What evidence is there that Trayvon swung on a bus driver? He was suspended for truancy and marijuana.
The 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow him. Fact.
People do all sorts of irrational things. Maybe he wanted to set up self-defense as a defense.
So because he never shot anyone before then he couldn't have just shot someone this time? That's just fucking stupid. I guess no one can ever be convicted of murder for the first shot. One free shot? Most people (not in jail) don't have a history of shooting people because if they did they'd be in jail.
Fact is Zimmerman had been in altercations with police and his girlfriend, people have come forward to say he's jeckyl and hyde, he was ordered to anger management classes....we'll find out what happened. My suspicion is we'll find out that Zimmerman acted trigger-happy here. I think they argued, got into a fight and Zimmerman became enraged that this black kid took a swing at him so he decided to pop him.
I only asked the question if he'd swung on a bus driver.
Money had said that he was told not to follow...that is a lie.
Whats fucking stupid is the weight that you guys put on his history. Its a tiny fraction of the overall equation.
Whats fucking stupid is saying he slapped his wife and pushed a cop so he shot a black kid. Thats fucking stupid.
depech2. I get the sense that you lack some ability to comprehend whats been said based on the underlined.
I never said Trayvon swung on a bus driver. merely asked the question.
I also pointed out that the dispatcher did not tell Trayvon to stop following...which is true...yet you still felt the need to correct me.
What evidence is there that Trayvon swung on a bus driver? He was suspended for truancy and marijuana.
The 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow him. Fact.
People do all sorts of irrational things. Maybe he wanted to set up self-defense as a defense.
So because he never shot anyone before then he couldn't have just shot someone this time? That's just fucking stupid. I guess no one can ever be convicted of murder for the first shot. One free shot? Most people (not in jail) don't have a history of shooting people because if they did they'd be in jail.
Fact is Zimmerman had been in altercations with police and his girlfriend, people have come forward to say he's jeckyl and hyde, he was ordered to anger management classes....we'll find out what happened. My suspicion is we'll find out that Zimmerman acted trigger-happy here. I think they argued, got into a fight and Zimmerman became enraged that this black kid took a swing at him so he decided to pop him.
I only asked the question if he'd swung on a bus driver.
Money had said that he was told not to follow...that is a lie.
Whats fucking stupid is the weight that you guys put on his history. Its a tiny fraction of the overall equation.
Whats fucking stupid is saying he slapped his wife and pushed a cop so he shot a black kid. Thats fucking stupid.
depech2. I get the sense that you lack some ability to comprehend whats been said based on the underlined.
I never said Trayvon swung on a bus driver. merely asked the question.
I also pointed out that the dispatcher did not tell Trayvon to stop following...which is true...yet you still felt the need to correct me.
We can theorize who did what, but none of us know what physical evidence is out there.
We know very few things for sure.
What we do know: Z called 9-11 and was basically told " let the police handle it".... He broke NO LAW by ignoring this
We know he muttered " fuckin person"... Has NO BEARING on the crime / no crime, but certainly shows a " mind set "
Treyvon.is dead.... Appatently shot by Z, but until ballistics confirms we dont even know that.
Z shot him..... Again, we are 99.9% sure of this, but no OFFICIAL reports
We have lots of leaks, but few confirmed facts
I was going to say the same thing as Depeche though. I am not convinced he said that, although not certain he did not.
It is fascinating to watch certain posters espouse theories based on their perception, than attack others who are doing the same.
We do know that the investigation that occured when the officers first responded did not involve any form of questioning of Zimmerman nor ballastic tests. That is EXTREMELY unfortunate for all involved, particulalry Zimmerman as a good immediate investigation could have coorborated his version of events.
Fascinating discussion the other day with a colleague in Florida. The Stand Your Ground law is based on the fact that one need not retreat if attacked. But in the event of the actor being the initial aggressor, the law could have cut both ways here. Let's say that Zimmerman was following Martin and Martin became aware that Zimmerman had a gun and was following him. Martin also would not have a duty to retreat and would legally have the right to use physical force in the event he was fearful for his safety. So if Martin was then jusitified in using physical force because of fear for his safety, Zimmerman than would have shot a person who was legally justified in their actions. Just crazy.
We can theorize who did what, but none of us know what physical evidence is out there.
We know very few things for sure.
What we do know: Z called 9-11 and was basically told " let the police handle it".... He broke NO LAW by ignoring this
We know he muttered " fuckin person"... Has NO BEARING on the crime / no crime, but certainly shows a " mind set "
Treyvon.is dead.... Appatently shot by Z, but until ballistics confirms we dont even know that.
Z shot him..... Again, we are 99.9% sure of this, but no OFFICIAL reports
We have lots of leaks, but few confirmed facts
I was going to say the same thing as Depeche though. I am not convinced he said that, although not certain he did not.
It is fascinating to watch certain posters espouse theories based on their perception, than attack others who are doing the same.
We do know that the investigation that occured when the officers first responded did not involve any form of questioning of Zimmerman nor ballastic tests. That is EXTREMELY unfortunate for all involved, particulalry Zimmerman as a good immediate investigation could have coorborated his version of events.
Fascinating discussion the other day with a colleague in Florida. The Stand Your Ground law is based on the fact that one need not retreat if attacked. But in the event of the actor being the initial aggressor, the law could have cut both ways here. Let's say that Zimmerman was following Martin and Martin became aware that Zimmerman had a gun and was following him. Martin also would not have a duty to retreat and would legally have the right to use physical force in the event he was fearful for his safety. So if Martin was then jusitified in using physical force because of fear for his safety, Zimmerman than would have shot a person who was legally justified in their actions. Just crazy.
I was going to say the same thing as Depeche though. I am not convinced he said that, although not certain he did not.
It is fascinating to watch certain posters espouse theories based on their perception, than attack others who are doing the same.
We do know that the investigation that occured when the officers first responded did not involve any form of questioning of Zimmerman nor ballastic tests. That is EXTREMELY unfortunate for all involved, particulalry Zimmerman as a good immediate investigation could have coorborated his version of events.
Fascinating discussion the other day with a colleague in Florida. The Stand Your Ground law is based on the fact that one need not retreat if attacked. But in the event of the actor being the initial aggressor, the law could have cut both ways here. Let's say that Zimmerman was following Martin and Martin became aware that Zimmerman had a gun and was following him. Martin also would not have a duty to retreat and would legally have the right to use physical force in the event he was fearful for his safety. So if Martin was then jusitified in using physical force because of fear for his safety, Zimmerman than would have shot a person who was legally justified in their actions. Just crazy.
Actually, I wouldn't care if they were merely using their perceptions its when they have gon past perception and used projections that compelled me to beg to differ with them.
And your example of self defense isn't spot on as well.
The simple fact of knowledge that someone is following you and they have a gun is not a reasonable belief of great bodily harm or death. There would need to be an additional element of an intent to use the gun on him.
I was going to say the same thing as Depeche though. I am not convinced he said that, although not certain he did not.
It is fascinating to watch certain posters espouse theories based on their perception, than attack others who are doing the same.
We do know that the investigation that occured when the officers first responded did not involve any form of questioning of Zimmerman nor ballastic tests. That is EXTREMELY unfortunate for all involved, particulalry Zimmerman as a good immediate investigation could have coorborated his version of events.
Fascinating discussion the other day with a colleague in Florida. The Stand Your Ground law is based on the fact that one need not retreat if attacked. But in the event of the actor being the initial aggressor, the law could have cut both ways here. Let's say that Zimmerman was following Martin and Martin became aware that Zimmerman had a gun and was following him. Martin also would not have a duty to retreat and would legally have the right to use physical force in the event he was fearful for his safety. So if Martin was then jusitified in using physical force because of fear for his safety, Zimmerman than would have shot a person who was legally justified in their actions. Just crazy.
Actually, I wouldn't care if they were merely using their perceptions its when they have gon past perception and used projections that compelled me to beg to differ with them.
And your example of self defense isn't spot on as well.
The simple fact of knowledge that someone is following you and they have a gun is not a reasonable belief of great bodily harm or death. There would need to be an additional element of an intent to use the gun on him.
Actually, I wouldn't care if they were merely using their perceptions its when they have gon past perception and used projections that compelled me to beg to differ with them.
And your example of self defense isn't spot on as well.
The simple fact of knowledge that someone is following you and they have a gun is not a reasonable belief of great bodily harm or death. There would need to be an additional element of an intent to use the gun on him.
Suggesting that you are right and they are wrong when espousing theories is just plain silly.
And the example of self-defense is completely accurate. The Florida law has what is often termed the "Goetz" factor, that is it is based on the subjective view of the person as held against an objective standard of reasonableness. There is not a Court in the land that would not allow one a self-defense claim if someone is following another with a gun. I cannot imagine too many people that would continue to walk for fear of a bullet in the back.
Actually, I wouldn't care if they were merely using their perceptions its when they have gon past perception and used projections that compelled me to beg to differ with them.
And your example of self defense isn't spot on as well.
The simple fact of knowledge that someone is following you and they have a gun is not a reasonable belief of great bodily harm or death. There would need to be an additional element of an intent to use the gun on him.
Suggesting that you are right and they are wrong when espousing theories is just plain silly.
And the example of self-defense is completely accurate. The Florida law has what is often termed the "Goetz" factor, that is it is based on the subjective view of the person as held against an objective standard of reasonableness. There is not a Court in the land that would not allow one a self-defense claim if someone is following another with a gun. I cannot imagine too many people that would continue to walk for fear of a bullet in the back.
" but in the event the actor was the initial aggressor" Boy, is that vague.
A jury might see Z going outside as being an aggressor. Or they might want a physical confrontation.
I may the other point the other day.
Martin being confronted by an older, bigger man could also be in fear of his life ( and certainly if Z flashed the weapon )
At that point, he smashes Z and is justified in killing him, but ONLY if he does it guickly.
Certainly not beating him after unconscious, or when Z would be incapacitated enough for Martin to retreat
Right. Don't you see the irony there? Conceivably, under the same law that protects Zimmerman, had Martin been in fear under the subjective standard, he could have killed Zimmerman and claimed protection under the law.
" but in the event the actor was the initial aggressor" Boy, is that vague.
A jury might see Z going outside as being an aggressor. Or they might want a physical confrontation.
I may the other point the other day.
Martin being confronted by an older, bigger man could also be in fear of his life ( and certainly if Z flashed the weapon )
At that point, he smashes Z and is justified in killing him, but ONLY if he does it guickly.
Certainly not beating him after unconscious, or when Z would be incapacitated enough for Martin to retreat
Right. Don't you see the irony there? Conceivably, under the same law that protects Zimmerman, had Martin been in fear under the subjective standard, he could have killed Zimmerman and claimed protection under the law.
Suggesting that you are right and they are wrong when espousing theories is just plain silly.
And the example of self-defense is completely accurate. The Florida law has what is often termed the "Goetz" factor, that is it is based on the subjective view of the person as held against an objective standard of reasonableness. There is not a Court in the land that would not allow one a self-defense claim if someone is following another with a gun. I cannot imagine too many people that would continue to walk for fear of a bullet in the back.
I'm going to beg to differ with you and offer an example.
Say I'm walking down the street and I hear a driveby shooting 4 houses behind me. I turn around to see the vehicle involved and witness the last 2 or 3 shots fired from the vehicle.
Ignoring prudence I continue to stand there and eventually the car travels my direction and stops and pulls over to where I am. The driver rolls down the window and asks me where the nearest hospital is.
I knew he had a gun and I knew since he started pulling the car over towards where I was walking that he was following me. I don't have legal grounds to defend myself in any way until I see a gun pointed at me or a statement that I was a target.
Its a far fetched example but so is the example you used.
Suggesting that you are right and they are wrong when espousing theories is just plain silly.
And the example of self-defense is completely accurate. The Florida law has what is often termed the "Goetz" factor, that is it is based on the subjective view of the person as held against an objective standard of reasonableness. There is not a Court in the land that would not allow one a self-defense claim if someone is following another with a gun. I cannot imagine too many people that would continue to walk for fear of a bullet in the back.
I'm going to beg to differ with you and offer an example.
Say I'm walking down the street and I hear a driveby shooting 4 houses behind me. I turn around to see the vehicle involved and witness the last 2 or 3 shots fired from the vehicle.
Ignoring prudence I continue to stand there and eventually the car travels my direction and stops and pulls over to where I am. The driver rolls down the window and asks me where the nearest hospital is.
I knew he had a gun and I knew since he started pulling the car over towards where I was walking that he was following me. I don't have legal grounds to defend myself in any way until I see a gun pointed at me or a statement that I was a target.
Its a far fetched example but so is the example you used.
I'm going to beg to differ with you and offer an example.
Say I'm walking down the street and I hear a driveby shooting 4 houses behind me. I turn around to see the vehicle involved and witness the last 2 or 3 shots fired from the vehicle.
Ignoring prudence I continue to stand there and eventually the car travels my direction and stops and pulls over to where I am. The driver rolls down the window and asks me where the nearest hospital is.
I knew he had a gun and I knew since he started pulling the car over towards where I was walking that he was following me. I don't have legal grounds to defend myself in any way until I see a gun pointed at me or a statement that I was a target.
Its a far fetched example but so is the example you used.
Your example is completely unrelated as it involves multiple external factors not present in mine. And it is a subjective standard. Google that to learn what it means.
If there are two people on the street with no one else around and one person is following another with a gun and that person has knowledge of that gun, the actor has every legal right to turn around and confront the person carrying the weapon.
No doubt if I changed the scenario to a white businessman walking in a black neighborhood while a black teenager with a gun starts following him, the white businessman would have the right to defend himself. I'm sure if you check with your friends at Fox News, they would tell you that he would and you would no doubt support that right.
I'm going to beg to differ with you and offer an example.
Say I'm walking down the street and I hear a driveby shooting 4 houses behind me. I turn around to see the vehicle involved and witness the last 2 or 3 shots fired from the vehicle.
Ignoring prudence I continue to stand there and eventually the car travels my direction and stops and pulls over to where I am. The driver rolls down the window and asks me where the nearest hospital is.
I knew he had a gun and I knew since he started pulling the car over towards where I was walking that he was following me. I don't have legal grounds to defend myself in any way until I see a gun pointed at me or a statement that I was a target.
Its a far fetched example but so is the example you used.
Your example is completely unrelated as it involves multiple external factors not present in mine. And it is a subjective standard. Google that to learn what it means.
If there are two people on the street with no one else around and one person is following another with a gun and that person has knowledge of that gun, the actor has every legal right to turn around and confront the person carrying the weapon.
No doubt if I changed the scenario to a white businessman walking in a black neighborhood while a black teenager with a gun starts following him, the white businessman would have the right to defend himself. I'm sure if you check with your friends at Fox News, they would tell you that he would and you would no doubt support that right.
Your example is completely unrelated as it involves multiple external factors not present in mine. And it is a subjective standard. Google that to learn what it means.
If there are two people on the street with no one else around and one person is following another with a gun and that person has knowledge of that gun, the actor has every legal right to turn around and confront the person carrying the weapon.
No doubt if I changed the scenario to a white businessman walking in a black neighborhood while a black teenager with a gun starts following him, the white businessman would have the right to defend himself. I'm sure if you check with your friends at Fox News, they would tell you that he would and you would no doubt support that right.
The simple explanation of how he found out he has a gun without any further knowledge of that person is quite intreguing and subjective as well.
Since you have Joy Vehar and Michael Moore on speed dial you should not hypicritically make comments on my relationship with fox news.
Your example is completely unrelated as it involves multiple external factors not present in mine. And it is a subjective standard. Google that to learn what it means.
If there are two people on the street with no one else around and one person is following another with a gun and that person has knowledge of that gun, the actor has every legal right to turn around and confront the person carrying the weapon.
No doubt if I changed the scenario to a white businessman walking in a black neighborhood while a black teenager with a gun starts following him, the white businessman would have the right to defend himself. I'm sure if you check with your friends at Fox News, they would tell you that he would and you would no doubt support that right.
The simple explanation of how he found out he has a gun without any further knowledge of that person is quite intreguing and subjective as well.
Since you have Joy Vehar and Michael Moore on speed dial you should not hypicritically make comments on my relationship with fox news.
In defense of yourself you must prove that you reasonably believed that your life or that of another was in danger, or you reasonably believed that your attacker intended to cause you serious bodily harm.
Google mens rea
I can guarantee you that simply being followed by someone with a gun is not a reasonable belief that your life or health is in danger with the intent.
In defense of yourself you must prove that you reasonably believed that your life or that of another was in danger, or you reasonably believed that your attacker intended to cause you serious bodily harm.
Google mens rea
I can guarantee you that simply being followed by someone with a gun is not a reasonable belief that your life or health is in danger with the intent.
Since there is no evidence or witnesses to how the fight began or even if Z was going back to his car before the altercation, his credibility & believability is crucial because basically that's all he's got. I'm imagine that's what is being thoroughly looked into now. Yes, there is a witness statement that Martin was on top at some point during the fight, but that says nothing about whether it was legal self defense or not & there have been conflicting statements even about that. And yes, he had some kind of injury to his nose & back of his head but again that alone proves nothing & 30-45 mins later they weren't even evident on the video & Z was walking around & talking in a normal fashion.
Whether he said "fkn person" or not doesn't matter much (tho it sounded like he did) except it would play badly for him in a courtroom. He already showed his mindset on the 911 call that he thought M was up to no good & "these guy" always get away & by pursuing him. In terms of believability, I understand in his acct he said Martin said to him, "You got a problem" & he said "no", then Martin said "well, you do now" & then hit him. And that M just appeared out of the blue after he lost sight of him & was returning to his truck.
From what I've heard of the girfriends acct of what she heard just before the fight, it was Martin saying "Why are you following me?" & Z saying "What are you doing around here?" & then scufflin noises & nothing else. And before that M telling her he thought this dude was following him & her telling him to run & he said no, I'll just walk fast. So her statement & it's credibility is important since there wouldn't be any hard copy of their call. Also, the voice yelling for help is huge because if it's Martin's, it doesn't seem plausible that M would be on top hitting him & pounding his head into the ground while screaming for help. And now, 2 experts with the latest voice technology have said with 99% certainty it's not Z's voice with their company's reputation & credibility on the line. But yeah, instead I guess we should believe the father & brother who want to keep Z outa prison, LOL.
As far as history goes, you have M with no history of violence or even getting into fights at school whereas with Z you got 2 violence related arrests, having his gun permit taken away & a guy saying he's got a jekyl/hyde deal going & past a certain point, he just "snaps". But somehow alot of folks are saying he, his dad & brother should just be believed & he shouldn't be charged. What a joke
Oh yeah, in their report in the Sentinal where they're saying why he wasn't arrested & charged at the scene, it also said that Z presented himself as being squeaky clean which I take to mean an officer asked him if he'd been in trouble before or had a record & he lied. With the FL stand your ground law, I can see why they might not arrest him that night but to not do it later is hard to understand. And to not do it now would be a travesty -
Since there is no evidence or witnesses to how the fight began or even if Z was going back to his car before the altercation, his credibility & believability is crucial because basically that's all he's got. I'm imagine that's what is being thoroughly looked into now. Yes, there is a witness statement that Martin was on top at some point during the fight, but that says nothing about whether it was legal self defense or not & there have been conflicting statements even about that. And yes, he had some kind of injury to his nose & back of his head but again that alone proves nothing & 30-45 mins later they weren't even evident on the video & Z was walking around & talking in a normal fashion.
Whether he said "fkn person" or not doesn't matter much (tho it sounded like he did) except it would play badly for him in a courtroom. He already showed his mindset on the 911 call that he thought M was up to no good & "these guy" always get away & by pursuing him. In terms of believability, I understand in his acct he said Martin said to him, "You got a problem" & he said "no", then Martin said "well, you do now" & then hit him. And that M just appeared out of the blue after he lost sight of him & was returning to his truck.
From what I've heard of the girfriends acct of what she heard just before the fight, it was Martin saying "Why are you following me?" & Z saying "What are you doing around here?" & then scufflin noises & nothing else. And before that M telling her he thought this dude was following him & her telling him to run & he said no, I'll just walk fast. So her statement & it's credibility is important since there wouldn't be any hard copy of their call. Also, the voice yelling for help is huge because if it's Martin's, it doesn't seem plausible that M would be on top hitting him & pounding his head into the ground while screaming for help. And now, 2 experts with the latest voice technology have said with 99% certainty it's not Z's voice with their company's reputation & credibility on the line. But yeah, instead I guess we should believe the father & brother who want to keep Z outa prison, LOL.
As far as history goes, you have M with no history of violence or even getting into fights at school whereas with Z you got 2 violence related arrests, having his gun permit taken away & a guy saying he's got a jekyl/hyde deal going & past a certain point, he just "snaps". But somehow alot of folks are saying he, his dad & brother should just be believed & he shouldn't be charged. What a joke
Oh yeah, in their report in the Sentinal where they're saying why he wasn't arrested & charged at the scene, it also said that Z presented himself as being squeaky clean which I take to mean an officer asked him if he'd been in trouble before or had a record & he lied. With the FL stand your ground law, I can see why they might not arrest him that night but to not do it later is hard to understand. And to not do it now would be a travesty -
Zimmerman himself said that Martin tried to grab his gun. Since you believe that Zimmerman is telling the truth, than Martin must have known.
And yes, my viewpoint on this is completely left wing. Good call.
But since there is nothing to suggest that Zimmerman wanted to use the gun until he shot Trayvon.
Even if a witness had seen the whole thing and even seen Trayvon notice the gun in a holster on Zimmermans side Trayvon would not have cause to grab the gun out of the holster and shoot him with it.
A step further, If Trayvon and Zimmerman are haveing a point blank stare down and Trayvon looks down to see a gun in a holster on Zimmerman, he would NOT have justification until intent to use the gun against him is given or something else like Zimmerman pounding his head against the sidewalk.
Zimmerman himself said that Martin tried to grab his gun. Since you believe that Zimmerman is telling the truth, than Martin must have known.
And yes, my viewpoint on this is completely left wing. Good call.
But since there is nothing to suggest that Zimmerman wanted to use the gun until he shot Trayvon.
Even if a witness had seen the whole thing and even seen Trayvon notice the gun in a holster on Zimmermans side Trayvon would not have cause to grab the gun out of the holster and shoot him with it.
A step further, If Trayvon and Zimmerman are haveing a point blank stare down and Trayvon looks down to see a gun in a holster on Zimmerman, he would NOT have justification until intent to use the gun against him is given or something else like Zimmerman pounding his head against the sidewalk.
In defense of yourself you must prove that you reasonably believed that your life or that of another was in danger, or you reasonably believed that your attacker intended to cause you serious bodily harm.
Google mens rea
I can guarantee you that simply being followed by someone with a gun is not a reasonable belief that your life or health is in danger with the intent.
Mens rea is irrelevant here.
That is based on the intent of the actor. Actus reus is irrelevant as well.
Self-defense is based on the subjective beliefs of the person who believes himself to be in jeopardy.
If I am alone on a street and another person starts following me with a gun, I subjectively believe that I am in danger. Suggesting otherwise is silly.
In defense of yourself you must prove that you reasonably believed that your life or that of another was in danger, or you reasonably believed that your attacker intended to cause you serious bodily harm.
Google mens rea
I can guarantee you that simply being followed by someone with a gun is not a reasonable belief that your life or health is in danger with the intent.
Mens rea is irrelevant here.
That is based on the intent of the actor. Actus reus is irrelevant as well.
Self-defense is based on the subjective beliefs of the person who believes himself to be in jeopardy.
If I am alone on a street and another person starts following me with a gun, I subjectively believe that I am in danger. Suggesting otherwise is silly.
DJbrow, I'm not going to call you an idiot but it seems to me that I have used my own arguments in this case and even stated that I'm waiting for the medical report to come out.
Only an imbisil would deduce that I am waiting for the right wing extremists to coach me as to what to say.
Maybe you should wait for Slim or the right wing talkin points, because your arguments are sorely lacking in every way imaginable
DJbrow, I'm not going to call you an idiot but it seems to me that I have used my own arguments in this case and even stated that I'm waiting for the medical report to come out.
Only an imbisil would deduce that I am waiting for the right wing extremists to coach me as to what to say.
Maybe you should wait for Slim or the right wing talkin points, because your arguments are sorely lacking in every way imaginable
That is based on the intent of the actor. Actus reus is irrelevant as well.
Self-defense is based on the subjective beliefs of the person who believes himself to be in jeopardy.
If I am alone on a street and another person starts following me with a gun, I subjectively believe that I am in danger. Suggesting otherwise is silly.
You are making yourself look foolish here.
Thats bs.
Even if Travon and Zimmerman were standing nose to nose and Trayvon looked down and saw a gun at Zimmermans side in a holster he would not have grounds to defend himself until the gun came out of the holster or Zimmerman started pounding his head into the sidewalk or whatever.
That is based on the intent of the actor. Actus reus is irrelevant as well.
Self-defense is based on the subjective beliefs of the person who believes himself to be in jeopardy.
If I am alone on a street and another person starts following me with a gun, I subjectively believe that I am in danger. Suggesting otherwise is silly.
You are making yourself look foolish here.
Thats bs.
Even if Travon and Zimmerman were standing nose to nose and Trayvon looked down and saw a gun at Zimmermans side in a holster he would not have grounds to defend himself until the gun came out of the holster or Zimmerman started pounding his head into the sidewalk or whatever.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.