There is a question that Mark has not been able to answer for years.
Describe a scenario, consistent with the known evidence, in which Travon Martin would have been legally justified to use physical force up to and including deadly physical force upon George Zimmerman.
He hasn't answered that question. He can't answer that question. He can't answer it because one: he doesn't understand the legal system enough to do so, but he also can't answer it for the same reason Zimmerman was found not guilty - because there simply isn't a credible scenario as such.
Without a scenario in which Martin would have been legally justified to use force upon Zimmerman - then all that is left is that Martin was unlawfully assaulting Zimmerman. We have a term for when a person is unlawfully assaulted by another person. That term is 'victim'.
Mark likes to laugh and make fun of people who reference Zimmerman as the victim here. All that does is make Mark look the fool. Simple fact is that legally Zimmerman was the victim or he would not have been able to successfully employ an affirmative defense in this case. Affirmative defense is a legal term as well. Those who don't understand it should look it up.
Now as for this referenced material....
Yes - Obama took sides on an issue. He took sides on an issue without the knowledge of the entire facts of the case. He took that side without the knowledge and then sided with a side based upon....what?
Not only that but he sided with what has turned out to be the wrong side - and has not apologized.
There is a question that Mark has not been able to answer for years.
ReplyDeleteDescribe a scenario, consistent with the known evidence, in which Travon Martin would have been legally justified to use physical force up to and including deadly physical force upon George Zimmerman.
He hasn't answered that question. He can't answer that question. He can't answer it because one: he doesn't understand the legal system enough to do so, but he also can't answer it for the same reason Zimmerman was found not guilty - because there simply isn't a credible scenario as such.
Without a scenario in which Martin would have been legally justified to use force upon Zimmerman - then all that is left is that Martin was unlawfully assaulting Zimmerman. We have a term for when a person is unlawfully assaulted by another person. That term is 'victim'.
Mark likes to laugh and make fun of people who reference Zimmerman as the victim here. All that does is make Mark look the fool. Simple fact is that legally Zimmerman was the victim or he would not have been able to successfully employ an affirmative defense in this case. Affirmative defense is a legal term as well. Those who don't understand it should look it up.
Now as for this referenced material....
Yes - Obama took sides on an issue. He took sides on an issue without the knowledge of the entire facts of the case. He took that side without the knowledge and then sided with a side based upon....what?
Not only that but he sided with what has turned out to be the wrong side - and has not apologized.
Divisive politics, thy name is Barrack Obama.