jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (8 posts)

Why is Eric Holder telling people to challenge Stand Your Ground?

  1. Cassie Smith profile image69
    Cassie Smithposted 4 years ago

    Why is Eric Holder telling people to challenge Stand Your Ground?

    Zimmerman's trial had nothing to do with stand your ground but was basically about self-defense.  Isn't it really about the gov't trying to erode your right to protect yourself, home, and family so that you would have to depend on the state?

  2. profile image0
    CalebSparksposted 4 years ago

    It's always the character of politicians to take advantage of tragedy to advance their agenda---whether the people want it or not. Examples of this behavior abound. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Thank God we still have some checks and balances in this country to impede the progress of tyrants.

  3. Wayne Brown profile image84
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    Absolutely.  Since when can you remember an administration so willing to create division in the masses while at the same time attempting to take away rights and the physical ability to protect ourselves in self-defense situations.  Holder is Obama's water-boy and he will carry the mail no matter how illicit it might be.  Just the mention of the man's name in relation to the Department of Justice is a shame.  Obama cares nothing for the Constitution nor does Holder.  We need to remember one thing here...in order to declare marshal law there first needs to be unmanageable chaos on the part of local and state governments. The Zimmerman cases gives the administration the ability to fan those dividing fires and insure no good crisis goes to waste.  Those who have worked in support of the continuation of this administration will soon come to realize what a grieveous mistake that it was.  Labor unions are now coming to realize that ObamaCare will indeed destroy the middle class wage earner but that train has already left the station and their support has already been expended on putting Obama back into office.  The question becomes, "Can those nation hold on for three more years and not lose most of its heritage in terms of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"  It is looking quite doubtful at this point and Congress and the Courts are only paving the way.

  4. profile image0
    Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago

    This administration will use any situation to further their own agenda.  They will not be satisfied until everyone except their friends are totally dependent on government for survival.

  5. junkseller profile image86
    junksellerposted 4 years ago

    He thinks they are bad laws that contribute to "more violence than they prevent," and he is the Attorney General, that is kind of his area of interest. The evidence so far suggests that he is correct. I'm happy to have him working for my interests in this instance.

    1. profile image61
      retief2000posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It is not the public responsibilities of the AG to weigh in on events. He is to act judiciously and above the fray. Holder likes getting in the much, it is the activist in him. He has told an absolute lie about Zimmerman invoking "Stand Your Ground."

    2. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Encouraging dialog regarding the law seems like exactly the sort of thing he is supposed to do. And when exactly did he say Zimmerman invoked SYG?

  6. LandmarkWealth profile image78
    LandmarkWealthposted 4 years ago

    Because he wants to incite more problems. The DOJ has already been caught organizing protests...as if that is somehow their job.   Removing the stand your ground rules places the burden on the person who is the Victim.   By all accounts this case had nothing to do with stand your ground.  But if someone corners you and assaults you, you better hope if you win the fight that there is no way on earth they can demonstrate that somehow there was a path for you to flee. Because if they can...you're finished.   The system is so screwed up that my uncle was once hit with a lawsuit for shooting an intruder who climbed into his dining room window in the middle of the night.  He claimed he was on the way out of the house when my uncle shot him.  In the end the guy lost.  But not until years of aggravation for my uncle.

    What I have learned from all of this is and prior incidents over the years... is that clowns like Holder have been around for years.  They are always looking to defend the attacker if there is a racial case to be made and it fits their agenda.  Back in 2009 the President jumped the gun and assailed a police officer in Cambridge for simply doing his job because he questioned a black Professor who appeared to be breaking into a home. He never publicly apologized, but instead invited him to a "beer summit". 

    If God forbid I ever had to fire my weapon at an intruder or someone attacking me and killed them...I am not sure I would even report it if nobody was around.  If I shot someone who was a minority, no matter what the situation was they'd look to hang me in the media.  I'd be better off digging a whole in the backyard even if I am innocent.   At least I'd have a chance of keeping my life, unlike Zimmerman who's life won't be left alone...even after an acquittal.  That's why cops for years carried throw away weapons. It was there only defense against political and media driven baseless attacks.   Once the incident happens the Holder's of the world want to make it political and assign an alternate motive.  Now since this case was assigned a racial motive, they'll attack the stand your ground laws and make sure you're forced to evaluate all of your escape routes in a fraction of a second before defending yourself.

 
working