George Zimmerman's bloody head

[MuadDib]

There really is no evidence, much less "proof," that Zimmerman "ran."

But, let's not quibble.

Let's pretend that the proof is there.

Ok.

So, in following a guy he found suspicious who was getting away -- after the neighborhood watch guy had called the police about him -- Zimmerman chose to "run."

And?

In your twisted little mind, does this justify Martin turning around on Zimmerman and attacking him (if Zimmerman didn't touch Martin first)?

I'm pretty sure you aren't going to try to claim that there's ANY evidence that Zimmerman touched Martin before Martin struck Zimmerman. Are you?

Did you realize that being followed (even by a guy who is "running") is NOT a crime and does not constitute an "attack?"

Getting away after having done what ?

Irrelevant. Zimmerman wasn't trying to arrest him, apparently.

He was FOLLOWING the young guy to prevent that guy -- whom he had called the cops about -- from getting away at all before the cops could arrive. In other words, he wanted to be able to tell the responding cops where the suspicious guy could be located.

So what?

He's allowed to do that.

I agree. There was nothing illegal or immoral in trying to follow Martin and report to the police where he was and what he was doing.

If you read this article, you get a better understanding about what had been going on in that community and Zimmerman's motivations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Getting away after having done what ?

Irrelevant. Zimmerman wasn't trying to arrest him, apparently.

He was FOLLOWING the young guy to prevent that guy -- whom he had called the cops about -- from getting away at all before the cops could arrive. In other words, he wanted to be able to tell the responding cops where the suspicious guy could be located.

So what?

He's allowed to do that.

So someone is allowed to stalk another person and then kill them. Shit, that sucks for people being stalked

Stalk? What's that?

 

[Peach]

Getting away after having done what ?

Irrelevant. Zimmerman wasn't trying to arrest him, apparently.

He was FOLLOWING the young guy to prevent that guy -- whom he had called the cops about -- from getting away at all before the cops could arrive. In other words, he wanted to be able to tell the responding cops where the suspicious guy could be located.

So what?

He's allowed to do that.

I agree. There was nothing illegal or immoral in trying to follow Martin and report to the police where he was and what he was doing.

If you read this article, you get a better understanding about what had been going on in that community and Zimmerman's motivations.

He like carrying a loaded weapon and pretending he was a police officer(.)

 

[Rozman]

Randi Rhodes had an audio tape of Travon Martin's GF that she was playing.
It sounded like a deposition.
Wonder where she got this from?
Anyway I can't share anything here about it.
I could not understand most of what the young lady was saying.
Maybe they had a microphone issue.

Although the person asking the questions sounded like HD audio...
The quality of the sound was perfect...

 

[Ravi]

If you feel threatened by someone legally walking through his own neighborhood, you can throw the first punch?

If you feel threatened, yes.

False.

Ravi is now dispensing legal "advice." But worse yet, her advice is flatly wrong.

Dispensing legal advice? Such a liar. I am merely telling you what the law says.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Irrelevant. Zimmerman wasn't trying to arrest him, apparently.

He was FOLLOWING the young guy to prevent that guy -- whom he had called the cops about -- from getting away at all before the cops could arrive. In other words, he wanted to be able to tell the responding cops where the suspicious guy could be located.

So what?

He's allowed to do that.

I agree. There was nothing illegal or immoral in trying to follow Martin and report to the police where he was and what he was doing.

If you read this article, you get a better understanding about what had been going on in that community and Zimmerman's motivations.

He like carrying a loaded weapon and pretending he was a police officer(.)

Yeah we all know you want to just hang George now; you are so self-righteous and judgemental it is disgusting.

Were someone talking about a black person like that in similar circumstnaces you would be hysterical about how racist everyone was.

People like you are a freaking joke on humanity.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you feel threatened, yes.

False.

Ravi is now dispensing legal "advice." But worse yet, her advice is flatly wrong.

Dispensing legal advice? Such a liar. I am merely telling you what the law says.

So what law is that and in what state?

Another good reason to not live there if you are correct, but my bet is that you are exagerating because you are too stupid and stubborn to admit when you are wrong.

 

[Liability]

If you feel threatened, yes.

False.

Ravi is now dispensing legal "advice." But worse yet, her advice is flatly wrong.

Dispensing legal advice? Such a liar. I am merely telling you what the law says.

No. You're not. You're "telling" us what the law absolutely does NOT say.

And the shit you spewed is not just wrong, but does constitute the offering of legal opinion and advice, you idiot.

 

[Liability]

Getting away after having done what ?

Irrelevant. Zimmerman wasn't trying to arrest him, apparently.

He was FOLLOWING the young guy to prevent that guy -- whom he had called the cops about -- from getting away at all before the cops could arrive. In other words, he wanted to be able to tell the responding cops where the suspicious guy could be located.

So what?

He's allowed to do that.

So someone is allowed to stalk another person and then kill them. Shit, that sucks for people being stalked

There was no "stalking" you stupid twat.

 

[Ravi]

False.

Ravi is now dispensing legal "advice." But worse yet, her advice is flatly wrong.

Dispensing legal advice? Such a liar. I am merely telling you what the law says.

No. You're not. You're "telling" us what the law absolutely does NOT say.

And the shit you spewed is not just wrong, but does constitute the offering of legal opinion and advice, you idiot.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

 

[Liability]

Dispensing legal advice? Such a liar. I am merely telling you what the law says.

No. You're not. You're "telling" us what the law absolutely does NOT say.

And the shit you spewed is not just wrong, but does constitute the offering of legal opinion and advice, you idiot.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Yes. I know what the law actually says, since I already quoted it.

And none of that -- not even one little tiny speck of it -- says that if you feel threatened by someone legally walking through his own neighborhood, you can throw the first punch.

And THAT is the sub-moronic claim YOU had made. You were wrong then and you remain totally fucked up.

Muddle on.

 

[Ravi]

No. You're not. You're "telling" us what the law absolutely does NOT say.

And the shit you spewed is not just wrong, but does constitute the offering of legal opinion and advice, you idiot.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Yes. I know what the law actually says, since I already quoted it.

And none of that -- not even one little tiny speck of it -- says that if you feel threatened by someone legally walking through his own neighborhood, you can throw the first punch.

And THAT is the sub-moronic claim YOU had made. You were wrong then and you remain totally fucked up.

Muddle on.

You are right in that it doesn't say anything about someone legally walking through his own neighborhood.

It says if you feel threatened you can defend yourself.

You must be a poor attorney to not grasp that point.

 

[Liability]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Yes. I know what the law actually says, since I already quoted it.

And none of that -- not even one little tiny speck of it -- says that if you feel threatened by someone legally walking through his own neighborhood, you can throw the first punch.

And THAT is the sub-moronic claim YOU had made. You were wrong then and you remain totally fucked up.

Muddle on.

You are right in that it doesn't say anything about someone legally walking through his own neighborhood.

It says if you feel threatened you can defend yourself.

You must be a poor attorney to not grasp that point.

Thankfully I am vastly more logical and a better attorney than you could ever be with your severely limited grasp of basic English.

No, you imbecile. It does NOT say that if you feel threatened you can "defend" yourself.

You are clearly in danger of suffocation. You are too stupid to breathe.

What the law DOES say (and you should know it since I even got YOU to quote it) is "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force."


Another person running is not a basis for anyone to have a REASONABLE belief of any NECESSITY to resort to force to "defend" against an IMMINENT use of force being used against him.

Damn. You libs are one contradictory dopey lot. When it suits your irrationally partisan purposes, suddenly you are ALL FOR a pre-emptive attacks.

 

[Ravi]

Yes. I know what the law actually says, since I already quoted it.

And none of that -- not even one little tiny speck of it -- says that if you feel threatened by someone legally walking through his own neighborhood, you can throw the first punch.

And THAT is the sub-moronic claim YOU had made. You were wrong then and you remain totally fucked up.

Muddle on.

You are right in that it doesn't say anything about someone legally walking through his own neighborhood.

It says if you feel threatened you can defend yourself.

You must be a poor attorney to not grasp that point.

Thankfully I am vastly more logical and a better attorney than you could ever be with your severely limited grasp of basic English.

No, you imbecile. It does NOT say that if you feel threatened you can "defend" yourself.

You are clearly in danger of suffocation. You are too stupid to breathe.

What the law DOES say (and you should know it since I even got YOU to quote it) is "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force."


Another person running is not a basis for anyone to have a REASONABLE belief of any NECESSITY to resort to force to "defend" against an IMMINENT use of force being used against him.

Damn. You libs are one contradictory dopey lot. When it suits your irrationally partisan purposes, suddenly you are ALL FOR a pre-emptive attacks.

Again, if you feel threatened, you may use pre-emptive force. That is what this law is all about.

And again, I do not like this law so blow it out your ass, dummy.

 

[Liability]

You are right in that it doesn't say anything about someone legally walking through his own neighborhood.

It says if you feel threatened you can defend yourself.

You must be a poor attorney to not grasp that point.

Thankfully I am vastly more logical and a better attorney than you could ever be with your severely limited grasp of basic English.

No, you imbecile. It does NOT say that if you feel threatened you can "defend" yourself.

You are clearly in danger of suffocation. You are too stupid to breathe.

What the law DOES say (and you should know it since I even got YOU to quote it) is "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force."


Another person running is not a basis for anyone to have a REASONABLE belief of any NECESSITY to resort to force to "defend" against an IMMINENT use of force being used against him.

Damn. You libs are one contradictory dopey lot. When it suits your irrationally partisan purposes, suddenly you are ALL FOR a pre-emptive attacks.

Again, if you feel threatened, you may use pre-emptive force. That is what this law is all about.

And again, I do not like this law so blow it out your ass, dummy.

No. Again, you say utterly stupid shit devoid of logic or meaning, and again you are flatly wrong.

That is absolutely NOT what the law says, you imbecile.

You LOVE this law although your devotion to it is premised on your completely fucked-up misunderstanding of what it says. So eat the corn out of my shit you dishonest hack idiot.

 

[Ravi]

Thankfully I am vastly more logical and a better attorney than you could ever be with your severely limited grasp of basic English.

No, you imbecile. It does NOT say that if you feel threatened you can "defend" yourself.

You are clearly in danger of suffocation. You are too stupid to breathe.

What the law DOES say (and you should know it since I even got YOU to quote it) is "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force."


Another person running is not a basis for anyone to have a REASONABLE belief of any NECESSITY to resort to force to "defend" against an IMMINENT use of force being used against him.

Damn. You libs are one contradictory dopey lot. When it suits your irrationally partisan purposes, suddenly you are ALL FOR a pre-emptive attacks.

Again, if you feel threatened, you may use pre-emptive force. That is what this law is all about.

And again, I do not like this law so blow it out your ass, dummy.

No. Again, you say utterly stupid shit devoid of logic or meaning, and again you are flatly wrong.

That is absolutely NOT what the law says, you imbecile.

You LOVE this law although your devotion to it is premised on your completely fucked-up misunderstanding of what it says. So eat the corn out of my shit you dishonest hack idiot.

I hope you practice corporate and not criminal law. You certainly shouldn't be let near anything other than a file cabinet.

 

[Liability]

Again, if you feel threatened, you may use pre-emptive force. That is what this law is all about.

And again, I do not like this law so blow it out your ass, dummy.

No. Again, you say utterly stupid shit devoid of logic or meaning, and again you are flatly wrong.

That is absolutely NOT what the law says, you imbecile.

You LOVE this law although your devotion to it is premised on your completely fucked-up misunderstanding of what it says. So eat the corn out of my shit you dishonest hack idiot.

I hope you practice corporate and not criminal law. You certainly shouldn't be let near anything other than a file cabinet.

What you hope is as irrelevant and ignorant as your "grasp" of some pretty basic justification law.

I don't care that it hurts your petty feelings, you imbecile, but you simply (and clearly) do NOT grasp what the law says. Every time you compose a post on the topic, you merely underscore your own ignorance, arrogance and stupidity.

You remain entirely wrong, you idiot cockroach.

Muddle on.

 

[The Infidel]

Again, if you feel threatened, you may use pre-emptive force. That is what this law is all about.

And again, I do not like this law so blow it out your ass, dummy.

No. Again, you say utterly stupid shit devoid of logic or meaning, and again you are flatly wrong.

That is absolutely NOT what the law says, you imbecile.

You LOVE this law although your devotion to it is premised on your completely fucked-up misunderstanding of what it says. So eat the corn out of my shit you dishonest hack idiot.

I hope you practice corporate and not criminal law. You certainly shouldn't be let near anything other than a file cabinet.

You were wrong... why cant you admit it?

 

[Ravi]

No. Again, you say utterly stupid shit devoid of logic or meaning, and again you are flatly wrong.

That is absolutely NOT what the law says, you imbecile.

You LOVE this law although your devotion to it is premised on your completely fucked-up misunderstanding of what it says. So eat the corn out of my shit you dishonest hack idiot.

I hope you practice corporate and not criminal law. You certainly shouldn't be let near anything other than a file cabinet.

You were wrong... why cant you admit it?

I would if I were, but I am certainly not wrong. This law makes it legal to kill someone if you reasonably find them a threat. Reasonably is too subjective a term: and that is why this is a bad law.

 

[Liability]

I hope you practice corporate and not criminal law. You certainly shouldn't be let near anything other than a file cabinet.

You were wrong... why cant you admit it?

I would if I were, but I am certainly not wrong. This law makes it legal to kill someone if you reasonably find them a threat. Reasonably is too subjective a term: and that is why this is a bad law.

She can't admit she's wrong because she's fundamentally both dishonest and stupid.

And she's such a delusional dip shit that she imagines others may be convinced of her position based on the sheer repetition of her idiotic claim.