Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you don't like the second amendment. You should look into repealing the 14th amendment. In the 14th amendment, enshrines the power of the Supreme Court to guarantee gun rights to all citizens.
Yeah, yeah..I saw that video a long time ago. Funny you should bring up the 14th Amendment. It also prohibits states from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Guess Trayvon Martin didn't get the chance to use that Amendment, did he? I mean, if Florida gave George Zimmerman the right to carry a gun, then shouldn't the State also be responsible for the consequences of those actions? That is why we have a court system. It's to find out if the laws were followed. If they were and we still think they're unfair or unjust, then as citizens we have the right to question them and even rebel against them.
I don't think it was. I also don't think it's relevant. Then the defense could ask if Zimmerman was drunk or on drugs. I know others have mentioned there was no reason to test Zimmerman, but why not? He shot someone! Isn't that "suspicious behavior?" If a cop thinks you are driving erratically and "suspects" you are drunk, in some states (not Florida) you have to take a breathalizer or your license will be suspended and your car will be impounded. Killing someone is a lot more serious, don't you think? I'll have to go back to look for the post to which you refer, but I believe you've gotten several responses from a few people in the past. You're just not getting the answers you want.
The previous answers people brought in other witnesses to events AFTER the shooting. Yet no one directly addressed the two witnesses I've cited.
And within the court system, there's this saying that anyone who represents him/herself has a fool for a client. I have personally witnessed this to be true on a number of occasions.
Reading and interpreting the law is not as easy as some people think it is. There's a reason folks go to law school.
Abraham Lincoln didn't go to law school. As one of your "allies" has made clear this isn't a court of law.
So no one has yet responded to my post about the two witnesses to the fight. I wonder why?
I can say this about that. You don't know whether or not the state has two witnesses who can contradict what your two witnesses have to say, and you don't know what types of physical evidence the state has which may contradict what they say. You don't know if there is forensics evidence which proves that the person screaming for help was Trayvon Martin. So at this point, your two witnesses really don't mean much. Plus, even though you are of the opinion that the mother of the one witness is "changing" his story to protect him, she could very well be called as she was present during the questioning.
Many studies over the years have commented on the unreliability of eye witness memory/testimony. Once again, here are some links to those studies. You can also google eye witness unreliability studies to find more info.
Yeah, yeah..I saw that video a long time ago. Funny you should bring up the 14th Amendment. It also prohibits states from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Guess Trayvon Martin didn't get the chance to use that Amendment, did he? I mean, if Florida gave George Zimmerman the right to carry a gun, then shouldn't the State also be responsible for the consequences of those actions?
You are misunderstanding the situation. Zimmerman can defend himself if he feels his life is threatened. We don't know what transpired between Martin and Zimmerman. And we don't really know if Zimmerman was fearful of his life at the time.
We can sit and say that Martin probably wasn't going to kill Zimmerman based on what we know today. But lets pretend that Martin had killed Zimmerman. Not intentionally, but maybe his punch broke his nose and a shard of bone punctured his brain. Or his brain swelled and caused severe brain damage. I don't know what could have happened, you hear weird stories.
But under those circumstances, Zimmerman wouldn't have had any due process of law before he was killed either. So your argument is pretty damn stupid. Because it was a matter of defending himself from an attack. And we know with almost 100% certainty that he did get attacked to at least some degree. So if you think that someone who is getting beat to death can't shoot the perpetrator because he would be denying his assailant due process of law,
I highly doubt anyone with a few working brain cells is going to try to argue that self-defense violates due process.
But, the 14th amendment still is what protects your second amendment. Without it, the individual states could prohibit guns independently. And there never would have been the McDonald v. Chicago supreme court decision.
Last edited by CaseyB; 04-29-2012 at 02:54 PM..
Reason: rude
I can say this about that. You don't know whether or not the state has two witnesses who can contradict what your two witnesses have to say, and you don't know what types of physical evidence the state has which may contradict what they say. You don't know if there is forensics evidence which proves that the person screaming for help was Trayvon Martin. So at this point, your two witnesses really don't mean much. Plus, even though you are of the opinion that the mother of the one witness is "changing" his story to protect him, she could very well be called as she was present during the questioning.
Many studies over the years have commented on the unreliability of eye witness memory/testimony. Once again, here are some links to those studies. You can also google eye witness unreliability studies to find more info.
Sorry a generic undermining of eye witnesses is just not going to work. Is there anything specific that has been released in the media or court documents to date to contradict these two witnesses?
Saying we don't know what the prosecution has is a cop out. We can certainly have an intelligent discussion based on what has been released thus far.
I can say this about that. You don't know whether or not the state has two witnesses who can contradict what your two witnesses have to say, and you don't know what types of physical evidence the state has which may contradict what they say. You don't know if there is forensics evidence which proves that the person screaming for help was Trayvon Martin. So at this point, your two witnesses really don't mean much. Plus, even though you are of the opinion that the mother of the one witness is "changing" his story to protect him, she could very well be called as she was present during the questioning.
Many studies over the years have commented on the unreliability of eye witness memory/testimony. Once again, here are some links to those studies. You can also google eye witness unreliability studies to find more info.
Oh, come on. Your implication was that you understood the law because you can understand what you read.
Yes and I maintain that belief. Lawyers do not have a monopoly on interpreting the law correctly. Any intelligent person can do it, give it a try sometimes. Frankly with all of the sub par law schools and reduction of standards many lawyers aren't that good anyway.
Sorry a generic undermining of eye witnesses is just not going to work. Is there anything specific that has been released in the media or court documents to date to contradict these two witnesses?
Saying we don't know what the prosecution has is a cop out. We can certainly have an intelligent discussion based on what has been released thus far.
No, it's not a cop out. How can you have an intelligent conversation with LARGE pieces of the puzzle missing? If you had read the links you would have seen percentages regarding wrongful convictions due to eye witness testimony. You have basically a stacked deck arguing from what has been released at this point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your implication was that you understood the law because you can understand what you read.
