Saturday, August 3, 2013

On Jerry's Assertion that Trayvon was Standing HIS Ground

Based on that logic, Zimmerman would have been justified in shooting Trayvon when the latter came up to the car, circled it, and put his hand in his waste-band.............But just for the sake of argument here, let's say that Trayvon did feel threatened (which is ridiculous in that he was a good 100 feet and out of sight when Zimmerman got out of the vehicle), maybe you can  punch the dude once, maybe get on top of him to subdue him, BUT YOU CAN'T KEEP GOING; grounding and pounding and slamming his head on the sidewalk when the guy is screaming for help for 45 seconds. That is battery and had Trayvon not been shot, he'd have been arrested.

11 comments:

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Didn't you promise several posts ago that you were done?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Starting..............now!

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Actually, I think that Jerry and I finally agreed that 3-5 years for involuntary manslaughter/reckless endangerment would have been an OK compromise.

dmarks said...

I've been on board with that compromise since before the verdict.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

It seems like a good one. Putting Zimmerman away for 30 years to life would have been ridiculous but the fact that he took a gun into a knowingly dangerous situation seems like he should have gotten something. 3-5 sounds about right.

Anonymous said...

George Zimmerman is going to change his name to Ben Ghazi. That way Barack Hussein Obama and the Media will never mention him again.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

That's pretty funny (with a ring of truth to it), BHB.

dmarks said...

Thanks for the hearty helping of Ham. It is much more nutritous and sustaining than a heaping, steaming bucket of the Colonel's chicken, which is greasy but low-fact, and always seasoned with the Col's eleven evasions and lies.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The reason for my accepting the compromise is that one could argue that Zimmerman acted recklessly (hence the charge, reckless endangerment) by proceeding to the poorly lit top of the T with a loaded firearm. I still think that the forensics support self-defense and I'm not entirely certain, either, that stupidity (and, yes, Zimmerman was stupid) is prosecutable but at least it's plausible.

dmarks said...

Will: If GZ had been armed with a taser, then what...?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yeah, I was thinking that, too, or maybe mace.