quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

The problem is that it's quite possible. Some folks get a permit and stop using their brain. Having a firearm on your person does not make you bulletproof or invincible. On the contrary, it can actually attract bullets and hasten your demise if you don't think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/trayvon-martin-case-video-zimmerman-16024564

Judge for yourself. IF Martin and Zimmerman did get in a fight, do Zimmerman's injuries support his claim of being in immediate danger of Great Bodily Harm ( in the specific legal context ) or Death?

His nose looks broken.

What do you base that on? I don't know if you've ever been in the same room with a broken nose but they bleed profusely. I've had a few, caused a few and seen even more. Where's the blood? the video was taken about 30 mins after the shooting. If he had a broken nose and scalp lacerations (both of which bleed like the proverbial stuck pig), his shirt would look like he had just finished a shift at the slaughterhouse.

As for the pic with the lump on his head, that's out of a Brit tabloid. I'm really careful about quoting them. They have a habit of retouching photos and making things up. I've been burned more than once quoting them.

If there was any blood, the cops would be wearing gloves as per SOP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/trayvon-martin-case-video-zimmerman-16024564

Judge for yourself. IF Martin and Zimmerman did get in a fight, do Zimmerman's injuries support his claim of being in immediate danger of Great Bodily Harm ( in the specific legal context ) or Death?

His nose looks broken.

What do you base that on? I don't know if you've ever been in the same room with a broken nose but they bleed profusely. I've had a few, caused a few and seen even more. Where's the blood? the video was taken about 30 mins after the shooting. If he had a broken nose and scalp lacerations (both of which bleed like the proverbial stuck pig), his shirt would look like he had just finished a shift at the slaughterhouse.

As for the pic with the lump on his head, that's out of a Brit tabloid. I'm really careful about quoting them. They have a habit of retouching photos and making things up. I've been burned more than once quoting them.

If there was any blood, the cops would be wearing gloves as per SOP.

Actually, it was on the first page of the MSNBC website. Clear as day. What can I say? I can say that all along "many" here pronounced Zimmerman's guilt so irresponsibly that they have a stake in Zimmerman being guilty or they look like the mob rule they actually are, so anything that goes against the "Zimmerman is guilty" mob judgement that many actively support here must be somehow spun as "doctored" or retouched or faked or something. But of course, those of us who simply said "wait for he facts" have no stake in this and can amuse ourselves with your dance and simply wait for the investigation findings and they should be forthcoming soon.

Can't wait, can you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

I've read that Zimmerman told the police that, during their fight, Trayvon went for his (that is, Zimmerman's) gun after making a verbal death threat.
That would obviously obviate any need for physical injuries as a justification for the use of deadly force.
Remember that the burden of proof is on the state.
Zimmerman does not have to prove his narrative.
The police have to disprove it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou


The deep south has been a bastile of racial violence of this type where whites allways found SOME excuse for killing Blacks and getting away with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Not even when they seceded ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Remember that the burden of proof is on the state.
Zimmerman does not have to prove his narrative.
The police have to disprove it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou


The deep south has been a bastile of racial violence of this type where whites allways found SOME excuse for killing Blacks and getting away with it.

Florida has NEVER been considered part of the "deep south." 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Not REALLY. That might be the case if 776.041 wasn't in play, but since Zimmerman provoked the whole thing... You don't get to claim self-defense when you provoke it.

I think I may have found the problem here. You are confusing "fargles" with "facts". It is true that they both begin with an "f" followed by an "a", but the conclusion you are drawing from this coincidence is mistaken. To wit, it is not the case that an aggressor is statutorily barred from claiming self-defense:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor — The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

I hope you will not feel embarrassed by my speculation that you have been confusing "fargles" with "facts". I do not wish to deny you the benefit of doubt by presuming another explanation.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Not REALLY. That might be the case if 776.041 wasn't in play, but since Zimmerman provoked the whole thing... You don't get to claim self-defense when you provoke it.

I think I may have found the problem here. You are confusing "fargles" with "facts". It is true that they both begin with an "f" followed by an "a", but the conclusion you are drawing from this coincidence is mistaken. To wit, it is not the case that an aggressor is statutorily barred from claiming self-defense:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor — The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

I hope you will not feel embarrassed by my speculation that you have been confusing "fargles" with "facts". I do not wish to deny you the benefit of doubt by presuming another explanation.

K.