Jews, mistakenly thinking it was a Jew who did this.

    What do you think of the Stand Your Ground law?

    #868243
    TheGoq
    Participant

    I’m glad to see Al Sharpton views lawbreakers with such disdain so im sure that if the jury comes back with a verdict of not guilty and they start rioting Al will surely tell them to stop their lawlessness.

    #868244
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    I am in favor of “stand your ground”. I think those that attack it do not understand the laws.

    Under the common law, if you are attacked and somebody is trying to kill you, you are not allowed to fight back with “deadly force” unless you are unable to run away. This puts victims in a bad situation, since they must try to run away, which may put them in an even more vulnerable situation. Moreover, if they do fight back, they might be prosecuted on the theory that they could have run away.

    The stand your ground law changes that, and says that you are not required to run away. Rather, you are allowed to fight back.

    But, the stand your ground law only applies in very limited scenarios. If somebody is going to rob you, you are not allowed to kill them. If somebody is going to beat you up, you are not allowed to kill them. If somebody is going to beat up your kids, you are not allowed to kill them.

    Moreover, it does not go by what YOU think is going to happen, but by what a reasonable bystander would think. So, if you think he is going to kill you, but the jury thinks that was unreasonable, then you are guilty.

    I’m in favor of that law.

    Mayor Bloomberg is a rich idiot, and out of touch with the world. Let’s imagine for a moment that the facts of this case are the most positive for Zimmerman. (I’m making this up). That is let’s imagine that he stopped following when the police told him to, and was going back to his car, when Martin snuck behind him, punched him to the ground, straddled him and bashed his head into the ground intending to kill him. And that’s when he shot him. So if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, he’d have been murdered. In that scenario, are you happy he had a gun? I am.

    #868245
    MorahRach
    Member

    I actually agree with you popa

    #868246
    adams
    Participant

    He was found with a plastic bag with ‘residue’ that is not quite posession. Actually it is because of this that he is dead, that he was suspended. Not that he was of age, but high school kids do drink. Would he have been suspended with an empty bottle of beer actually an emply water bottle which might have contained beer. Still he has not issues with the law.

    I can’t see Zimmerman fearing for his life. While some high school kids are very strong and big, he was not as big as Zimmerman at all. Zimmerman should have talked his way out of it, as I have done many times when I lived in NY. But he had the gun so he was a big man.

    It is highly likely that Martin asked why he was being followed and words were exchanged. But in the final analysis, he was not a person in trouble with the law before.

    “He was suspended from school for marijuana possession. A deleted Twitter account was found through web archives which had pictures of him dressed as a gang member, making gang signs, and writing very violent messages”

    #868247
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    I can’t see Zimmerman fearing for his life. While some high school kids are very strong and big, he was not as big as Zimmerman at all.

    You are being deceitful with the facts. Martin was 6’1″, while Zimmerman was 5’9″. However, Martin did weigh more. So, you can truthfully say that zimmerman was “bigger”, but in the ways that count, we should say that martin was taller and in better shape. zimmerman is just short and fat–like most people with the name zimmeman. (I’m not nearly 5’9″-that must be because he’s a goy).

    Moreover, you have no idea what happened. If martin was on top of him punching his lights out (I’m making this up), then of course he could have been afraid, even if he was bigger.

    #868248
    Patri
    Member

    Florida’s Stand Your Groind statue allows the use of deadly force in response to great bodily harm, even if he does not fear his life is at risk.

    #868249
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    Florida’s Stand Your Groind statue allows the use of deadly force in response to great bodily harm, even if he does not fear his life is at risk.

    That is correct. And what is the definition of “great bodily harm”? (I think it usually includes broken bones)

    It also allows it to prevent any forcible felony (like rape).

    It is a policy judgment, what things are bad enough that you can kill to prevent it. FL (and most states) say great bodily harm or rape or death. The only thing FL adds is that you don’t have to try to run away in those cases.

    #868250

    If the country would crack down on crime more, then the thugs would be a bit less willing to do violent crime, v’hameivin yavin the resulting therefores. Meaning, specifically, someone who is found guilty of killing with intent, first degree, whose conviction is upheld by a court of appeals shoul be put to death. When you crack down hard, it sends a message and produces results – people won’t kill if they know that if they’re caught and provan guilty they will be put to death. This is a shita of a gadol of the previous generation – i heard it from one of his closest talmidim.

    #868251
    adams
    Participant

    I didn’t know the height differences. The pictures we see on media seem to make Martin as lanky and a runt looking and the other one as a big guy.

    So the evidence has to show this great bodily harms existing or not? is that what the case will come down to?

    And according to this law, was he allowed to shoot to kill or should he have shot in the leg, knowing as he did that Trayvon has no weapon.

    #868252
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    The pictures we see on media seem to make Martin as lanky and a runt looking and the other one as a big guy.

    Yes, the news outlets have come under attack from conservatives for showing an old picture of martin when he was 13, and a really bad picture of zimmerman. You can google around, you’ll find recent pictures of martin looking like a thug, and of zimmerman looking like an overweight department store clerk. Pictures are interesting-I can show you pictures of me that look pretty thugish too.

    So the evidence has to show this great bodily harms existing or not? is that what the case will come down to?

    Evidence that he could have reasonably believed he was being threatened with great bodily harm. But I think it may really be the opposite, the prosecution will have to show beyond reasonable doubt that he did not reasonably think he was being threatened with great bodily harm. (I don’t know who bears the burden of proof on the defenses to murder. And how it shifts.)

    And according to this law, was he allowed to shoot to kill or should he have shot in the leg, knowing as he did that Trayvon has no weapon.

    Knowing as he did? How do you know what he knew?

    According to the law, I think he was only allowed to use “deadly force” if it was necessary to prevent the “great bodily harm” he thought he was being threatened with. If the jury believes martin was indeed on top of him beating his head, the jury could easily find that the force he used was necessary.

    #868253
    cheftze
    Member

    Florida law allows him to shoot to kill in self-defense (even if his life wasnt in danger.)

    #868254

    “And according to this law, was he allowed to shoot to kill or should he have shot in the leg, knowing as he did that Trayvon has no weapon.”

    How easy exactly do you think it is for someone who is being attacked and beaten up b’shaas maaseh to keep cool and think logically when he also is scared that he may soon experience a serious, permanant, and possibly life-threatning injury that he will be able to calmly pull out his gun, uncontested, steady aim and shoot at a non-vital part, and aiming isn’t so pashut either. If you’re at the point where you’re shooting the guy, you just aim center mass and pull the trigger, not go through a whole cheshban of what’s the politically correct way to do it. Agav, people who hold political correctness in such high esteem are mekalkel society in that they cause people to be unnecissarily hurt, taken advantage of, and killed, all bec someone is too afraid of the reshaim of the liberal left, yemach shemom, bringing charges, etc. The world would be better off if they all dropped dead. . .

    #868255
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    Florida law allows him to shoot to kill in self-defense (even if his life wasnt in danger.)

    Yes, for example if he was in danger of great bodily harm, or a forcible felony (like rape). I’m not sure what you’re saying. Here is the statute, in any event:

    A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

    (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

    (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

    (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

    (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

    (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

    (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

    (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

    (5) As used in this section, the term:

    #868256
    oomis
    Participant

    I’m with Popa on this one.

    #868257

    this country is sickeningly pathetic they only get up in arms when there is a percieved injustice commited against a minority. It doesn’t ever matter whether it was even remotely anything to do with race, or whether the “injustice” was even perpetrated. Witness how when blacks beat up blacks, no one is up in arms. I read this article by a LZ Granderson that expressed this point, and he mentioned a recent beating of a black by other blacks i think it was in baltimore. Wheres sharpton yimach shemo? or j jackson yemach shemo? of course they don’t give a whoop. if zimmerman was black not many would care, and it certainly wouldn’t have recieved the national attention it has. And when you see all these instances – videotaped – of blacks mugging people, beating up people, and the same for other minorities who have suach a reputation, well there is maybe good reason, or at least it makes sense that people naturally would be assume more readily that a minority teenager is a thug than a white teenager. martin was no saint, not even close. it’s a tragedy that someone killed someone, yes, but it happens every day, and many are more tragic, and don’t recieve any attention. This country is pathetic. and eric holder, the attourney general should not be going to al sharptons events – surely that doesn’t mean that he will not prosecute unfairly like ignore blatant crimes commited by minorities, a la black panther party, etc.

    #868258
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    mochoh: I’m not convinced of that. I think there is something qualitatively worse about a racial crime.

    #868259
    cheftze
    Member

    Beating someone on account of his race is no worse than beating someone on account of his wealth.

    #868260

    “mochoh: I’m not convinced of that. I think there is something qualitatively worse about a racial crime.”

    Except that not every time a white guy attacks a black guy is it racially motivated. If anything, the constant indiscriminate labeling of every instance of white vs minority as racially motivated makes sure that the racist overtones will never fade precisely because for it to fade would require that whites vs whites and whites vs blacks be the same, this transformation however is prevented by the stupid unyielding assumption that all instances are race related. This further promotes that psychologically white perpetrators will more likely view it as a racist crime bec society loudly proclaims it to be so, and society has a profound subconcsious impact on all who are exposed to it. Furthermore, much of the racist steriotyping of minorities as thugs etc is spawned by the justified perception and reputation as being thugs – every day another person or perople are killed in gang violence, etc, things like the incidents referenced by granderson in his article – if you crack down and curtail the minority perpetrated crime, then their reputation will be hopefully a little less thuggish.

    #868261
    simcha613
    Participant

    If I may ask another question, let’s assumed that Trayvon Martin did attack George Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot Martin because he felt threatened. Was Martin really wrong for attacking in the first place? I mean a strange man was following (possibly chasing) him. He probably felt threatened so he attacked the man that threatened him. Isn’t that also self defense? To give a mashal, if a robber breaks into your house and you felt threatened and attacked him, is the robber justified in shooting you out of self defense? He shouldn’t have threatened you in the first place! Similarly, Zimmerman shouldn’t have threatened Martin in the first place, especially after the cops told him not to chase him!

    #868262
    Patri
    Member

    All of Zimmerman’s actions in following Martin prior to the confrontation, were entirely lawful.

    #868263
    hakohen53
    Participant

    I am not sure who was at fault in this matter. I just want to give my opinion on one issue. Posters are talking about a racial killing, which this MAY have been. However, has anyone wondered why this particular incident has been made into such a national catastrophe by the people who regularly hype these type of things (ala Sharpton, etc.)? The only reason this has become a cause celebre is because the purported murderer’s name is GEORGE ZIMMERMAN! By the time they learned that he was actually hispanic, it was too late to back down. But do you think this whole brouhaha would have been created if he would have had a typical hispanic name? No way! They assuredly assumed that this person was white – and probably jewish.

    #868264
    oomis
    Participant

    By the time they learned that he was actually hispanic, it was too late to back down”

    Yeah, I said that several paragraphs ago. “I am of the belief that initially the knee-jerk reaction might have been that Zimmerman was Jewish, and therefore the media jumped all over him. Now, they realize they were mistaken, but the hype was too great to knock the story down from its very public height.” It is sad that my inital reaction was, “Oy, another Jew is in the papers!” and then, “Oh B”H, it was a Hispanic Goy.”

    #868265
    MDG
    Participant

    “All of Zimmerman’s actions in following Martin prior to the confrontation, were entirely lawful. “

    I’m not so sure. He was carrying a gun and looking for a fight, and he confronted Martin against police orders.

    #868266
    Patri
    Member

    He was not looking for a fight. And carrying a gun is legal in Florida. He followed and watched Martin, he did not confront him. All of which is 100% legal. Police did not order Zimmerman to do, or not do, anything. A 911 operator (not police) *suggested* it “wasn’t necessary” to follow him. It was not an order. And in fact a 911 telephone operator cannot issue orders.

    And Martin confronted Zimmerman.

    #868267
    simcha613
    Participant

    So if Zimmerman was justified in attacking Martin because he felt threatened, wouldn’t Martin be justified in attacking Zimmerman because HE felt threatned? Woudln’t you feel threatned if a strange man was following you?

    #868268
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    So if Zimmerman was justified in attacking Martin because he felt threatened, wouldn’t Martin be justified in attacking Zimmerman because HE felt threatned? Woudln’t you feel threatned if a strange man was following you?

    I thought we had well established that we don’t know what happened, so no opinion can possibly be correct.

    In any event, the answer to your question is that luckily, the law has an objective standard, so that it needs to be that a reasonable observer would think you were justified in feeling threatened.

    #868269
    Patri
    Member

    Feeling threatened is NOT a justification to attack someone. Martin initiated a physical attack on Zimmerman and Zimmerman lawfully defended himself per Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

    #868270
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    Feeling threatened is NOT a justification to attack someone.

    Morally, or legally?

    Legally, feeling threatened is a justification to attack someone in every state in the country. Assuming you feel sufficiently threatened under the law in that state, and there are no other ways for you to defend yourself in some states.

    #868271
    cheftze
    Member

    You can legally attack someone, in any state, just because you feel threatened by her, even if she didn’t do anything to you?

    #868272
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    You can legally attack someone, in any state, just because you feel threatened by her, even if she didn’t do anything to you?

    Well, as I noted above, it is an objective standard that a reasonable person would have to feel threatened.

    Why does that surprise you?

    Imagine a guy comes to you with a gun and aims it at you, and says he will kill you. But has done nothing to you. Shouldn’t you be allowed to shoot him first?

    #868273
    MorahRach
    Member

    Zimmerman did not confront Martin. He was walking back to his car after having followed him quietly when Martin attacked him. All the facts will come out hopefully during the trial so we are all a bit in the dark. The fact that an eye witness corroborated Zimmermans accounts definitely helps his case.

    Also I am so sick of hearing the Libs refer to this as a racially driven attack. Zimmerman was a flipping minority as well. If you really are going to say he’s half white and half Hispanic, then let’s stop calling Obama black.. Because he is ” half white”. Honestly… Iv had it.

    #868274
    cheftze
    Member

    popa: The question was about “feel threatened”, not actually threatened. Your example is of an actual threat.

    #868275
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    popa: The question was about “feel threatened”, not actually threatened. Your example is of an actual threat.

    Not really. Actual threat would be if he was actually planning to shoot you. But in my case, the guy may have been making a joke.

    The point is you are allowed to defend yourself if you feel threatened and a reasonable person would feel threatened.

    We probably agree, and in any event what I just wrote is correct.

    And this thread is getting dumber and dumber, as people make up more and more facts about the story which they cannot possibly know.

    #868276
    squeak
    Participant

    Not really?! The example you gave fits the legal definition of assault, even if it was a joke.

    #868277
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    Yes, it does. It is assault. Assault is when someone makes you feel threatened. Making someone feel threatened is assault.

    Regardless, it doesn’t even have to be that the guy would be liable for assault for you to be allowed to shoot him.

    Suppose that they are filming a movie, and through some mistake which is absolutely nobody’s fault, you end up wandering around the set, when this guy comes running up at you with a big (fake) machete screaming he is going to kill you (he thinks you are an extra, and that is the scene). So you pull out your .45 and shoot him dead.

    Is he liable for assualt (under my case where it was nobody’s fault)? Nope.

    Are you liable for killing him? Nope.

    Nope, nope, nope.

    In every state in this country you are allowed to attack someone who is making you feel threatened, if a reasonable person in that situation would feel threatened.

    #868278
    Health
    Participant

    PBA -the hypocrisy of some who call themselves conservatives is very obvious. They say Martin had the right to attack George due to self -defense of the stalking, but George had No right to defend himself while being pummeled!

    Where have this country gone so wrong?

    What is up is down & what is down is up!

    I would have used colors to say the same thing, but I doubt in this PC world of ours the post would go through.

    #868279
    Think first
    Member

    147- you said “guns breed death” take a look at the stats of homicides in the state of Texas and you will see otherwise. Texas law allows one to carry a weapon on them at all times, and nobody pulls a gun on anyone, for fear that someone will shoot them first . Guns breed safety, I hope to own one soon.

    #868280
    far east
    Member

    so health basically what your saying is your allowed to threaten someone and then when they attack you due to self defense of stalking, your allowed to kill the person lol

    #868281
    Health
    Participant

    far east – No, that’s what PC people like you are saying, except you’re saying it’s murder.

    If s/o is stalking you & you’re scared – you run. You don’t stand and turn to face your attacker unless you have no choice.

    If s/o is beating you and they’re on top of you -you defend yourself anyway you can.

    It’s amazing how the people who have adorned themselves with PC in our generation have lost any amount of common sense.

    And not just that -they think they can push their illogical mumbo-jumbo on others who actually think for a living!

Viewing 49 posts - 1 through 49 (of 49 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.