So, is it going to be a punishable crime now to shoot a person who is violently bashing your head against a sidewalk? (state, claim)

[Gunther Rall]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

I hope you are starting to see the point being made, Martin didn't just randomly start attacking Zimmerman, there were events that lead to that point and something had to happen to cause Martin to fight back, thus does that mean one can only defend themselves if they have a gun in hand and is willing to kill the other person or can they use their fists tp defend themselves as well? What would be the difference between shooting someone to death and beating them to protect yourself?

That is your erroneous interpretation of events. The facts in the case have been presented and none of them match what you are saying here.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Gunther Rall

That was all settled in the trial.



That was all settled in the trial.



What an imagination you have! Who said they were beamed down? We already know where everyone was, how they got there and the results.

There is nothing wrong with questioning what was settled in trip, especially when it seems like there were some serious holes left in the story by the end of trial.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Gunther Rall

That is your erroneous interpretation of events. The facts in the case have been presented and none of them match what you are saying here.

So what caused Martin to attack Zimmerman? Was Zimmerman following Martin or did he go back to his car? Why would Martin turn around once reaching his dad's house and go back and seek out Zimmerman just to beat him up?

[Gunther Rall]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

There is nothing wrong with questioning what was settled in trip, especially when it seems like there were some serious holes left in the story by the end of trial.

..maybe so..but just making up random scenarios to support false conclusions is a waste of effort and shows someone has an agenda.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Gunther Rall

..maybe so..but just making up random scenarios to support false conclusions is a waste of effort and shows someone has an agenda.

Nothing wrong with trying to understand which types of self defense are okay, so far it seems like the only self defense that is accepted is a gun in hand and only if you are willing to kill the other person.

Also, you need to reread the title of the thread because it is a scenario, so I am just staying on topic with it. If you don't like that, you shouldn't be commenting in this thread.

[Gunther Rall]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Nothing wrong with trying to understand which types of self defense are okay, so far it seems like the only self defense that is accepted is a gun in hand and only if you are willing to kill the other person.

You want to understand the legal definition of self defense?
Go read the state statutes of whichever state you are referring to.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Gunther Rall

You want to understand the legal definition of self defense?
Go read the state statutes of whichever state you are referring to.

Obviously using one's fists to fight back doesn't count as self defense.

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by Gunther Rall

That is your erroneous interpretation of events. The facts in the case have been presented and none of them match what you are saying here.

What facts? Who attacked who first was never proven nor is it fact that TM was the aggressor. In fact in the absence of fact or evidence one might conclude that Zimmermans actions leading up to the altercation indicate that he was the aggressor.
1 person decided that another had no right to be out walking.
1 person decided based on his gut that another was a criminal.
1 person armed and violating Neighborhood watch rules took it upon himself to pursue another.
these 3 things are fact.
1 person lied repeatedly. Fact
1 person had minor injuries. Fact
TM had a 1/4 inch by 1/8 inch abrasion on his finger. Fact
No bruises on his knuckles. Fact
NO GZ DNA on his skin or clothes Fact
Nothing to suggest a ground and pound MMA style beat down as described by Zimmerman.
Gun in back of waist band. Lay on your back and try to draw the weapon. I have and can't draw and that is with no one sitting on top of me.
The events many GZ worshippers call fact are simply regurgitations of GZ's many lies.
TM was killed at point blank range. Fact
As far as being beaten to death or in danger of being beaten to death? Not a fact, not proven and certainly not demonstrated based on light injuries to GZ.
What is also fact is due to poor witnesses and even worse evidence GZ was acquitted.

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Nothing wrong with trying to understand which types of self defense are okay, so far it seems like the only self defense that is accepted is a gun in hand and only if you are willing to kill the other person.

Also, you need to reread the title of the thread because it is a scenario, so I am just staying on topic with it. If you don't like that, you shouldn't be commenting in this thread.

Correct. For a head bashing GZ supposedly received he sure came out of it pretty good.
It amazes me how people will quote a proven liar.

[Gunther Rall]

Originally Posted by tinman01

What facts? Who attacked who first was never proven nor is it fact that TM was the aggressor. In fact in the absence of fact or evidence one might conclude that Zimmermans actions leading up to the altercation indicate that he was the aggressor.
1 person decided that another had no right to be out walking.
1 person decided based on his gut that another was a criminal.
1 person armed and violating Neighborhood watch rules took it upon himself to pursue another.
these 3 things are fact.
1 person lied repeatedly. Fact
1 person had minor injuries. Fact
TM had a 1/4 inch by 1/8 inch abrasion on his finger. Fact
No bruises on his knuckles. Fact
NO GZ DNA on his skin or clothes Fact
Nothing to suggest a ground and pound MMA style beat down as described by Zimmerman.
Gun in back of waist band. Lay on your back and try to draw the weapon. I have and can't draw and that is with no one sitting on top of me.
The events many GZ worshippers call fact are simply regurgitations of GZ's many lies.
TM was killed at point blank range. Fact
As far as being beaten to death or in danger of being beaten to death? Not a fact, not proven and certainly not demonstrated based on light injuries to GZ.
What is also fact is due to poor witnesses and even worse evidence GZ was acquitted.

blah...blah...blah...the evidence was presented and the jury studied it all and rejected it. Time to move on.