False assumption. It's not impossible to tell a person is carrying.
Are you saying it's impossible?
Yes or no.
And besides, dude ended up having a gun. Su ion confirmed.
yes I am saying its impossible as it was dark out and Zimmerman had an inside the waistband concealed holster that happens to conceal the ing gun! What's next from you, he was carrying his gun on his hip Wild West style? Martin had X-ray vision?
Completely dark?
How did anyone find his way around?
Does the holster reduce the mass of a gun?
You'd be free to demonstrate your theory at trial. That's what trials are for.
You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.
It could have been broad daylight and Trayvon would not have been able to see the gun. Zimmerman had a jacket on and the gun was holstered inside his waistband behind his right hip. Again, impossible to see, especially if being followed.
And yet, he did have a gun. su ion confirmed.
Thanks for dismissing your own darkness argument all by yourself.
, George Costanza could have had his hand on the gun for all anyone knows -- and he can't testify in this case.
The hypothetical holes continues to deepen. This is entertaining.
Since you seem to love hypotheticals so much let's put you in one.
Chumpdumper is walking home by himself carrying concealed ()
Chumpdumper notices someone following him.
Chumpdumper thinks this person might be a threat.
Chumpdumper thinks he knows the Florida law well.
Does Chumpdumper pull his gun and shoot, believing he is legally justified in killing the person who followed him? Or does Chumpdumper retreat from his follower?
In Florida I have the right to do either. I'd have to prove I felt reasonably threatened according to the law should I decide to shoot -- or rather a prosecutor would have to prove I didn't feel reasonably threatened according to the law. If the guy had a gun like Costanza did, it would be more difficult for a prosecutor to prove the feeling was not reasonable.The hypothetical holes continues to deepen. This is entertaining.
Since you seem to love hypotheticals so much let's put you in one.
Chumpdumper is walking home by himself carrying concealed (
Chumpdumper notices someone following him.
Chumpdumper thinks this person might be a threat.
Chumpdumper thinks he knows the Florida law well.
Does Chumpdumper pull his gun and shoot, believing he is legally justified in killing the person who followed him? Or does Chumpdumper retreat from his follower?
Really, what part of this do you not understand after several days? It's entertaining that you read the same thing several times but fail completely to understand.
Do you pull your gun and shoot or not? Are you confident that someone following you would be considered enough of a threat by the jury to acquit?
CD with the trainwreck goods. This is ing embarrassing.
Dunno. You did a ty job of describing the scene.More confident than if I were black.Are you confident that someone following you would be considered enough of a threat by the jury to acquit?
It's up to the jury if I do shoot. Again, I didn't write the law. It's a pretty stupid law.
Agreed.
You won't even answer your own hypothetical situation because you'd contradict everything you've spewed in this thread. I'll answer for you.
Chumpdumper would not shoot. Chumpdumper would not risk life in prison for shooting a guy that was following him. Chumpdumper is smart and retreats to his house and calls the police to tell them about the man who was following him. The police ask what the man was doing, Chumpdumper repeats that the man was following him. The police laugh and hang up. Chumpdumper returns to his computer.
You guys have a viewpoint of this law based mainly on your perception of the Trayvon Martin as a person. It just made you close your mind to anything that doesn't include that characterization.
Who knows, if I felt threatened enough I'd shoot. Depends on what all is going on.
Florida law says I am under no obligation to flee, even if I can.
You posted it.
After that the question of whether the feeling of being threatened was reasonable becomes a legal matter. That's all I have been saying.
It's a pretty dumb law for just that reason.
I haven't characterized Trayvon as a person other than pointing out his stupidity in confronting Zimmerman and assaulting him instead of going home.
There you go.
You've got four minutes to decide on confronting or fleeing, what do you choose?
Four minutes until what?
is there evidence that the coward's gun was holstered?
Until you must confront or continue home. You don't have to wait that long either. You can just go home.
Why must I confront?
Why is there a time limit on that?
'sup Cuck
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
