Author Topic: Jonathan Capehart Marks the Anniversary  (Read 1257 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Jonathan Capehart Marks the Anniversary
« on: February 26, 2013, 09:20:07 AM »

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jonathan Capehart Marks the Anniversary
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2013, 05:40:38 PM »
The most interesting part is the comments Sybrina Fulton and Ben Crump made at a luncheon meeting with Capehart, mentioned in the first article.  They will be much more devastated by a judge's decision granting immunity than a jury's acquittal.
Quote
“We can live with a jury verdict,” Crump said. What they would have trouble accepting is Zimmerman walking away with immunity. Fulton is afraid of the precedent that would set.

“It sends a signal, [a] terrible message to people that in order for you to get off from murdering somebody you have to kill the person so they don’t tell their side of the story,” she said. “Now, I’m not by any means an attorney, so I understand generally what the Castle Doctrine is and also the ‘stand your ground’ law. I’m an average person and my understanding [of the] message that they will be sending [is] that you don’t have to be accountable for what you’ve done.”

Crump said it would be “very disappointing” and “incredibly heartbreaking” if Zimmerman received immunity from prosecution. And he put in stark terms the reason why. “It’s just like Sybrina just said: We all need to be afraid, because the precedent would be set that you can kill certain people and say, ‘stand your ground.’… [T]hat’s a terrible precedent, for little black and brown boys especially.”

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jonathan Capehart Marks the Anniversary
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2013, 05:49:05 PM »
The most interesting part is the comments Sybrina Fulton and Ben Crump made at a luncheon meeting with Capehart, mentioned in the first article.  They will be much more devastated by a judge's decision granting immunity than a jury's acquittal.

I think the Immunity would be devastating for obvious reasons.  The "not to be discu$$ed" reason.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Jonathan Capehart Marks the Anniversary
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2013, 03:15:35 AM »
There's a Capehart article from just before those

Click Here

where he's all bent out of shape because

A.  O'Mara won't play along and refer to Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law as their Stand Your Ground law, or

B. Because O'Mara wants a hearing on the immunity clause/provision of the Justifiable Use of Force law instead of  the Stand Your Ground clause/provision of that law, which O'Mara doesn't see as pertaining to Zimmerman's straightforward, duty to retreat ain't got nuttin' to do with it because he was pinned on the ground and couldn't retreat, self-defense claim.

Or maybe both, I couldn't really tell.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking