Expert fighting skills are not required when you carry a gun. Originally Posted by nwarounder
no shit .
I guess i thought the context of the discussion concerned a guy who claims he was getting beat up by a 17 year old who weighed 40lbs less than he did, so he had to kill him with the gun he was carrying...while the 17 year old (who weighed 40lbs less than him and, until the guy with the gun started following him) was simply walking home from the store.If your assumption were true, Doofus, Martin would have made it home safely. Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman -- he didn't walk "simply or safely" home! So yeah, "your bad"!
My bad. Originally Posted by Doove
I guess i thought the context of the discussion concerned a guy who claims he was getting beat up by a 17 year old who weighed 40lbs less than he did,The jury disagreed with you as well.
I have seen a sub 150 pound fighters beat the snot out of 250+ pound guy. It's all about the better athlete/fighter. GZ was no athlete, and failed at mma style training. In a ufc style fight, my money would be on TM 10 out of 10 times.
so he had to kill him with the gun he was carrying...
He shot him in order to end the assault. The death was a consequence.
while the 17 year old (who weighed 40lbs less than him and, until the guy with the gun started following him) was simply walking home from the store.
Neither item is illegal. Take out the physical assault, and both would probably be at home eating skittles.
My bad. Originally Posted by Doove
I guess i thought the context of the discussion concerned a guy who claims he was getting beat up by a 17 year old who weighed 40lbs less than he did, so he had to kill him with the gun he was carrying...while the 17 year old (who weighed 40lbs less than him and, until the guy with the gun started following him) was simply walking home from the store.Nope, but in that theoretical context, the Zman probably would have been convicted. If you were referring to the actual case, we all know it didn't happen like that and the Zman was innocent, found not guilty of committing any crime.
My bad. Originally Posted by Doove
Nope, but in that theoretical context, the Zman probably would have been convicted. If you were referring to the actual case, we all know it didn't happen like that and the Zman was innocent, found not guilty of committing any crime. Originally Posted by nwarounderInteresting. Perhaps you can tell me what part of my comment that you quoted was factually inaccurate.
If your assumption were true, Doofus, Martin would have made it home safely. Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman -- he didn't walk "simply or safely" home! So yeah, "your bad"! Originally Posted by I B HankeringI was referring to the time at the onset of the confrontation when the 911 call began, in which there is nothing to indicate he was doing anything beyond simply walking home from the store.
I was referring to the time at the onset of the confrontation when the 911 call began, in which there is nothing to indicate he was doing anything beyond simply walking home from the store. Originally Posted by DooveLikewise, Zimmerman violated no laws. He called the police to report a suspicious person in his neighborhood. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman to observe and report on what the suspicious person was doing. No laws were violated until Martin turned about to confront Zimmerman.