NOT GUILTY ...zimmermen

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
two wounds that were referred to as abrasions since they required no stitches..nose broken? that's news to me..GZ refused medical treatment additionally, he is NO physician..for someone who felt they were sooooooooo close to death it boggles the mind that they wouldn't accept medical treatment in order to confirm injuries or in GZ case, lack thereof.
The ACTUAL medical examiner attested IN COURT UNDER OATH that Zimm had a likely broken nose and Lacerations.

Your information came from some other source that is built on a foundation of lies.

Go look at the OFFICIAL court statements, you will find I am telling the unabashed truth. As they say in that stupid Cloud Atlas movie, "its the True True."
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
two wounds that were referred to as abrasions since they required no stitches..nose broken? that's news to me..GZ refused medical treatment additionally, he is NO physician..for someone who felt they were sooooooooo close to death it boggles the mind that they wouldn't accept medical treatment in order to confirm injuries or in GZ case, lack thereof.
Of course his nose was broken.

That's why Zimmermans defense attorneys showed medical reports showing their client had sustained injuries consistent with a nose that had been broken.


Oh wait they didnt do that did they
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
It is not this case and its facts, rather, the impossibility of truth to be uncovered by a jury especially without witnesses. This makes killing a pretty grey area unless there are more critera to how this is applied. In self defense, how bloody I ask? Pre emptively? for the unarmed? on your property only? to theives? Just questions that need to be a little more clear I think.
In my state, someone comes into your home uninvited, with no authority and no permission? You get to blast their ass Deader than a door nail. No questions asked.
 

echelon1k1

New Member
In my state, someone comes into your home uninvited, with no authority and no permission? You get to blast their ass Deader than a door nail. No questions asked.
and that's the way it should be... Their only intention is to rob and/or hurt you... I say smoke the fuckers...
 

burgertime2010

Well-Known Member
through precedent and reason if you cannot use scientific means to study a persons amygdala (fear centre of the human brain). I think to answer your question would first require a look at the fear centre of the human brain, what scientific data could be used to measure and collate reasonable fear reactions across a broad range of subjects. Starting with a baseline of what induces fear and how much fear is needed to activate the fight or flight response. TBH i have not read into this subject extensivley so this is just my opinion. Fear also goes hand in hand with adrenalin which further complicates the matter. Everyone is different so what I may fear as a life threatening situation you may not view the same and vice versa. This is where i think the grey area really lies... More reaseach is needed as it's only been recently that scientists have been able to mark neurons in the brain to study the amygdala and it's relationship to the rest of our function centres. New studys have found the neurons in the amygdala to be antagonistic woith vastly opposing functions... Ill try and find the paper on it...
I hear you. Different chemistry in people dictate courage and fear, that cannot be the way we prove guilt. It is not equal and genetic differences play a factor. The solution has to provide equal protection, and reasonable doubt is going to be very hard to get past. Situational criteria is at least necessary to start.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
two wounds that were referred to as abrasions since they required no stitches..nose broken? that's news to me..GZ refused medical treatment additionally, he is NO physician..for someone who felt they were sooooooooo close to death it boggles the mind that they wouldn't accept medical treatment in order to confirm injuries or in GZ case, lack thereof.
We are not all internet bad asses like you, dear lady. I am sure you would have just accepted the pounding while murmuring, "there, there, dear boy".

Roderick Scott shot and killed a 17 year old boy in self defense. Mr. Scott was not even touched. Was his fear reasonable? Yes, yes it was. The jury made that decision. You "liked" UB's defense of that use of self defense. Why the double standard, ma'am?
 

echelon1k1

New Member
I hear you. Different chemistry in people dictate courage and fear, that cannot be the way we prove guilt. It is not equal and genetic differences play a factor. The solution has to provide equal protection, and reasonable doubt is going to be very hard to get past. Situational criteria is at least necessary to start.
I have to point out that the military have great ways of working out fear baselines in idividuals. By breaking you down and pushing you at your absolute worst, they then see how you will operate in a variety of situations and how you react to certian stimulai and situations...

The issue is no civilian would want to be put through their paces in one of these cadre courses.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
and that's the way it should be... Their only intention is to rob and/or hurt you... I say smoke the fuckers...
Exactly!! What intention could they possibly have other than a bad or deadly one? No one forces their way into your home to give you cookies and prizes and jewelry.
 

echelon1k1

New Member
Exactly!! What intention could they possibly have other than a bad or deadly one? No one forces their way into your home to give you cookies and prizes and jewelry.
except Sanata... that prick is always getting stoned and eating my milk and cookies!
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Does it seem weird that killing is something I might not be able to do? Or traumatizing? Its so casual I dont get it.
Wounding would be preferable, but then you have that whole vengeance thing, plus the fact they sue you into the stone age and you lose your way of life in the process. Better to just kill em dead, dead men tell no tales and rarely sue. Dead guys are a lot less paperwork and wasted time and taxpayer money too. toe tag and a report.
 

burgertime2010

Well-Known Member
you'd be surprised what you'd be able to do... Someone breaks into your house intent on raping your wife/gf/child - you gonna let that happen?
I would have to react and I don't know if I would pull the trigger if I could control him with a weapon alone? If armed, it would be easier but I am more of bat, cattle prod, mace, sword type. Plus, killing someone that is going to do real time is a blessing for them. The use of alternatives seems like an option that should accompany a gun....no?
 

burgertime2010

Well-Known Member
Wounding would be preferable, but then you have that whole vengeance thing, plus the fact they sue you into the stone age and you lose your way of life in the process. Better to just kill em dead, dead men tell no tales and rarely sue. Dead guys are a lot less paperwork and wasted time and taxpayer money too. toe tag and a report.
The law would be on your side no? In a home invasion? In your state? I dont believe in the death penatly because it is merciful in my view but instinct in these times is I imagine what is guiding you.
 
Top