Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Now who's trolling. You asked what I thought would happen if he was found innocent, and I told you.
|
No. I NEVER asked you what you think would happen.
I asked .. and I quote:
"If he is found not guilty by a jury, will you accept that decision or continue to crucify him?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Correct. With the assault in Baltimore I know... Nothing. I don't know know if the victim was seen by a doctor or spent three days in a hospital recovering from wounds. I don't know anything about the victim's injuries.
With Zimmerman, well, we know everything. We have pictures of him front and back, he didn't go to the hospital, he didn't need stiches, he didn't see a doctor. The police detailed his injuries, and multiple people have testified about the extent or lack of injuries Zimmerman had.
|
This highlights a significant & fundamental difference between you and I. You need to see the extent of someone's injuries to determine if lethal force is warranted.
I see this requirement as quite literally insane. In most states:
"the statutes say you can use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else if you feel your life is in danger or someone else's life is in danger,"
It does not say that you can use deadly force if the injuries from an attack on you or someone else are serious enough to warrant deadly force.
Can you not see how waiting until after an attack to make that determination is insane?