AussieReaper wrote:
Extra Medium wrote:
What led up to that is irrelevant.
Yes it is. You can't just dismiss that Zimmerman was provoking Trayvon.
Yes you can.
For example:
Say I am walking down the street and I see a guy following me and I mean I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt he is shadowing me, hell lets say he is even verbally taunting me. I have the right to confront him, I can talk, argue, yell or physically fight him. If I physically fight him I can be brought up on misdemeanor assault charges of course but I can do that if I wish. If that man does not show deadly intent, I cannot legally use deadly force against him, i.e. pull a knife or a gun or physically injure him to the point he is in distress of his life. If I do use unwarranted deadly force against him, for instance, I turned around and pulled a gun on him, he now has the right to retaliate and use deadly force in return as he has not initiated actions that could be construed as having deadly intent.
Think of it like this. You are following me and your verbally provoking me. If I turned around and started slamming your head into the pavement to the point you feared for your life, do you think it would be ok to use deadly force against me? Would you just lay there and die? Was the fact you were following me and verbally abusing me give me legal right to straight up kill you? Of course not, I was not in immediate life threatening danger and now you ARE.
Uzique The Lesser wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
It's ironic that lawyers would use weed and guns in an attempt to paint a bad picture of Martin at a time that the US is legalising weed in a number of states and basically glorifies guns.
yes but trayvon is black so it's different. drugs and guns are only okay when it's middle-class suburbanites abusing them. the drugs especially if they come from fancy white dealers or are ripped from pharmacy prescriptions, somehow. weed? gats? please, those are nigga-gangsta accessories. you deserved to die, kid. here in america we don't tolerate drugs.
> most medicated planet on nation.
> biggest consumer of weed AND cocaine.
> 'national emergency' declared epidemic levels of painkiller and prescription drug abuse (nominally by white people).
according to idiotic white people like dilbert, having a picture of a weed plant affects your "credibility". meanwhile we have a prime minister in the UK who has all but outright admitted that he's done cocaine. seems to be a real credibility killer. america has a president who has admitted to toking as a youth, and when in college. really killed his credibility. but when it's a street kid, or someone who is poor (was trayvon even poor? i thought he was pretty lower-middle class), well... then they deserve it. low-lives. people who take drugs cannot possibly be fine upstanding citizens
All of that is irrelevant. All of it. Every single word of it. The defense and prosecution knows it as well and has actually said it publicly.
The only thing that IS relevant in this case is who initiated deadly contact first. Thats it, no more. If Zimmerman is shown to have pulled the gun first, he goes to jail. If it is shown Martin started beating him first, Zimmerman is innocent. All the rest of this shit is just media sensational fluff.
Last edited by Extra Medium (2013-05-25 04:00:14)
