|
10338. arkymalarky - 6/3/2012 1:34:21 AM I just don't agree with what you think would absolve him, which could only occur in step 4, and I say that because of what transpired in steps1-3. By the point of 4, again IMO, Martin was justified by the available, verifiable info. Due to the DA's inaction and the loss of Physical evidence due to negligence, in addition to Zimmerman being returned to jail for a major lie to a judge, in addition to the phone records corroborating steps 1-3, Zimmerman has a hard row to hoe in proving he was justified in killing Martin. And for the safety of pedestrians everywhere, he shouldn't be. 10339. arkymalarky - 6/3/2012 1:38:05 AM There's no rush to judgment, just a way to look at the evidence. Had this situation not gotten publicity there likely would have been no action taken at all, which would be a denial of justice. Martin's parents rightly didn't accept that. 10340. concerned - 6/3/2012 4:36:27 AM arky -
Do me a favor & don't teach anybody anything related to law, ok? 10341. concerned - 6/3/2012 4:41:40 AM Btw, the Egyptian government has not sentenced Mubarak to death but instead to a life in prison. Say what you will about it, that is vastly more justice than the 9mm trial and execution that was delivered to bin Laden. 10342. arkymalarky - 6/3/2012 5:01:40 AM Sorry Con'd. Too late by about 30 years. 10343. arkymalarky - 6/3/2012 5:05:13 AM It's extreme even for a GOP apologist to suggest the killing of bin laden was unjustly carried out. He dove for his weapon and was shot. Happens here all the time. Maybe you need to get more active with Amnesty International. 10344. concerned - 6/3/2012 5:41:54 AM Re. 10343 -
bin Laden did not 'dive' for any weapon according to the account I read. And you are aware, of course, that the mission objective was to kill him regardless of whether he was begging for mercy.
You are just not temperamentally suited to an objective interpretation of law, Arky. You are obviously 100% non judgmental of who you like and totally dismissive of who you don't like. In some ways that is a positive trait, but not in an supposedly objective discussion of what constitutes justice. 10345. concerned - 6/3/2012 5:44:17 AM What is it with this 'cannibalfest'? We have at least 3 in the news now - all clearly Left leaning, btw. 10346. concerned - 6/3/2012 5:52:15 AM Btw, if bin Laden was 'diving for his weapon', how high are the chances that he would have died from a single shot to the front of his head (he was shot above his left eye), which he was???? 10347. concerned - 6/3/2012 5:54:38 AM It was an assassination of bin Laden, pure and simple. Just no way around it. 10348. arkymalarky - 6/3/2012 2:13:16 PM Hahahahahaha! I just love you! You're so worth the price of admission. 10349. arkymalarky - 6/3/2012 2:15:31 PM And no, that was not the mission. Why don't you bother with getting the facts before you read the far right screeching interpretation of them? 10350. judithathome - 6/3/2012 4:44:30 PM You are just not temperamentally suited to an objective interpretation of law, Arky. You are obviously 100% non judgmental of who you like and totally dismissive of who you don't like.
...followed by this:
What is it with this 'cannibalfest'? We have at least 3 in the news now - all clearly Left leaning, btw
...almost made me spilt my stitches! Talk about unaware!!! 10351. Wombat - 6/3/2012 6:06:20 PM Concerned is seeking to provoke... 10352. judithathome - 6/3/2012 7:29:36 PM ...and succeeding! 10353. arkymalarky - 6/3/2012 9:22:28 PM That's what makes him so funny Wombat! 10354. concerned - 6/4/2012 9:32:17 PM And no, that was not the mission.
Yes it was. Leon Panetta admitted that the assault team had authority to kill bin Laden 'if he didn't throw his hands up', which made it tantamount to an assassination. 10355. concerned - 6/4/2012 9:39:46 PM Leon Panetta says he was told bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot in the head.
That settles it for me. Assassination. 10356. vonKreedon - 6/4/2012 9:55:29 PM Well, I'm very much in favor of such assassinations; I wish that we'd do much less killing of AQ leaders with missiles and bombs and a lot more by SpecOps guys on the ground. There's more control of the violence and who gets killed with guys on the ground, plus all the intel we get from being able to take things from the people/grounds.
I do not believe that you really oppose the killing of ObL, just that it was done on Obama's authority. 10357. concerned - 6/4/2012 10:29:51 PM I had no problem with Bush not having Saddam killed, and I happen to believe that if the US takes it upon itself to assassinate foreign nationals that this increases the likelihood of some of them repaying US officials in kind.
Then there is the matter of Gerals Ford's executive order prohibiting assassinations. What of that?
Plus capturing bin Laden alive and handing him over to the Afghani government in the way that things were handled with Iraq would tend to increase the authority of the Afghani government which could then try bin Laden according to its own laws.
Instead the 0bama administration acted in the way that you Lefties were so fond of accusing the Bush Administration of - like 'cowboys' and 'vigilantes'.
Perhaps this will make my position more clear to you.
|
