Actually it is, because he said it was.
LOL, no the perjurer's word does not establish it as fact. We don't know that he actually believed that or, if he did, the belief was reasonable.
Actually it is, because he said it was.
Non-binding; completely irrelevant.
Kind of assuming that was a rhetorical question... of course they would. And my guess is he might have a few more scratches by the time he got to the police station....
More "stand your ground" cases that seem to be more murder than self-defense...these are in Alabama, but I couldn't post the link because I'm too new. Search on google news for alabama stand your ground laws -
(ps - I'm new here, hope I'm doing this right)
You've shown racism before, I agree, and are showing it now. Who cares that Martin was black? You do. So much so that you want to riot if a jury decides that Zimmerman is not guilty.Darling, you're confused. My wanting justice for an innocent youth, who was gunned down, in cold blood, who just happens to be black, by a vigilante, with a history of domestic violence, and a verifiable "underachiever", who used a racial pejorative, doesn't make me a racist, by any stretch of the imagination. This isn't our first dance. I know you and your proclivities. You, on the otherhand, want a murderer to go free, based on what?
No, he was fully grown: fact.In the normal sense of the word, he was a child. He was not yet the age of majority. He was a minor or a child. FACT!
He believed it, that's enough for a reasonable juror.LOL, no the perjurer's word does not establish it as fact. We don't know that he actually believed that or, if he did, the belief was reasonable.
No, because it's non-binding. If you approach someone and ask them who/ what/ why and they react with violence, you have every right to defend yourself.It is very relevant.
He believed it, that's enough for a reasonable juror.
He says he believed it; we have no insight into his state of mind at the time he was stalking - um, following -and attacking Martin. So we don't know if he believed his life was in danger when he attacked Martin. We do know he now SAYS he believed it; not the same thing as actually believing it. He may have; he may not have; only he knows for sure.
You are. Welcome. I am kinda getting excited that it seems like we are getting a mini-influx of non-conservative women here!
You have it exactly backwards, Martin attacked Zimmerman.
Like Martin's tendency for drugs and violence?
I could ask the same of you.Really? you were there at the time?
If considered Zimmerman's past, finding it irrelevant, racist.I notice you only take Martin's past into account, not Zimmerman's..good job, David Duke.
I could ask the same of you.
I notice you only take Martin's past into account, not Zimmerman's..good job, David Duke.
Really? you were there at the time?
If some man followed my son home from the corner store I would likely be pretty unhappy with the creep
well, no, I wasn't there. But I also didn't say I knew something about the incident that I could only know if I was there.
We KNOW Zimmerman attacked Martin - after all, Martin is dead. We don't know who struck the first blow (and in my opinion, it doesn't matter if Martin did). We don't know what Zimmerman thought. We don't know what Martin thought.
If my logic escapes you, that's life.