[lbo-talk] zimmerman not guilty

Wojtek S wsoko52 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 15 15:47:19 PDT 2013


Possession of a gun is irrelevant. Being accosted by a threatening looking guy at night will do, no?

Wojtek Sent from my Droid On Jul 15, 2013 6:21 PM, "Jordan Hayes" <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:


> Wojtek, citing Florida law about self-defense, notes:
>
> The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is
>> not available to a person who:
>>
>> (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,
>> unless:
>>
>
> So you have evidence that Z provoked the use of force against himself?
>
> The evidence presented in the case suggests otherwise ...
>
> So it is clear to me that Martin had all reasons to feel
>> threatened when approached by armed Zimmerman ...
>>
>
> Wait, M knew Z had a gun? Under what theory?
>
> Supported by whose testimony?
>
> Hint: actually this is specifically unsupported by testimony ...
>
> /jordan
> ______________________________**_____
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list