Quote:
Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
So are you mad that the President isn't getting involved enough, or mad that he's getting involved at all..?
What was the up-skirt peeping reference about? If the President thought that Stand Your Ground laws were wrong (the jury was advised to take the law into consideration-- so despite what some people have said on these boards, the jury did consider the law in this case), shouldn't he get involved to see that such state laws are repealed? Are you saying it's just totally wrong for a President to get involved in a huge news story? What about Terri Schiavo, for example? This sort of thing happens literally all of the time, because the President is the figurehead of the United States. This was a huge international story.
|
President has
WAY more important things to do than worry about a state law. The president understands how laws and the legal system works. He should have used a call to action to get Americans involved in local voting to repeal such laws, vice likening himself to Trayvon and adding fuel to what is completely NOT racial and making it racial.
The reference was about LAW. We all know it's wrong to do that peeping. Yet no law was broken. Much like stand your ground. Both sides made exercised bad judgment that resulted in a death, yet no law was broken.
This was a huge international story that was sensationalized by the media to draw in ratings. People die every day. People are shot every day. Here are some other examples of LAW working when adults shoot kids:
Black guy shoots a white kid:
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top...tt-not-guilty/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1209345
Why were those not sensationalized?