The politics of hoodie wearing

Nods. He was hit in the face and the back of his head was injured.

It looks like he just WAITED TOO LONG to defend himself.
Some people r simply too patient & forbearing for their own good. Poor Mr. Z

I would like to clarify - weird that I think I have to - pointing out that those who denied Zimmerman had any marks from a fight were wrong means nothing more right now than they were wrong.

And they were.

Wrong.

Lash wrote:

Nods. He was hit in the face and the back of his head was injured.

It looks like he just WAITED TOO LONG to defend himself.
Some people r simply too patient & forbearing for their own good. Poor Mr. Z.





David

Nods. He was hit in the face and the back of his head was injured.

It looks like he just WAITED TOO LONG to defend himself.
Some people r simply too patient & forbearing for their own good. Poor Mr. Z.





David

The problem with your argument David is that 'waiting too long' means
I don't need a reason other than you are ON the sidewalk,

which clearly is a weapon according to you.

If I wait for you to use it, that would be waiting too long.
Ergo, I can shoot your for simply standing on a sidewalk and claim
self defense because you had a weapon and I felt threatened.

]No. I meant that he waited too long after Mr. T began his attack,
slamming Zimmy 's head on the street.

parados wrote:

which clearly is a weapon according to you.

Yes; almost anything is a weapon
when combined with a little ingenuity. Some weapons r better than others.

parados wrote:

If I wait for you to use it, that would be waiting too long.
Ergo, I can shoot your for simply standing on a sidewalk and claim
self defense because you had a weapon and I felt threatened.

Everyone is Constitutionally and Naturally entitled to possess weapons; that is not an attack.
I did not imply that it was. If it were, then police & soldiers 'd be in constant states of attack upon one another,
for merely consorting together in an armed condition.

No. I meant that he waited too long after Mr. T began his attack,
slamming Zimmy 's head on the street.

On what do you base that statement?

He may have had his head slammed only once
in which case he should have shot BEFORE any attack was made.

So... that leads us back to he should have shot
because the person was standing on the sidewalk.

which clearly is a weapon according to you.

Yes; almost anything is a weapon
when combined with a little ingenuity. Some weapons r better than others.

So that means you can shoot ANYONE
because they might have access to a weapon which could threaten you.

If I wait for you to use it, that would be waiting too long.
Ergo, I can shoot your for simply standing on a sidewalk and claim
self defense because you had a weapon and I felt threatened.

Everyone is Constitutionally and Naturally entitled to possess weapons; that is not an attack.
I did not imply that it was. If it were, then police & soldiers 'd be in constant states of attack upon one another,
for merely consorting together in an armed condition.

You clearly imply it was when you argue that Zimmerman
should have shot sooner than the attack.

I base it on the victim 's statements.

It was not clear to me from the get - go that there was any fight.

People called Zimmerman a liar, stating there was no evidence he'd been injured.

The rush to a defense is an interesting phenomena.

I base it on the victim 's statements.

You seem to be the lawyer for one side instead of an unbiased observer.

It was not clear to me from the get - go that there was any fight.

People called Zimmerman a liar, stating there was no evidence he'd been injured.

I haven't made any further claims as to the severity - or how badly one should be beaten
before they use a gun to defend himself.

The rush to a defense is an interesting phenomena.

We, the decent people, need strong freedom of self defense laws, for our security

We, the decent people, need strong freedom of self defense laws, for our security

This almost sounds like a manifesto of a Davidian worldview.
(Apparently with a concomitant denial of the civil rights of others)