Black Teen Shot 4

Off Topic
381

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

I don’t think anyone seriously doubts the black guy put a serious beating on the hispanic guy.

It all comes down to who instigated the actual fight.[/quote]

Doesn’t really matter. People are still going to say Zimmerman had a right to use his gun whoever instigated the fight. My opinion has been all along, that, yes he has a right to defend himself, but he also carries a responsibility not to put himself in a situation where he has to make that call.

One aspect of the case that can’t be disputed is that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been patrolling alone that night, especially when following supects with unclear motives. [/quote]

So how would you feel if an armed young woman dressed in a slutty outfit, walked through the ghetto at night, and shot a guy that assaulter her?

Doing something that isn’t smart doesn’t mean you lose the right to defend yourself.

382

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

I don’t think anyone seriously doubts the black guy put a serious beating on the hispanic guy.

It all comes down to who instigated the actual fight.[/quote]

Doesn’t really matter. People are still going to say Zimmerman had a right to use his gun whoever instigated the fight. My opinion has been all along, that, yes he has a right to defend himself, but he also carries a responsibility not to put himself in a situation where he has to make that call.

One aspect of the case that can’t be disputed is that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been patrolling alone that night, especially when following supects with unclear motives. [/quote]

So how would you feel if an armed young woman dressed in a slutty outfit, walked through the ghetto at night, and shot a guy that assaulter her?

Doing something that isn’t smart doesn’t mean you lose the right to defend yourself.[/quote]

I can only judge within the circumstances of this case. That scenario with the woman ain’t it. Of course Zimmerman doesn’t lose the right to defend himself, but Martin was entitled to the same rights, and if you’re going to enter into a situation where you’re going to have to use the gun, you should do everything you can to ensure it is the absolute last resort.

Making decisions based on whether you’re armed or not is a recipe for disaster.

383

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

I don’t think anyone seriously doubts the black guy put a serious beating on the hispanic guy.

It all comes down to who instigated the actual fight.[/quote]

Doesn’t really matter. People are still going to say Zimmerman had a right to use his gun whoever instigated the fight. My opinion has been all along, that, yes he has a right to defend himself, but he also carries a responsibility not to put himself in a situation where he has to make that call.

One aspect of the case that can’t be disputed is that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been patrolling alone that night, especially when following supects with unclear motives. [/quote]

So how would you feel if an armed young woman dressed in a slutty outfit, walked through the ghetto at night, and shot a guy that assaulter her?

Doing something that isn’t smart doesn’t mean you lose the right to defend yourself.[/quote]

I can only judge within the circumstances of this case. That scenario with the woman ain’t it. Of course Zimmerman doesn’t lose the right to defend himself, but Martin was entitled to the same rights, and if you’re going to enter into a situation where you’re going to have to use the gun, you should do everything you can to ensure it is the absolute last resort.

Making decisions based on whether you’re armed or not is a recipe for disaster.

[/quote]

As long as he had the legal right to be where he was, it doesn’t matter in the slightest.

384

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

I think he’s making a reference to this:

http://origin.wusa9.com/news/article/199419/381/Mortician-Richard-Kurtz-embalmed-Trayvon-Martins-body-saw-no-signs-of-scuffle

385

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

I don’t think anyone seriously doubts the black guy put a serious beating on the hispanic guy.

It all comes down to who instigated the actual fight.[/quote]

Doesn’t really matter. People are still going to say Zimmerman had a right to use his gun whoever instigated the fight. My opinion has been all along, that, yes he has a right to defend himself, but he also carries a responsibility not to put himself in a situation where he has to make that call.

One aspect of the case that can’t be disputed is that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been patrolling alone that night, especially when following suspects with unclear motives. [/quote]

I thought he wasn’t patrolling. Wasn’t he just coming back from the store like Trayvon was?

386

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

I think he’s making a reference to this:

http://origin.wusa9.com/news/article/199419/381/Mortician-Richard-Kurtz-embalmed-Trayvon-Martins-body-saw-no-signs-of-scuffle[/quote]

Ah. My bad, then.

387

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

I don’t think anyone seriously doubts the black guy put a serious beating on the hispanic guy.

It all comes down to who instigated the actual fight.[/quote]

Doesn’t really matter. People are still going to say Zimmerman had a right to use his gun whoever instigated the fight. My opinion has been all along, that, yes he has a right to defend himself, but he also carries a responsibility not to put himself in a situation where he has to make that call.

One aspect of the case that can’t be disputed is that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been patrolling alone that night, especially when following supects with unclear motives. [/quote]

So how would you feel if an armed young woman dressed in a slutty outfit, walked through the ghetto at night, and shot a guy that assaulter her?

Doing something that isn’t smart doesn’t mean you lose the right to defend yourself.[/quote]

I can only judge within the circumstances of this case. That scenario with the woman ain’t it. Of course Zimmerman doesn’t lose the right to defend himself, but Martin was entitled to the same rights, and if you’re going to enter into a situation where you’re going to have to use the gun, you should do everything you can to ensure it is the absolute last resort.

Making decisions based on whether you’re armed or not is a recipe for disaster.

[/quote]

As long as he had the legal right to be where he was, it doesn’t matter in the slightest. [/quote]

“People are still going to say Zimmerman had a right to use his gun whoever instigated the fight”

388

[quote]TDub301 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

I don’t think anyone seriously doubts the black guy put a serious beating on the hispanic guy.

It all comes down to who instigated the actual fight.[/quote]

Doesn’t really matter. People are still going to say Zimmerman had a right to use his gun whoever instigated the fight. My opinion has been all along, that, yes he has a right to defend himself, but he also carries a responsibility not to put himself in a situation where he has to make that call.

One aspect of the case that can’t be disputed is that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been patrolling alone that night, especially when following suspects with unclear motives. [/quote]

I thought he wasn’t patrolling. Wasn’t he just coming back from the store like Trayvon was?[/quote]

That’s news to me. I was trying to avoid being dragged back into the semantic vortex of this thread, but one throwaway comment and here I am…

389

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]TDub301 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

I don’t think anyone seriously doubts the black guy put a serious beating on the hispanic guy.

It all comes down to who instigated the actual fight.[/quote]

Doesn’t really matter. People are still going to say Zimmerman had a right to use his gun whoever instigated the fight. My opinion has been all along, that, yes he has a right to defend himself, but he also carries a responsibility not to put himself in a situation where he has to make that call.

One aspect of the case that can’t be disputed is that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been patrolling alone that night, especially when following suspects with unclear motives. [/quote]

I thought he wasn’t patrolling. Wasn’t he just coming back from the store like Trayvon was?[/quote]

That’s news to me. I was trying to avoid get dragged back into the semantic vortex of this thread, but one throwaway comment and here I am… [/quote]

Yeah, it’s like eating Chips or tipping Strippers you tell yourself you’ll only do it once.

390

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

I don’t think anyone seriously doubts the black guy put a serious beating on the hispanic guy.

It all comes down to who instigated the actual fight.[/quote]

Doesn’t really matter. People are still going to say Zimmerman had a right to use his gun whoever instigated the fight. My opinion has been all along, that, yes he has a right to defend himself, but he also carries a responsibility not to put himself in a situation where he has to make that call.

One aspect of the case that can’t be disputed is that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been patrolling alone that night, especially when following supects with unclear motives. [/quote]

So how would you feel if an armed young woman dressed in a slutty outfit, walked through the ghetto at night, and shot a guy that assaulter her?

Doing something that isn’t smart doesn’t mean you lose the right to defend yourself.[/quote]

I can only judge within the circumstances of this case. That scenario with the woman ain’t it. Of course Zimmerman doesn’t lose the right to defend himself, but Martin was entitled to the same rights, and if you’re going to enter into a situation where you’re going to have to use the gun, you should do everything you can to ensure it is the absolute last resort.

Making decisions based on whether you’re armed or not is a recipe for disaster.

[/quote]

As long as he had the legal right to be where he was, it doesn’t matter in the slightest. [/quote]

“People are still going to say Zimmerman had a right to use his gun whoever instigated the fight”[/quote]

If Z instigated the fight, what he didn’t have the legal right and it would be his fault and he should go to jail for murder. Following someone, or asking someone what they are doing is not instigating a fight though.

The same as the example I posted, you can do things that increase the likelihood of a fight and still rightfully defend yourself.

I could put 2 bundles of money on a rope, drag it behind me through the ghetto, and shoot somebody that swung a bat at me in an attempt to take the money.

I could dress up as a Nazi, march through the black part of town, and shoot a teen that jumped me as started beating the shit out of me.

You can follow someone while armed and shoot them if they turn around and start severely beating you. Being armed and following someone doesn’t make it your fault.

Leaving a car unlocked doesn’t make taking something out of it not stealing.

All that matters is who took the first illegal step in instigating the fight. Armed and following someone means absolutely nothing.

391

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

I don’t think anyone seriously doubts the black guy put a serious beating on the hispanic guy.

It all comes down to who instigated the actual fight.[/quote]

Doesn’t really matter. People are still going to say Zimmerman had a right to use his gun whoever instigated the fight. My opinion has been all along, that, yes he has a right to defend himself, but he also carries a responsibility not to put himself in a situation where he has to make that call.

One aspect of the case that can’t be disputed is that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been patrolling alone that night, especially when following supects with unclear motives. [/quote]

So how would you feel if an armed young woman dressed in a slutty outfit, walked through the ghetto at night, and shot a guy that assaulter her?

Doing something that isn’t smart doesn’t mean you lose the right to defend yourself.[/quote]

I can only judge within the circumstances of this case. That scenario with the woman ain’t it. Of course Zimmerman doesn’t lose the right to defend himself, but Martin was entitled to the same rights, and if you’re going to enter into a situation where you’re going to have to use the gun, you should do everything you can to ensure it is the absolute last resort.

Making decisions based on whether you’re armed or not is a recipe for disaster.

[/quote]

As long as he had the legal right to be where he was, it doesn’t matter in the slightest. [/quote]

“People are still going to say Zimmerman had a right to use his gun whoever instigated the fight”[/quote]

If Z instigated the fight, what he didn’t have the legal right and it would be his fault and he should go to jail for murder. Following someone, or asking someone what they are doing is not instigating a fight though.

The same as the example I posted, you can do things that increase the likelihood of a fight and still rightfully defend yourself.

I could put 2 bundles of money on a rope, drag it behind me through the ghetto, and shoot somebody that swung a bat at me in an attempt to take the money.

I could dress up as a Nazi, march through the black part of town, and shoot a teen that jumped me as started beating the shit out of me.

You can follow someone while armed and shoot them if they turn around and start severely beating you. Being armed and following someone doesn’t make it your fault.

Leaving a car unlocked doesn’t make taking something out of it not stealing.

All that matters is who took the first illegal step in instigating the fight. Armed and following someone means absolutely nothing.
[/quote]

The stand your ground law is central to your argument, yes? Zimmerman wouldn’t have been in that spot and wouldn’t have had to stand his ground at ALL had he not made the conscious decision to follow Martin.

The kicker with the SYG law is that it was meant to protect people who had no choice but to be where they were at the time of an attack. Zimmerman HAD a choice.

Your analogies are irrelevant. Completely different sets of circumstances = completely different outcomes. Martin did not ask to be followed and there’s nothing to substantiate Zimmerman’s suspicions that he was committing a crime. As I said threads ago, Zimmerman’s actions leading up to the shooting are vital to the case. To dismiss them is to ignore the rights of the guy who got shot.

392

[quote]roybot wrote:

The stand your ground law is central to your argument, yes? Zimmerman wouldn’t have been in that spot and wouldn’t have had to stand his ground at ALL had he not made the conscious decision to follow Martin.

The kicker with the SYG law is that it was meant to protect people who had no choice but to be where they were at the time of an attack. Zimmerman HAD a choice.

Your analogies are irrelevant. Completely different sets of circumstances = completely different outcomes. Martin did not ask to be followed and there’s nothing to substantiate Zimmerman’s suspicions that he was committing a crime. As I said threads ago, Zimmerman’s actions leading up to the shooting are vital to the case. To dismiss them is to ignore the rights of the guy who got shot. [/quote]

No, nothing to do with the SYG law. The stand your ground law deals with the duty to retreat in a confrontation, not the duty to not get into one. Not at all related. and if Z was on his back with T on top of him, the SYG law doesn’t apply to the case at all.

What rights of the guy getting followed are being ignored?

393

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

The stand your ground law is central to your argument, yes? Zimmerman wouldn’t have been in that spot and wouldn’t have had to stand his ground at ALL had he not made the conscious decision to follow Martin.

The kicker with the SYG law is that it was meant to protect people who had no choice but to be where they were at the time of an attack. Zimmerman HAD a choice.

Your analogies are irrelevant. Completely different sets of circumstances = completely different outcomes. Martin did not ask to be followed and there’s nothing to substantiate Zimmerman’s suspicions that he was committing a crime. As I said threads ago, Zimmerman’s actions leading up to the shooting are vital to the case. To dismiss them is to ignore the rights of the guy who got shot. [/quote]

No, nothing to do with the SYG law. The stand your ground law deals with the duty to retreat in a confrontation, not the duty to not get into one. Not at all related. and if Z was on his back with T on top of him, the SYG law doesn’t apply to the case at all.

What rights of the guy getting followed are being ignored? [/quote]

You said that if Zimmerman had the legal right to be there then he was justified in shooting Martin. You also said that the events leading up to whoever intiated the physical confrontation were irrelevant.

So you’re left with Martin assaulting Zimmerman and Zim shooting him in self-defense because he was ‘legally’ entitled to be there regardless of what he did to provoke Martin as long as it was legally above board (consistent with the SYG law… IF you ignore all of the other ‘irrelevant’ details, such as what Zimmerman did or said to provoke Martin like you said to).

Decidely one-sided.

394

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

The stand your ground law is central to your argument, yes? Zimmerman wouldn’t have been in that spot and wouldn’t have had to stand his ground at ALL had he not made the conscious decision to follow Martin.

The kicker with the SYG law is that it was meant to protect people who had no choice but to be where they were at the time of an attack. Zimmerman HAD a choice.

Your analogies are irrelevant. Completely different sets of circumstances = completely different outcomes. Martin did not ask to be followed and there’s nothing to substantiate Zimmerman’s suspicions that he was committing a crime. As I said threads ago, Zimmerman’s actions leading up to the shooting are vital to the case. To dismiss them is to ignore the rights of the guy who got shot. [/quote]

No, nothing to do with the SYG law. The stand your ground law deals with the duty to retreat in a confrontation, not the duty to not get into one. Not at all related. and if Z was on his back with T on top of him, the SYG law doesn’t apply to the case at all.

What rights of the guy getting followed are being ignored? [/quote]

You said that if Zimmerman had the legal right to be there then he was justified in shooting Martin. You also said that the events leading up to whoever intiated the physical confrontation were irrelevant.

So you’re left with Martin assaulting Zimmerman and Zim shooting him in self-defense because he was ‘legally’ entitled to be there regardless of what he did to provoke Martin as long as it was legally above board (consistent with the SYG law… IF you ignore all of the other ‘irrelevant’ details, such as what Zimmerman did or said to provoke Martin like you said to).

Decidely one-sided.

[/quote]
EXACTLY right. Much the way you said you like to have sex with your own mom.

“You said that if Zimmerman had the legal right to be there then he was justified in shooting Martin. You also said that the events leading up to whoever initiated the physical confrontation were irrelevant.”

No, I never said he was justified. I said following him doesnâ??t make it unjustified.

I also never mentioned anything about who did the first physical part. Instigation could be getting up is someone’s face telling them you are going to cave their skull in and then picking up a bat and starting to swing it. But again, that is a crime in itself. That would matter, but you don’t have the legal right to do that. You do have the right to both be armed and follow someone.

“So you’re left with Martin assaulting Zimmerman and Zim shooting him in self-defense because he was ‘legally’ entitled to be there regardless of what he did to provoke Martin as long as it was legally above board (consistent with the SYG law… IF you ignore all of the other ‘irrelevant’ details, such as what Zimmerman did or said to provoke Martin like you said to).”

Never said any such thing. I said following isn’t provoking the fight. Terrible logic on your part. SYG as far as I know doesn’t deal with the legality of actions leading up to a fight, it only deals with the duty to retreat (and not use force) while in one. It really just sounds like you are arguing with a voice in your head that also doesn’t know what it’s talking about either. And I never said T assaulted Z or that it was self defense anyway.

395

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

Actually, you made me think a bit.

If Zimmerman was the attacker, where are the bruises or cuts on Martin? All Martin has are busted-up knuckles from pounding Zimmerman and gun shot wound. Nary a scratch, otherwise.

Further, if Zimmerman was the first attacker, where are the injuries to Zimmermanâ??s hands?

The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows.

396

[quote]roybot wrote:
The stand your ground law is central to your argument, yes? [/quote]

The SYG law has nothing to do with this case.

Here is stand your ground. You are in your house. A burglar breaks in. You can run out the back door, or go into your living room and blast the burglar with a shotgun.

Used to be, the law required you to run out the back door.

Now, you can blast the burglar with the shotgun.

Zimmerman was laying on his back. He had no route of escape. The SYG law is irrelevant.

397

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken, he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury… Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that the skin on his knuckles was broken…”

That evil grafted white devil must’ve headbutted Trayvon’s hands.[/quote]

For a second there I thought this was going to be a biased post - then I read on and saw how Trayvon must have died of broken skin on his knuckles since that was the only injury recorded during the autopsy. Phew![/quote]

Actually, you made me think a bit.

If Zimmerman was the attacker, where are the bruises or cuts on Martin? All Martin has are busted-up knuckles from pounding Zimmerman and gun shot wound. Nary a scratch, otherwise.

Further, if Zimmerman was the first attacker, where are the injuries to Zimmermanâ??s hands?

The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows.

[/quote]

You can illegally instigate a fight without physical contact. If I swing a bat at your head, you duck, then beat the shit out of me, you were justified and have no injuries. Z could very well have flashed the gun at the kid or something.

398

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
The stand your ground law is central to your argument, yes? [/quote]

The SYG law has nothing to do with this case.

Here is stand your ground. You are in your house. A burglar breaks in. You can run out the back door, or go into your living room and blast the burglar with a shotgun.

Used to be, the law required you to run out the back door.

Now, you can blast the burglar with the shotgun.

Zimmerman was laying on his back. He had no route of escape. The SYG law is irrelevant.[/quote]

I don’t get why that is so difficult to understand.

399

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

The stand your ground law is central to your argument, yes? Zimmerman wouldn’t have been in that spot and wouldn’t have had to stand his ground at ALL had he not made the conscious decision to follow Martin.

The kicker with the SYG law is that it was meant to protect people who had no choice but to be where they were at the time of an attack. Zimmerman HAD a choice.

Your analogies are irrelevant. Completely different sets of circumstances = completely different outcomes. Martin did not ask to be followed and there’s nothing to substantiate Zimmerman’s suspicions that he was committing a crime. As I said threads ago, Zimmerman’s actions leading up to the shooting are vital to the case. To dismiss them is to ignore the rights of the guy who got shot. [/quote]

No, nothing to do with the SYG law. The stand your ground law deals with the duty to retreat in a confrontation, not the duty to not get into one. Not at all related. and if Z was on his back with T on top of him, the SYG law doesn’t apply to the case at all.

What rights of the guy getting followed are being ignored? [/quote]

You said that if Zimmerman had the legal right to be there then he was justified in shooting Martin. You also said that the events leading up to whoever intiated the physical confrontation were irrelevant.

So you’re left with Martin assaulting Zimmerman and Zim shooting him in self-defense because he was ‘legally’ entitled to be there regardless of what he did to provoke Martin as long as it was legally above board (consistent with the SYG law… IF you ignore all of the other ‘irrelevant’ details, such as what Zimmerman did or said to provoke Martin like you said to).

Decidely one-sided.

[/quote]
EXACTLY right. Much the way you said you like to have sex with your own mom.

“You said that if Zimmerman had the legal right to be there then he was justified in shooting Martin. You also said that the events leading up to whoever initiated the physical confrontation were irrelevant.”

No, I never said he was justified. I said following him doesn�¢??t make it unjustified.

I also never mentioned anything about who did the first physical part. Instigation could be getting up is someone’s face telling them you are going to cave their skull in and then picking up a bat and starting to swing it. But again, that is a crime in itself. That would matter, but you don’t have the legal right to do that. You do have the right to both be armed and follow someone.

“So you’re left with Martin assaulting Zimmerman and Zim shooting him in self-defense because he was ‘legally’ entitled to be there regardless of what he did to provoke Martin as long as it was legally above board (consistent with the SYG law… IF you ignore all of the other ‘irrelevant’ details, such as what Zimmerman did or said to provoke Martin like you said to).”

Never said any such thing. I said following isn’t provoking the fight. Terrible logic on your part. SYG as far as I know doesn’t deal with the legality of actions leading up to a fight, it only deals with the duty to retreat (and not use force) while in one. It really just sounds like you are arguing with a voice in your head that also doesn’t know what it’s talking about either. And I never said T assaulted Z or that it was self defense anyway.[/quote]

So you’ve defaulted to ‘your momma’ jokes and prevaricating, now? Brah-voh…

You said that everything leading up to an illegal act is irrelevant. It all depends on who made made the first illegal move, you said. Zimmerman says he shot Martin after Martin attacked HIM. So whether you realize it or not you are invoking the SYG law by ignoring what came before. Just like Zimmerman’s defense is planning to do.

The only ‘voices in heads’ here are you trying to analogize/ strawman your way out by throwing in fictional circumstances. That failed so now we’re on Ad Hominems.

400

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
The stand your ground law is central to your argument, yes? [/quote]

The SYG law has nothing to do with this case.

Here is stand your ground. You are in your house. A burglar breaks in. You can run out the back door, or go into your living room and blast the burglar with a shotgun.

Used to be, the law required you to run out the back door.

Now, you can blast the burglar with the shotgun.

Zimmerman was laying on his back. He had no route of escape. The SYG law is irrelevant.[/quote]

I don’t get why that is so difficult to understand.[/quote]

Zimmerman was there in that place and time of his own volition. He didn’t lie on his back waiting for Martin to show up to beat him up.