About Us

F.O.A.D.

On 7/22/13 11:18 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 7/22/2013 11:00 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:28:31 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/22/13 1:12 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 13:40:45 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Although I agree with those who say we don't need "Stand Your Ground"
statutes outside of your home, I don't understand the media attention
and activist groups (led by people like Al Sharpton) who are using
the Zimmerman trial to promote the elimination of SYG.

Zimmerman's defense was *not* based on SYG grounds. It was based on
self-defense. This was a purposeful and strategic decision by his
defense attorneys.

The reason he was acquitted by the jury was due to the stupidity of
the state's prosecution team of attorneys. *They* are the ones that
put into evidence all of Zimmerman's accounts of the events, thereby
allowing de facto testimony by Zimmerman without the ability to cross
examine him. The defense attorneys made good use of this blunder by
calling other witnesses to testify that gave credence to Zimmerman's
account of the events, raising sufficient reasonable doubt to generate
a "not guilty" verdict.

Typical of any unpopular decision or circumstance (to them) , the
liberal media and activist groups are totally misinforming the public
on the facts.

The strange thing is black defendants have availed themselves of SYG
defenses at a higher rate than white people.

Holder, Sharpton and the rest seem to be ignorant of or simply ignore
that fact.

My guess is that "Holder, Sharpton and the rest" believe the Stand Your
Ground laws suck, no matter who is availing themselves of them. They
seem to be little more than laws that allow you to settle disputes on
the street with a gun.

"He slapped me, I was scared, so I shot him."

The SYG laws encourage bad behavior on the part of gunslingers.

How many times would your head have to be pounded into the concrete
before you thought you were in fear of your life?
You armed yourself and were prepared to shoot someone over an
ambiguous internet post.

If that is harry you are talking about, he has insinuated dozens of
times here that he would be more than willing to find a reason to shoot
several posters here over the years...

I would not hesitate to shoot a home invader, especially at night where
there is nowhere to run to on the top floor of a three story house. You
threatened to commit the crime of home invasion, and you also intimated
you would send one of your hoodlum motorcycle gang buddies down here to
do the job for you. That particular threat resulted in the police
visiting you at your house.

A home invasion is, indeed, a reason to shoot someone. Keep that in mind
in case your paranoia gives you the false courage to make a road trip in
order to create mayhem and commit a violent felony.

You're a sick little ****head, psychotic or bordering on it, and you'll
never get help until it is too late for you or your victim or both of you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New vehicle confusion...	Don White	General	46	April 1st 06 07:52 PM
Liberal media? You mean slimey media	Nick	General	7	June 19th 05 05:18 AM
Engine oil confusion	Big Daddy	General	2	April 17th 05 09:13 PM
OT Confusion on how to vote	Short Wave Sportfishing	General	5	September 20th 04 02:32 AM
Express to Confusion!	Bobsprit	ASA	6	July 14th 03 02:09 AM

Menu

About Us