Then you must've posted the wrong law then.
No .
It's a good thing for Zimmerman that he is one hard headed nut.
Then you must've posted the wrong law then.
It says PREVENT great bodily harm, not that he has to SUSTAIN great bodily harm.
When Martin was pounding his head on the concrete there was a clear and indisputable possibility of great bodily harm.
LOL...
I wonder how many time you need to repeat that before Creep gets that in his thick skull?
ing idiot
Fla. Stat. § 776.012. Use of force in defense of person
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony
I don't see the imminent death Martin was about to give him.
He was pounding Zimmermans head on the concrete dumbass. Zimmerman could clearly suffer great physical harm if he didn't stop. Zimmerman stopped him.
Again, I don't see the imminent death or great bodily harm. Martin on the other hand, yes. Zimmerman had a gun.
ing idiot
You don't know that.
Just to be clear, you're saying that one cannot suffer great bodily harm 1) by getting head pounded into ground or 2) unless there is a big dent in your head that's gushing blood.
Got it.
I really don't know what's so difficult to understand. Even if Martin was pounding his head against the pavement, its still gun>pavement.
Thats a stupid speculation. Understand?
allegedly
and I have my reservations on the story. Again, you have a broken nose, getting your head banged against the pavement, and you have the ability to put your hand in your pocket, grab the gun, put your finger in the trigger, aim and shoot at the attacker.
mmm yeah, ok
gun>pavement
no one knows that. You're the one looking at a video and saying that he couldn't have been in danger of great bodily harm.
What if you were standing under a tall building and you looked up and saw a piano about to fall on your head and you moved out of the way. Were you not in imminent danger of death and great bodily harm?
Everybody is claiming Zimmerman to have self defense rights while totally dismissing Martin's.
The statute is crystal clear. If Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head into the concrete then Zimmerman could legally shoot him. What part of that don't you understand?
The irony of a supposed black poster confounded by the thought of someone lacking intelligence yet still acquiring wealth.
Again, GUN>PAVEMENT. Which one is more worthy of self defense?
Where did anyone dismiss Martin's rights to defend himself?
you pull your gun out and shoot at the piano?
Idiot...
A witness has Martin beating Zimmerman. You might think it more reasonable for martin to beat Zimmerman to death, but isn't it possible Zimmerman thought he might be under imminent threat of harm or death?
Martin wasn't the one with the broken nose. Zimmerman wasn't sitting on Martins chest pounding his head into the concrete. Martin wasn't the one screaming like a little girl.
If Martin saw a gun about to be used on him, Martin has a right to pound his head on the pavement. What part of that don't you understand?
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
