New Zimmerman photo
This is a discussion on New Zimmerman photo within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Photo released of Zimmerman bleeding from nose and mouth, supposed taken by police according to attorney.
Bob Costas says if fists were outlawed then Martin ...
10Likes
-
1
Post By dbglock
-
2
Post By Snatale42
-
1
Post By Mike1956
-
6
Post By retsupt99
-
December 3rd, 2012 04:37 PM
#1
Member
Array
New Zimmerman photo
Photo released of Zimmerman bleeding from nose and mouth, supposed taken by police according to attorney.
Bob Costas says if fists were outlawed then Martin would never have hit him and would still be alive. 
George
Smile. It makes people wonder what you are up to

-
December 3rd, 2012 04:37 PM
Remove Ads
-
December 3rd, 2012 04:48 PM
#2
Ex Member
Array
Under FL law if Zimmerman provoked Martin by confronting him, getting in his face, etc. and Martin punches him out, Zimmerman can't then shoot him and claim self-defense. I see the trial unfolding that way. There would've been no beatdown and no shooting if GZ had done what he was asked and minded his own business or left it to the police.
-
December 3rd, 2012 04:55 PM
#3
Ex Member
Array
Re: New Zimmerman photo

Originally Posted by
dbglock
There would've been no beatdown and no shooting if GZ had done what he was asked and minded his own business or left it to the police.
Really? Please explain to us what happened on that day since you were obviously there. People like you are no better than the people who BLINDLY pre convicted the guy in there minds. YOU WEREN'T THERE! Last time I checked people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The legal system cant prove otherwise at this point, so who are you to make that assumption?
Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2
-
December 3rd, 2012 04:56 PM
#4
VIP Member
Array

Originally Posted by
dbglock
Under FL law if Zimmerman provoked Martin by confronting him, getting in his face, etc. and Martin punches him out, Zimmerman can't then shoot him and claim self-defense. I see the trial unfolding that way. There would've been no beatdown and no shooting if GZ had done what he was asked and minded his own business or left it to the police.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This one will likely be the thread-closer.
Kahn Souphanousinphone, Sr. "I could be manic, could be depressed. Real crapshoot."
-
December 3rd, 2012 05:01 PM
#5
Senior Member
Array

Originally Posted by
dbglock
Under FL law if Zimmerman provoked Martin by confronting him, getting in his face, etc. and Martin punches him out, Zimmerman can't then shoot him and claim self-defense.
This part I believe is correct is it not???
Not saying this is what happened, or that I even THINK this happened, just saying I believe this statement is correct.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.
-Will Rogers
Im a big fan of the .22LR for bear defense.
Just shoot the guy next to you in the knee and run like heck.
-
December 3rd, 2012 05:04 PM
#6
Distinguished Member
Array
I have seen no evidence that Zimmerman provoked Martin, just speculation.
The physical evidence appears to back Zimmerman's version of events.
The trial will hopefully sort it out.
-
December 3rd, 2012 05:13 PM
#7
Distinguished Member
Array

Originally Posted by
dbglock
Under FL law if Zimmerman provoked Martin by confronting him, getting in his face, etc. and Martin punches him out, Zimmerman can't then shoot him and claim self-defense. I see the trial unfolding that way. There would've been no beatdown and no shooting if GZ had done what he was asked and minded his own business or left it to the police.

Originally Posted by
ZX9RCAM
This part I believe is correct is it not???
Not saying this is what happened, or that I even THINK this happened, just saying I believe this statement is correct.
If the agressor (Z in the example above) breaks off and leaves (i.e stops the agression) and then the other party (M in the example above) starts things up at a later time then he (M) is now the agressor as you have two separate incidents and a claim of stand your ground by Z could hold up.
-
December 3rd, 2012 05:14 PM
#8
Senior Member
Array

Originally Posted by
mkh
If the agressor (Z in the example above) breaks off and leaves (i.e stops the agression) and then the other party (M in the example above) starts things up at a later time then he (M) is now the agressor as you have two separate incidents and a claim of stand your ground by Z could hold up.
I agree, but that is not how the statement was posed.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.
-Will Rogers
Im a big fan of the .22LR for bear defense.
Just shoot the guy next to you in the knee and run like heck.
-
December 3rd, 2012 05:16 PM
#9
Moderator
Array
This thread is going 'no where' quickly.
"That I cannot do."
"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."
***********************************
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules