Trayvon Martin

rick773 said:
johnmc said:
Ha so people think that looting is a political statement?

If you feel people don't care about you , should you care about them?

No, but if I dont care about someone I dont go and rob JD sports. How is that a protest? If they were fighting against coppers or damaging goverment buildings then fine, you could understand why anyone who feels oppressed might do that. Thats a protest against the system.
 
Lucky13 said:
rick773 said:
johnmc said:
Ha so people think that looting is a political statement?

If you feel people don't care about you , should you care about them?

No , but raiding my local electrical store or JD Sports doesn't cross my mind either.

Well I guess as long as the media could keep the outrage on some scummy chavs stealing shit and not the police murdering someone they're doing their job.
 
Skashion said:
Have we even got any reports of looting yet?

Not as yet. People are waiting for Rodney King to get another damn good thrashing and then they're all set to go.
 
ElanJo said:
taconinja said:
johnmc said:
Did not know that. Thanks. So if he did take the stand its fair to say he is likely to have damaged his defence?
First question would have been why did he feel compelled to follow and then chase down Mr. Martin. His previous statements are rather all over the place and boil down to he chased him because he looked suspicious. When asked why Mr. Martin looked suspicious, his response was because he was Black.

Then the opposing lawyer would ask him why he started a fight with someone simply walking down the street. He would try to lie of course, but whenever interviewed he's come across poorly.

Because he's a racist. Let's keep that in mind.

So yes, he would have slit his own wrists by testifying. Constitutionally, he can't be compelled to incriminate himself.

This is why a potential civil suit is intriguing. He would be compelled to testify twice. First when he attempts to invoke Stand Your Ground, he must testify to a judge. If he goofs that up, and as he is a habitual loser, so that's very likely, Stand Your Ground is denied. Then he goes to civil trial, which unlike a criminal trial does not need a unanimous decision. They also aren't restricted to reasonable doubt. All the jury has to do is decide what they think happened and act accordingly.

And since he's a racist, he'll probably get destroyed on the stand and lose.

Words fail...
You're welcome to present a cogent counter-argument. I'll wait.

And most of the protesting seems to be of a non-violent nature. I'm sure that's quite disappointing to some.
 
rick773 said:
Lucky13 said:
rick773 said:
If you feel people don't care about you , should you care about them?

No , but raiding my local electrical store or JD Sports doesn't cross my mind either.

Well I guess as long as the media could keep the outrage on some scummy chavs stealing shit and not the police murdering someone they're doing their job.

" civil rights campaigners" , it makes it justifiable.
 
mrcunny said:
mcmanus said:
taconinja said:
First question would have been why did he feel compelled to follow and then chase down Mr. Martin. His previous statements are rather all over the place and boil down to he chased him because he looked suspicious. When asked why Mr. Martin looked suspicious, his response was because he was Black.

Then the opposing lawyer would ask him why he started a fight with someone simply walking down the street. He would try to lie of course, but whenever interviewed he's come across poorly.

Because he's a racist. Let's keep that in mind.

So yes, he would have slit his own wrists by testifying. Constitutionally, he can't be compelled to incriminate himself.

This is why a potential civil suit is intriguing. He would be compelled to testify twice. First when he attempts to invoke Stand Your Ground, he must testify to a judge. If he goofs that up, and as he is a habitual loser, so that's very likely, Stand Your Ground is denied. Then he goes to civil trial, which unlike a criminal trial does not need a unanimous decision. They also aren't restricted to reasonable doubt. All the jury has to do is decide what they think happened and act accordingly.

And since he's a racist, he'll probably get destroyed on the stand and lose.

How can he be a racist the lad's a spic.

haha nice one..

:-)
 
21a7270778969e0479fd47aa685773bd.gif
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top