Comment

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 28, 2012 at 7:33pm

And there is the difference between following blindly and allowing yourself to be manipulated and having a mind and using it.   Would you based on this, take the law into your own hands or attack an innocent person solely based on their skin color?  I wouldn't and don't know anyone who would.  It is shameful and just the sort of thing this president has been pushing to have happen.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 26, 2012 at 9:14am

And we can thank this president and his devisive class warefare policies for all of this.  He has worked very hard to cause as much grief as he can so he can overthrow the government.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 26, 2012 at 9:13am

The folks that did this should also be charged with this crime.  Everyone has a right to say something like this man did without being beaten within an inch of his life or maybe even killed. 

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 22, 2012 at 5:57pm

In both cases though, Amanda charges were filed, so lets wait and see what get found when the jury looks at everything.  If this woman was right and it was "stand your ground", it did not work out that way, but now the NAACP wants it to be that way because she is black and for no other reason.................but in the other case of Zimmerman even if it is truly "stand your ground", they want him in jail.  I don't see a difference except the woman headed into a situation and Zimmerman was not heading into but heading out of a situation.  So, it will be interesting!  And you and John can do the bet :), but I rather hope you don't.   I think everyone on the site loses and heah, John's mustashe doesn't show on his logo :).

Comment by amanda choate on April 22, 2012 at 5:01pm

Bet or no bet.....

Comment by amanda choate on April 22, 2012 at 4:02pm

John, Bet you Angela gets a conviction. You win I log off forever. I win you shave that mustache. It is a win-win for you.

Comment by amanda choate on April 22, 2012 at 10:42am

John, thank you for making my point for me. Of course you wouldn't be yelling for help if you were on top of someone beating them. Which means that Trayvon wasn't on top of Zimmerman beating him, so that part must be a fabrication by Zimmerman. Maybe the whole story by Zimmerman was menat to protect himself rather than give the truth. Imagine that John, someone shoots someone and then lies about the circumstances in order to avoid spending a lifetime behind bars.

Zimmerman lied on the stand to the Martins during his bail hearing. He said to them that he didn't know the age of Trayvon or whether he was armed. On the 911 call prior to their encounter, he told the 911 operator that the unsub looked to be in his teens.

Comment by amanda choate on April 22, 2012 at 8:58am

John if not Trayvon, who?
Patricia, that is exactly what I am talking about.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 22, 2012 at 7:59am

Very interesting Amanda and thanks for taking the time to look up the state statutes.  The problem is what I said is exactly what is happening in another case, and I find it terribly interesting.  

Interesting as this woman returned to an area where someone was whom she was almost certain would be violent when she was supposedly in a safe area (?) and ended up shooting him quite dead. Now the NAACP clearly says it was "stand your ground". Is it skin color that determines what is and what is not "Stand your ground" cause for them, it sure would appear that way and since when is the NAACP the ultimate authority (and that question applies in the case we are talking about and about this one as well.  Do you or can you find anything that might apply to this?

 

NAACP weighs in on what they say is a "Stand Your Ground" case against Jacksonville woman
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-04-21/story/naacp-weighs-wh...

Comment by amanda choate on April 21, 2012 at 5:46pm

For you.....

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/02/forensics-experts-zimmerman-was...

 

Patricia,

SYG section 776.032:

776.032  Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(1)  A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2)  A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3)  The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.--s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

This was a NRA bill from start to finish with Marion Hammer standing next to Jeb as he signedit into law.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page