Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 68

Thread: Feds to investigate fatal shooting of Florifda teen

  1. #1
    Regular Member dmjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rocky Hill CT
    Posts
    47

    Feds to investigate fatal shooting of Florifda teen


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Miami, Florida, United States
    Posts
    74
    I really would like to see all the facts come out in this case, but my gut feel is this was a bad shoot.

    Mike v.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    159
    Sad 98% of the available details are not important to the question of the shooting justification or lack there of.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,1716605.story
    This article has more information than most I have seen.

  4. #4
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    So glad the federal government is involved. They're better, and smarter, and will pursue justice at whatever cost.

    Too bad for the shooter. He's already been convicted in the media and in public opinion whether he deserved it or not, and we'll probably never know what happened. In which case, the shooter needs to remain free.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Miami, Florida, United States
    Posts
    74
    Thanks for posting that. Since all we have down here is leftist news, I did not want to pass judgement, but I still don't think it was a good shoot. I hope for Zimmerman's case, that the fact vindicate him, or the anti's will have a field day with this. That is my biggest concern. You know, this could have been me dealing with a miscreant in my neighborhood. I am not saying that Trayvon is a miscreant. I would like to know what the hell he got suspended from school for.

    Mike V.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Viera, Florida, USA
    Posts
    73
    I’ve been watching this on the local news. There’s very little that’s remotely factual being reported and a ton of hysteria and videos of outraged people waving signs. Al Sharpton is now involved, which does nothing good for the credibility of the sign-wavers.

    From what I can tell, the kid was, at most, committing a misdemeanor. Under Florida law, the use of deadly force is not justified in a case that doesn’t involve a well founded fear of imminent death or great bodily harm from a forcible felony. Unless the Grand Jury is persuaded that Zimmerman reasonably believed he was faced with that threat, he’s going to be facing some very serious charges.

    The TV reporters are talking Grand Jury, but I can’t tell if they actually know something or they’re just speculating. If it goes to a Grand Jury, I expect an indictment and a trial, unless Zimmerman takes a plea. With all the screaming, a plea offer might be politically impossible. With Florida’s mandatory sentencing laws, Zimmerman may well die in prison.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    So glad the federal government is involved. They're better, and smarter, and will pursue justice at whatever cost.

    Too bad for the shooter. He's already been convicted in the media and in public opinion whether he deserved it or not, and we'll probably never know what happened. In which case, the shooter needs to remain free.
    Why should the shooter remain free?

    There's no good reason for him to NOT be locked up.

    He shouldn't have even confronted the kid, let alone SHOT an unarmed kid.

    The guy should be charged with murder, he killed a kid that wasn't a threat to his life, and if he was, it was because HE created the situation.

    *swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*

  8. #8
    Regular Member Tactical9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    132
    We all know what "self defense" means, and as citizens who carry we should already be very aware when lethal force is and is not appropriate. Regardless of where we live in the country, if you are the initial aggressor of a situation that results in you shooting someone, I'm fairly sure the local law would not call it self-defense.

    Recent reports in the media suggest the kid that was shot was on his cell phone with his girlfriend during the encounter with the shooter. He was being followed/pursued by the shooter, and was attempting to lose the guy.

    All the facts are not in yet, and by no means am I trying to say what happened. Just saying what I'm hearing.

    The 911-operator told the shooter not to confront the kid, and he still did. He went out of way to do so.

    Bottom line, the kid was unarmed and got shot. Not good publicity for the 2nd amendment community.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical9mm View Post
    We all know what "self defense" means, and as citizens who carry we should already be very aware when lethal force is and is not appropriate. Regardless of where we live in the country, if you are the initial aggressor of a situation that results in you shooting someone, I'm fairly sure the local law would not call it self-defense.

    Recent reports in the media suggest the kid that was shot was on his cell phone with his girlfriend during the encounter with the shooter. He was being followed/pursued by the shooter, and was attempting to lose the guy.

    All the facts are not in yet, and by no means am I trying to say what happened. Just saying what I'm hearing.

    The 911-operator told the shooter not to confront the kid, and he still did. He went out of way to do so.

    Bottom line, the kid was unarmed and got shot. Not good publicity for the 2nd amendment community.

    This.


    No reason that guy shouldn't have been locked up mm.


    *swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*

  10. #10
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by the_hustleman View Post
    Why should the shooter remain free?

    There's no good reason for him to NOT be locked up.

    He shouldn't have even confronted the kid, let alone SHOT an unarmed kid.

    The guy should be charged with murder, he killed a kid that wasn't a threat to his life, and if he was, it was because HE created the situation.

    *swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*
    You don't know the facts. We don't lock people up because the media ****** say so. I'm inclined to first believe the opposite. All we know is a guy killed an unarmed kid. Cops do this daily.

    Murder? Have you ever heard of something called mens rea?
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    159
    What I have learned about this case so far:
    Z = Zimmerman M= Martin

    Just the facts as we know it.

    1) Z called the police to report a suspicious person. Was told it was not needed to follow him, and sad "ok" in response.
    2) M saw that someone was following him and was on the phone with his girlfriend who has coroborated that M ran, and lost site of Z.
    3) Z while on the phone with Non-Emergency police line said he lost the kid.
    4) At some point later 911 calls roll in, and a direct witness comes outside to see M on top of Z and Z crying for someone to help him. This is recorded on another persons 911 call.
    5) Z claims M confronted him and attacked him, got him on his back and would not relent the attack after Z, and a neighbor yelled for him to stop.
    6) The eye witness did not see the beginning of the fight, and went inside before the end of the confrontation and never saw the gun in play, within 30 seconds of the witness going inside the shot is heard.
    7) Z was bleeding from the back of his head, from his nose, and had grass stains on his back. (no info on any possible injuries for M, coroners report would provide this once it is available)
    8) All of the facts have not been made public, but all of the original witness statements corroborate Z's statement. (except for the people like Cruncher who changed there story days later)

    This is all we the public know at this time, and it is why probable cause for Z's arrest has not been established. The biggest problem with trying to judge this case is the huge gap in knowledge between #3, and #5. Which is where all of the real legal questions live. Police may have more information than this, but so far no arrest, which makes me believe if there is additional info, it is not anything which contradicts Z's account.
    Last edited by Xulld; 03-22-2012 at 03:15 PM.

  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical9mm View Post
    Bottom line, the kid was unarmed and got shot. Not good publicity for the 2nd amendment community.
    Quote Originally Posted by the_hustleman View Post
    He shouldn't have even confronted the kid, let alone SHOT an unarmed kid.

    With regard to civilian self-defense, it is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Xulld View Post
    What I have learned about this case so far:
    Z = Zimmerman M= Martin

    Just the facts as we know it.

    1) Z called the police to report a suspicious person. Was told it was not needed to follow him, and sad "ok" in response.
    2) M saw that someone was following him and was on the phone with his girlfriend who has coroborated that M ran, and lost site of Z.
    3) Z while on the phone with Non-Emergency police line said he lost the kid.
    4) At some point later 911 calls roll in, and a direct witness comes outside to see M on top of Z and Z crying for someone to help him. This is recorded on another persons 911 call.
    5) Z claims M confronted him and attacked him, got him on his back and would not relent the attack after Z, and a neighbor yelled for him to stop.
    6) The eye witness did not see the beginning of the fight, and went inside before the end of the confrontation and never saw the gun in play, within 30 seconds of the witness going inside the shot is heard.
    7) Z was bleeding from the back of his head, from his nose, and had grass stains on his back. (no info on any possible injuries for M, coroners report would provide this once it is available)
    8) All of the facts have not been made public, but all of the original witness statements corroborate Z's statement. (except for the people like Cruncher who changed there story days later)

    This is all we the public know at this time, and it is why probable cause for Z's arrest has not been established. The biggest problem with trying to judge this case is the huge gap in knowledge between #3, and #5. Which is where all of the real legal questions live. Police may have more information than this, but so far no arrest, which makes me believe if there is additional info, it is not anything which contradicts Z's account.
    Despite witness accounts of M calling for help, not Z?

    It isn't self defense when YOU seek out the confrontation.

    He shouldn't have approached the kid, and if you were doing nothing wrong and someone ran up on you, you wouldn't be the kindest person in the world I'm sure, especially someone you don't know.

    Also, even if m beat him up, who started the confrontation?

    Z


    *swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    More info, better analysis

    Hey, Mods - Let's please use those forum tools and MERGE these threads so we're not repeating ourselves five time over, ok? Thanks!

    Onward...

    Article: Obama gets personal over killing of black Florida teenager

    What an immoral opportunist Obama must be! Here are some FACTS, directly from the police report, the media keeps either getting wrong or simply ignores:

    1. The pictures repeatedly displayed by the media are when the kid was 14. Trayvon isn't a kid. He was 17 when he attacked Zimmerman and no longer looked "sweet and innocent" as the media keeps deceptively portraying.

    2. Trayvon was on a 5-day suspension from school for ...you guessed it... fighting.

    3. Trayvon was 6'2" and a high school football player, a stature and occupation even I would find physically intimidating.

    4. According to the police report, Zimmerman's back was sopping wet from where he'd been on his back, in the grass, as Trayvon pummeled his face with blows from his fists. Zimmerman's nose was bloodied, as was the back of his head, from where Trayvon had repeatedly slammed struck him in the face and slammed his head into the ground.

    5. Again, according to the police report, the eyewitness observed Trayvon sitting on top of Zimmerman, bludgeoning him repeatedly as Zimmerman screamed for help. The eyewitness headed inside to call 911, heard a gunshot, and looked out the window to see Trayvon lying on the ground, apparently dead.

    Conclusions, based on BEHAVIOR, rather than racism, very misleading media portrayals, and family bias:

    A. Whether Zimmerman initially approached Trayvon or not is immaterial.

    B. What's material is Trayvon's BEHAVIOR, namely, his aggravated assault against Zimmerman immediately prior to the shooting, and Zimmerman's firing of his weapon thus ending the assault.

    C. The police department hasn't pressed charges as this is clearly and undeniably (unless you're a racist idiot or member of the biased media) an act of justifiable homicide required as last resort means of self defense.

    Let's examine what would have happened if Zimmerman has NOT shot Trayvon:

    a. The athletic but violently out of control 17-year-old would have beaten Zimmerman into unconsciousness or even death.

    b. If he'd only beaten Zimmerman into unconsciousness, Trayvon could very well have taken Zimmerman's gun, at which point we would now have an armed felon running around, or Trayvon could have shot Zimmerman at which point we would have had a muderering armed felon running around.

    What DID NOT happen: Zimmerman did NOT chase Trayvon down and shoot him. If he had, he'd be behind bars and awaiting charges or at least a hearing.

    Here's what else IS true: Obama is a reprehensible opportunist praying on the black and minority communities in the midst of this tragedy to engender support for reelection.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  15. #15
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Hey, Mods - Let's please use those forum tools and MERGE these threads so we're not repeating ourselves five time over, ok? Thanks!

    Onward...

    4. According to the police report, Zimmerman's back was sopping wet from where he'd been on his back, in the grass, as Trayvon pummeled his face with blows from his fists. Zimmerman's nose was bloodied, as was the back of his head, from where Trayvon had repeatedly slammed struck him in the face and slammed his head into the ground.

    5. Again, according to the police report, the eyewitness observed Trayvon sitting on top of Zimmerman, bludgeoning him repeatedly as Zimmerman screamed for help. The eyewitness headed inside to call 911, heard a gunshot, and looked out the window to see Trayvon lying on the ground, apparently dead.

    Conclusions, based on BEHAVIOR, rather than racism, very misleading media portrayals, and family bias:

    A. Whether Zimmerman initially approached Trayvon or not is immaterial.

    How is it "immaterial?"

    Isn't this going to be a situation where both sides claim "self-defense?"

    If some odd-looking non-uniformed stranger starts appoaching/following/pursuing an unarmed and totally law-abiding 17-year old without any discernible reason, is it reasonable that the pursued might think that the pursuer might be dangerous? That he might even have a gun or something? And having a gun or something might mean that the stranger is DANGEROUS?

    And that therefore, flight is a good tactic to get away from the pursuer?

    And if flight fails, wouldn't it be reasonable for the pursued to turn and fight? In self-defense?


    I remember an old saying about self-defense someone posted here a while back:

    When threatened, flee. When cornered, kill.

    Didn't Trayvon Martin have a right to defend himself from a potentially homicidal attacker?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Here's what else IS true: Obama is a reprehensible opportunist praying on the black and minority communities in the midst of this tragedy to engender support for reelection.
    How is it that MANY politicians have been weighing in on this but only Obama is wrong for doing so?

    This would make YOU an opportunist as well. Using any little thing to try and tear down the president you don't like.

    Don't tell us Obama is preying on us. We'll tell you if we think he is.

    Seriously... LOL
    Last edited by Stanley; 03-25-2012 at 09:57 AM.
    "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." - George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

  17. #17
    Regular Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    Didn't Trayvon Martin have a right to defend himself from a potentially homicidal attacker?
    Hey, he was black, wearing a hoodie, out at night and a "violent, football player" according to many people here.

    That apparently is enough to justify deadly force...

    <sarcasm>
    Though it is progress.

    60 years ago these same people would be satisfied with just the "he's black" part... </sarcasm>
    "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." - George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    Is the state still convening a grand jury?

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical9mm View Post
    Regardless of where we live in the country, if you are the initial aggressor of a situation that results in you shooting someone, I'm fairly sure the local law would not call it self-defense.
    In Virginia, any person may legitimately make a claim of self-defense, so long as they evinced meaningful intent to escape or cease the altercation beforehand, and were subject to potentially deadly force even after having done so. This is true for the initial aggressor as well.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-25-2012 at 01:00 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Japle
    Under Florida law, the use of deadly force is not justified in a case that doesn’t involve a well founded fear of imminent death or great bodily harm from a forcible felony.
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT
    Isn't this going to be a situation where both sides claim "self-defense?"
    If witnesses come forward to say that Z did something to threaten M, put him in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm (DOGBH), M had the right to defend himself.

    That stops when Z is no longer a threat, either by giving up (yelling for M to stop) or being in a position (on his back on the ground) where he can't harm M.

    IMHO (IANAL,NDIPOOTV) if Z did something to threaten M M was right in defending himself.

    Since M was obviously (witness statements) assaulting Z, past Z giving up the fight or being a threat, M became the attacker.

    Quote Originally Posted by the_hustleman
    The guy should be charged with murder, he killed a kid that wasn't a threat to his life, and if he was, it was because HE created the situation.
    You think that someone that size & athletic ability, sitting on top of someone probably at least twice his age, beating him & pounding his head into the ground is somehow not a threat?

    And see above about Z regaining his right to self-defense by withdrawing from the fight.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    In Virginia, any person may legitimately make a claim of self-defense, so long as they evinced meaningful intent to escape or cease the altercation beforehand, and were subject to potentially deadly force even after having done so. This is true for the initial aggressor as well.
    Well, this is Florida, where (-until the weak-kneed politicos in Tally begin bending over to the propoganda,which should be any moment now...) we are under NO obligation to dis-engage, flee, retreat or otherwise cower like helpless victims in some other States, provided we are some place we have every right to find ourselves.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    Well, this is Florida, where (-until the weak-kneed politicos in Tally begin bending over to the propoganda,which should be any moment now...) we are under NO obligation to dis-engage, flee, retreat or otherwise cower like helpless victims in some other States, provided we are some place we have every right to find ourselves.
    Do you read before you post? Are you even capable of understanding the discussion at hand?

    The last few posts you've made in response to mine have been beyond ridiculous.

    My post was in response to a prior poster who opined that, in no state, could a person claim self-defense after being an initial aggressor. I simply pointed out one state where this is false.

    I never suggested that all self-defense claims, in Virginia or elsewhere, must first be accompanied by an attempt to retreat or avoid a conflict. I merely pointed out that an initial aggressor could still defend himself by doing so.

    I also said nothing about Florida's self-defense laws, as that was unnecessary to the point I endeavored to make. I would wager a bet that every person here understood my point except for you.

    As it happens, in Virginia there is no "duty to retreat" or any such. One may stand his ground and defend himself if one is not party to instigating a conflict, without evincing any intent to do anything. But that is entirely irrelevant to the claim made in the post to which I was responding.

    Since you bring it up, Virginia's self-defense laws are better than Florida's anyway. We didn't need some statute to stand our ground. We have centuries of common-law precedent. Not only that, but we can actually open carry.

    Read and think before you post. You'll appear much smarter for the effort.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-25-2012 at 02:11 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Do you read before you post? Are you even capable of understanding the discussion at hand?

    The last few posts you've made in response to mine have been beyond ridiculous.

    My post was in response to a prior poster who opined that, in no state, could a person claim self-defense after being an initial aggressor. I simply pointed out one state where this is false.

    I never suggested that all self-defense claims, in Virginia or elsewhere, must first be accompanied by an attempt to retreat or avoid a conflict. I merely pointed out that an initial aggressor could still defend himself by doing so.

    I also said nothing about Florida's self-defense laws, as that was unnecessary to the point I endeavored to make. I would wager a bet that every person here understood my point except for you.

    As it happens, in Virginia there is no "duty to retreat" or any such. One may stand his ground and defend himself if one is not party to instigating a conflict, without evincing any intent to do anything. But that is entirely irrelevant to the claim made in the post to which I was responding.

    Since you bring it up, Virginia's self-defense laws are better than Florida's anyway. We didn't need some statute to stand our ground. We have centuries of common-law precedent. Not only that, but we can actually open carry.

    Read and think before you post. You'll appear much smarter for the effort.

    I was simply clarifying that -since this IS the FLORIDA section- that our current legislation is different from elsewhere. Your defensiveness/hyper-sensitivity to every reply undermines not only your attempted commentary, but your intended insults.
    You simply cancel yourself out at every turn. Take your own advice, and get over yourself, Mary.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    I was simply clarifying that -since this IS the FLORIDA section- that our current legislation is different from elsewhere. Your defensiveness/hyper-sensitivity to every reply undermines not only your attempted commentary, but your intended insults.
    You simply cancel yourself out at every turn. Take your own advice, and get over yourself, Mary.
    Your clarification was unnecessary and irrelevant. Stand your ground laws have nothing to do with self-defense after initial aggression, which was the topic of the post to which I was responding. If you wanted to join the discussion rather than simply attacking my post, you might have provided some example of a Florida law which has anything at all to due with defense after initial aggression. Since, you know, that would actually be relevant. Also, your tone would have been entirely less insulting (for instance, the clear implication that Virginians are "helpless victims").

    As to my being "hyper-sensitive" and a "Mary" (lol, what are you, 12?), you're free to stop picking apart my posts with irrelevant rebuttals. Or, to make valid and relevant points.

    If any of your last five or six responses to me took my posts at face value, I'd respond to you in kind. It's fairly clear, however, that you aren't actually reading what I'm saying, and are merely desperately looking for any reason to rebut me, rather than my posts. I have no idea why you've decided you don't like me, but I've been around the block long enough to know that trend when I see it.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-25-2012 at 02:38 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Your clarification was unnecessary and irrelevant. Stand your ground laws have nothing to do with self-defense after initial aggression, which was the topic of the post to which I was responding. If you wanted to join the discussion rather than simply attacking my post, you might have provided some example of a Florida law which has anything at all to due with defense after initial aggression. Since, you know, that would actually be relevant.

    As to my being "hyper-sensitive" and a "Mary" (lol, what are you, 12?), you're free to stop picking apart my posts with irrelevant rebuttals.

    If any of your last five or six responses to me took my posts at face value, I'd respond to you in kind. It's fairly clear, however, that you aren't actually reading what I'm saying, and are merely desperately looking for any reason to rebut me, rather than my posts. I have no idea why, but I've been around the block long enough to know that trend when I see it.
    My bad, the hyper-sensistivity/defensive routine often leads me to think Im dealing with a little girl.
    And now, Im even less convinced that I'm not.

    Taken in overall context of the thread and your posts within that thread, they make plenty of sense for those capable of actually grasping the big words ,as well as the little ones. (as opposed to merely googling /copy/pasting them into forums so as to sound edumicatered) in other words, even though I might qoute you, in particular, it doesnt mean everything is ABOUT YOU.
    Self, Over, Get it.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •