How would you change the law to prevent another Zimmerman debacle?

NLXSK1 · Jul 20, 2013

londonfog said:
at this moment it is not a requirement to submit blood. Now if the officer thinks you are under the influence they can have you submit blood. I would make it mandatory on a shooting.

and yes if you are drunk or amp up on coke I believe you should not be carrying for self defense. Hell you would end up shooting any and everyone if you paranoid on a coke high or some other kind of drug abuse.

You do not have the right to bear arms HIGH AND DRUNK

Actually, I believe you do have that right.

You do not have the right to be shooting or brandishing the weapon or otherwise being a danger to the public and if you shoot someone without reasonable cause you are going to be prosecuted whether you were sober or not...

SirGreenThumb · Jul 20, 2013

Rachel Jeantel has been offered a full scholarship from Tom Joyner to attend any black college of her choosing. He has also offered her assistance with tutors to help her graduate high school and take her SAT.

http://www.businessinsider.com/tom-joyner-offers-rachel-jeantel-a-full-scholarship-2013-7

H R Puff N Stuff · Jul 20, 2013

stand your ground should not be used as a defense if you pursue the "attacker"

SirGreenThumb · Jul 20, 2013

H R Puff N Stuff said:
stand your ground should not be used as a defense if you pursue the "attacker"

Guess that's why it was a self defense case and not a stand your ground case. :dunce:

UncleBuck · Jul 20, 2013

kelly4 said:
Because the prosecution gets to tell their side of the story first. Their minds changed when the defense was allowed to tell their side of the story. I'm betting you already knew that...

thanks for opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

this was at the point they entered deliberations, after both sides had already said everything they had to say.

i'm betting you feel pretty dumb now.

UncleBuck · Jul 20, 2013

desert dude said:
The jury considered all of that and decided it did not happen as you have incessantly been saying for over a year. TM attacked and savagely beat Zimmerman... bang!

even B37, the juror who called martin the "boy of color", said zimm should have stayed in his car.

all we know about their decision is that they don't think the state met their burden.

for you to say that they thought this or thought that is baseless at this point. just more ASSumptions from your openly racist self.

kelly4 · Jul 20, 2013

UncleBuck said:
thanks for opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

this was at the point they entered deliberations, after both sides had already said everything they had to say.

i'm betting you feel pretty dumb now.

Nope! Butting heads with you always makes me feel smart.

UncleBuck · Jul 20, 2013

kelly4 said:
Nope! Butting heads with you always makes me feel smart.

getting the situation totally wrong and speaking out of your ass and getting corrected by me must have made you feel real smart.

kelly4 · Jul 20, 2013

UncleBuck said:
getting the situation totally wrong and speaking out of your ass and getting corrected by me must have made you feel real smart.

I'm betting that they still thought he was guilty when the prosecution was done. Verdict was not guilty. I guess I'm still correct...Yep, I feel smart.

UncleBuck · Jul 20, 2013

kelly4 said:
I'm betting that they still thought he was guilty when the prosecution was done. Verdict was not guilty. I guess I'm still correct...Yep, I feel smart.

yes, you totally validated yourself by changing the goalposts. well done!

kelly4 · Jul 20, 2013

UncleBuck said:
yes, you totally validated yourself by changing the goalposts. well done!

LOL! Don't get mad 'cause I'm beautiful.

UncleBuck · Jul 20, 2013

kelly4 said:
LOL! Don't get mad 'cause I'm beautiful.

i'm not mad, i'm happy for you.

kelly4 · Jul 20, 2013

UncleBuck said:
i'm not mad, i'm happy for you.

You're a good loser. I admire that/

UncleBuck · Jul 20, 2013

kelly4 said:
You're a good loser. I admire that/

i totally lost that exchange by watching you get the facts wrong.

kelly4 · Jul 20, 2013

UncleBuck said:
i totally lost that exchange by watching you get the facts wrong.

I'll agree to a push. I'm feeling generous today.

UncleBuck · Jul 20, 2013

kelly4 said:
i'll agree to a push. I'm feeling generous today.

i agree that you generously pushed the goal posts too.

kelly4 · Jul 20, 2013

UncleBuck said:
i agree that you generously pushed the goal posts too.

If your not good enough to hit moving posts...you're not good enough. bongsmilie

UncleBuck · Jul 20, 2013

kelly4 said:
If your not good enough to hit moving posts...you're not good enough.

*you're

.......

kelly4 · Jul 20, 2013

UncleBuck said:
*you're

.......

LOL! So predictable. U MitE B dUMz!

AlabamaRedneck · Jul 20, 2013

desert dude said:
I know that many of you think Zimmerman was guilty of "at least manslaughter" and that he was wrongly acquitted. He walked because of "beyond a reasonable doubt", or because he properly used self defense where he "reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death".

To convict Zimmerman in the case at hand would require a change in the law. What would you change? Would you change the American legal system and make a person "guilty until proven innocent"? Would you change the standard of guilt to "somebody died and Zimmerman might have acted rashly so he should go to prison"? Would you change the law to disallow self defense with a deadly weapon? Even though SYG is irrelevant to this trial, would you revoke SYG? Would you disallow citizens' right to keep and bear arms?

The Zimmerman Debacle was a debacle only because Zimmerman was charged with a crime. He should never have been charged; the "Stand Your Ground" laws are fine as they are. The stupid gang member wannabe Baby Tray stood his ground, and so did George Zimmerman. Zimmerman prevailed only because he was properly and legally armed; otherwise, he might have been killed by "Baby Tray".

How would you change the law to prevent another Zimmerman debacle?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member