Skip to main content

View Diary: Sean Hannity defends execution-style killings of two teen burglars (376 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He DID defend Zimmerman... (43+ / 0-)

    Which was where the kid was chased down and shot. This is just another step from that.

    Basically, his logic is if you're ever in any case where it might even remotely be considered legal to use lethal force, you should always use it. Needless to say, that's a very dangerous argument to make.

    •  Hannity always seems to defend the shooter unless (21+ / 0-)

      the person protecting his property is a minority or a woman..he will always defend the white guy.

      Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

      by wishingwell on Thu May 01, 2014 at 03:25:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, Sean... (7+ / 0-)

        "How could it be premeditated when they broke into his house?"

        The case was that of Byron Smith, who after his house was burglarized set a "trap" for the neighborhood teen he suspected of being the culprit by moving his car away from his house, hiding in the basement and waiting for them.
        That is premeditation.

        “Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid.)” ― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

        by midgebaker on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:00:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  self-defense is always premeditated (3+ / 0-)

          You purchase a weapon and ammunition for the express purpose of shooting a total stranger. How is any shooting in "self-defense" not premeditated. Though I think this guy went way over the top.

          Mind - if you do defend yourself from bodily harm, I have no problem with anyone defending themselves - with a gun or martial arts or whatever. I just have a real problem with "defending" your possessions. I'm with the insurance guy - buy more insurance.

          •  defending (0+ / 0-)
            I just have a real problem with "defending" your possessions. I'm with the insurance guy - buy more insurance.
            No shit!!  :-)

            "It's high time (and then some) that we put an end to the exceptionalistic nonsense floating around in our culture and face the fact that either the economy works for all, or it doesn't work AT all." -- Sean McCullough (DailyKos user thanatokephaloides)

            by thanatokephaloides on Fri May 02, 2014 at 03:14:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Get your facts right on Zimmerman - the "kid" (0+ / 0-)

      physically attacked him and was beating his head against the sidewalk when Zimm pulled the trigger. This was the decision of a jury, with far more access to the facts than we have.

      •  WTF? (4+ / 0-)

        One, the only "witness" was the guy who made the kill.  Two, there were all kinds of issues raised with the trial, what evidence was presented and what instructions the jury was given - never mind the vagueness of the entire SYG law.  That's not even to mention everything we've learned about Zimmerman, his anger management problems and his bullying behavior before and since.  That man was not and has never been a victim.

        I'll have a Cafe-Mocha-Vodka-Valium Latte to go, please.

        by penelope pnortney on Fri May 02, 2014 at 04:04:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Zimmerman (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        enufenuf, HM2Viking
        Get your facts right on Zimmerman - the "kid" physically attacked him and was beating his head against the sidewalk when Zimm pulled the trigger.
        Wrong. Just like all other attempts at exonerating Zimmerman.

        After Zimmerman directly violated express police orders not to confront at all, Trayvon Martin ("the kid") dared fight this un-identified stranger back when accosted. It was he, not Zimmerman, who had the right to the use of lethal force in self-defense. Zimmerman, not Martin, was the aggressor here.

        Those are the facts -- and the only facts that matter.

        This was the decision of a jury, with far more access to the facts than we have.
        A jury, empaneled and sitting in a former Confederate State, where the shooter was essentially white (and with a German surname to boot) and the victim was black?

        ROTFLMAO!!!

        Also, petit jurors (members of trial juries) have less access to the facts than we have, at least during the trial they are trying. They are actually prohibited from investigation on their own, and may not expose themselves to anything regarding the case except what the trial lawyers present and the judge approves. This is a significantly reduced subset of the entirety of the facts.

        Had the case been tried in any reasonable, continuously-loyal State (i.e., non-slavery in 1860 or never-slavery like Colorado), Zimmerman would have been convicted. Even in such of those States which have "stand your ground" laws. Zimmerman's disobedience of a lawful police order which he had received and acknowledged would have rendered any self-defense claim, "stand your ground" or not, totally moot.

        Instead, a typically Southern county jury in a typically ex-Confederate State did what such things nearly always do: they found that the black teenager was completely responsible for his being stalked, tackled, shot, and killed. Trayvon Martin was essentially condemned to death posthumously for walking while black. Condemned by that selfsame jury, which committed a serious and grave wrong.

        additional details here

        "It's high time (and then some) that we put an end to the exceptionalistic nonsense floating around in our culture and face the fact that either the economy works for all, or it doesn't work AT all." -- Sean McCullough (DailyKos user thanatokephaloides)

        by thanatokephaloides on Fri May 02, 2014 at 04:27:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site