Democrat152
Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2013
- Messages
- 238
- Reaction score
- 41
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Again with the info from MSNBC? Good lord, do you WANT to look as foolish as you do?
:lol:, your cherry picking. Like I said, I live here, I have seen a plenty of trials, so its not going to work on me. If Martin was trying to strangle Zimmerman, it might have been different, but all Zimmerman had to show was a bloody nose and few scratches, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out he just got scared when he started to lose. I would appreciate it if you gave me the link to the page you got KRS 503.060 on, so I may disprove you without searching online forever. To save some time, I just typed in "Self-Defense" into a legal dictionary, here is an excerpt that might interest you: "Generally a person may use REASONABLE FORCE when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. Martin's fists may have hurt, but they weren't deadly.
I don't watch MSNBC...I watch CNN. You know, since its not beholden to one party.
I'm 100% sure had you been in Zimmerman shoes your first thought while someone was on top of you pounding you in the face and slamming your head against a concrete sidewalk would have been "this is only going to hurt it's not deadly". LOL. Fact is people trip, hit their head on hard objects such as sidewalks and die, much less when somebody else is pounding their head against one. Years ago I knew a man that was being held down on a asphalt parking lot and got punched in the face while his head was against the parking lot. He ended up with a crushed check bone, broken jaw and I don't remember all what else. He was very lucky he lived and he had about a six month or so recovery. I see no need or use in allowing somebody to kill you or damn near kill you, especially when they started the fight to begin because you are not 100% sure they are not going to kill you. If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd bet Martin would have done what Zimmerman did.
Yeah sure, on both statements. :roll:
Neither is likely true, and we are still left with you having a very uninformed opinion.
There is a "reasonable man" consideration, Democrat152. A reasonable man would no doubt think his life was in jeopardy if he'd had his nose probably/possibly broken, had a man straddling him and boinking his head against a 1,000# slab of concrete, and started wrestling for his gun. That's the story Zimmerman told. And the state could not disprove it.
As to cherry-picking, it's your law. It's in your best interest to understand it -- in case somebody has pinned YOU down on the ground and is beating YOUR head against a sidewalk. Learn to use Google; it's your friend. Here's the link: http://legallyarmed.com/resources/kylaws23.pdf It's on Page 22. (All you have to do is Google part of what I posted, and it will come up. For future reference.)
That's his Story- keep the story part in mind. Martin had no bruising on his fists, which one would think would go along with punching Zimmerman "20-30" times. That and all the other inconsistencies in his story. Plus, he coulden't have hit his head on that sidewalk to many times, there was not even any blood back there. My brother fell down the stairs and hit his head on a vase and had to get stitches, which is nothing compared to getting your head slammed on a sidewalk. And on to Kentucky law, I came upon a court case in which a shootout between two men resulted in one being convicted of murder. And they both had guns. I seriously doubt Zimmerman would have had a chance.
That's his Story- keep the story part in mind. Martin had no bruising on his fists, which one would think would go along with punching Zimmerman "20-30" times. That and all the other inconsistencies in his story. Plus, he coulden't have hit his head on that sidewalk to many times, there was not even any blood back there. My brother fell down the stairs and hit his head on a vase and had to get stitches, which is nothing compared to getting your head slammed on a sidewalk. And on to Kentucky law, I came upon a court case in which a shootout between two men resulted in one being convicted of murder. And they both had guns. I seriously doubt Zimmerman would have had a chance.
First of all, that would be very rude of you. :lol: I've seen the pictures of Zimmerman's "Injuries" and I can tell you, I was more beat up after a schoolyard brawl in elementary school. He got scared and shot him, Its pretty obvious to me. Then there's the fact we cant conclusively prove Martin is the one that made those "injuries" but, nevertheless, I've never known a mere fistfight to be fatal. If you hit me, it would hurt, and not much else. And unless you bashed my head over and over again very, very, hard, all I would have is a nice headache.
yeah, it would be rather rude eh..I'll be polite, i promise :lol:
on cinco de mayo, 2001, i punched my brother in law.. just a single solitary punch, with a lot of pent up anger behind it. ( he's 6' 225, i'm 6'4" 250)
he didn't bleed, i didn't cut him..in fact, he showed very little outward injury.
within seconds, he had pissed himself, started foaming at the mouth, and went into convulsions.. a few minutes later, he stopped breathing.
by the time his breathing stopped, my anger had passed, so I started CPR while the wife called the ambulance.
7 months later, he was released from the hospital.
that single punched caused massive damage to his brain housing group.
don't tell me that punches merely "hurt".. I know better.
had I not stuck around to watch, in satisfaction, him flopping around and foaming... he'd be dead... and I would be in prison for murder.( rightfully so)
he's stuck with not remembering anything about an entire year.. he doesn't remember me punching him, he doesn't remember the hospital stay, the multiple operations, the therapy... he remembers nothing.
he was an asshole of the highest order, and i took a year from his life and gave him a lifelong medical problem... and I did so illegally ( for which I plead guilty and have paid a price)
there are plenty of fatal fistfights... lots, in fact... it's an absurd notion to say there aren't, utterly absurd.
10 y/o Joanna Ramos was punched in the head by an 11 y/o girl during a fight over a boy. one single punch to the head from an 11 y/o....6 hours later she was dead.
punches to the head are no joke... that's for damn sure.
Plus, he coulden't have hit his head on that sidewalk to many times, there was not even any blood back there..
yeah, i see that is a rather worthless argument.
the same could be said about every criminal case we talk about, or have ever talked about...and will ever talk about
we all know we weren't there.. we all know we don't know "exactly" what happened...this is why we rely on the evidence to draw the picture for us.
Says the guy whose only argument is speculation on what I watch for news. :roll:
Martin had no bruising on his fists,
But this isn't like every other criminaol case; it is no doubt similar to some.
Because the "evidence," as you say, is exceedingly weak. That is, said "evidence" could never be used in a prosecutorial fashion. It was used by the defense to cast doubt on the alleged fault of Zimmerman.
That's fine. That's normal defense procedure. But it does not cast Martin as the assailant. We're talking about one witness...who was the defendant!--and then another witness who had zero idea how the two men got into the position they were in.
We just don't know. Zimmerman's story could be true...and that's all the defense needed.
There's been a lot of talk about assumptions on the part of Martin's supporters; what's amazing is the same people who point out that we don't know if those assumptions are true are the ones who assume everything against the dead person.
Based on...effectively nothing.
Rooting for one's "team" is antithetical to truth in matters like this.
Can you explain how bruising occurs?
And if you know and understand that... um, how can that process happen, when your heart is not beating?
Thanks.
That's his Story- keep the story part in mind. Martin had no bruising on his fists, which one would think would go along with punching Zimmerman "20-30" times. That and all the other inconsistencies in his story. Plus, he coulden't have hit his head on that sidewalk to many times, there was not even any blood back there. My brother fell down the stairs and hit his head on a vase and had to get stitches, which is nothing compared to getting your head slammed on a sidewalk. And on to Kentucky law, I came upon a court case in which a shootout between two men resulted in one being convicted of murder. And they both had guns. I seriously doubt Zimmerman would have had a chance.
First of all, your acting as if Zimmerman is an infant. He was a grown man, and could have fought back. And like I said before, I have seen worse "injuries" in schoolyard fights. Then there's the fact Zimmerman had legs (it keeps being overlooked), and could have kicked him off. That, and according to Zimmerman's story, after he shot Martin he said "All right, you got me" and got off of him. Apparently Zimmerman didn't know he had shot him in the heart when he recounted his version of events......
What the wha?Seeing as how "Stand Your Ground" wasn't a part of this case...
What the wha?
Um, it was central to the Zimmerman case.
The jury instructions:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
What the wha?
Um, it was central to the Zimmerman case.
The jury instructions:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?