Protesters rally over Florida teen's death, demand arrest

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BWWWWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Nope.

Please Elaborate.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

any belief Zimmerman might have had that the use of deadly force was required to defend himself was utterly unreasonable.

His broken nose suggests otherwise.
[/quote]

Shooting someone fatally in the chest is a reasonable response to a broken nose? What the Hell planet are these people living on?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Parse error, the question you are asking makes no sense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

Generally, we don't issue concealed carry permits to seventh graders, or, allow them to carry weapons, so your question makes no sense.

Oh for God's sake you bloodless dishonest pedant, mentally age me up five years if it's that damn important to you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If someone is beating you sufficiently hard to break your nose, that would constitute a basis for a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, which is a criteria for self-defense.

Have you ever had your nose broken? It doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of force unless you have ridiculously tough cartilage.

Or are you saying I would have been justified in shooting dead (as opposed to shooting to incapacitate) that one bully who threw me a haymaker in the seventh grade?

Generally, we don't issue concealed carry permits to seventh graders, or, allow them to carry weapons, so your question makes no sense.

Oh for God's sake you bloodless dishonest pedant, mentally age me up five years if it's that damn important to you.

It is the height of intellectual dishonest to ask a question that presupposes that children have guns. We don't allow children to carry guns in part because we don't trust their judgment, especially in situations like you describe.

Whereas we, of course, trust the judgment of wannabe cops with restraining orders against them from previous violent incidents who habitually make phone calls to the police about trivial sh**t.

Clearly you don't understand anything even remotely counterfactual nor do you feel the need to argue from any kind of general principles rather than absurdly myopic understandings of tidy precise little situations tailored to fit your preexisting dogma, so I'm honestly a little surprised that there are any points in this that you chose not to finesse into oblivion, but since that is the case I'm not independently surprised that this was one of those.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Martin's 'reputation' was at the top of Zimmerman's list of concerns, obviously. Martin's 'reputation' as far as Zimmerman knew was that of somebody who was being stalked through his apartment complex by a strange man.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.

This is, in turn, one of the most sickening lines told by bloodthirsty wannabe-badasses, so at least I'm amusing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.

This is, in turn, one of the most sickening lines told by bloodthirsty wannabe-badasses, so at least I'm amusing.

It has nothing to do with badassery and everything to do with self-defense.

Most people are not accurate shots.

That would actually be a good point if this weren't point-blank, which in my experience (albeit with foxes and turkeys) tells me tends to go somewhat differently.

Has Zimmerman denied shooting explicitly to kill or are we in the business denying it for him? If this is something that's been talked about in circles more familiar with the case I'm willing to grant you this element of the point.

I still won't grant you the element that it's at all reasonable to shoot somebody because they broke your nose.

Also, relating to what Mikado said: I am the same height as Martin, and weigh anywhere from thirty-five to fifty pounds more than he did depending upon the season. I am thin, such that elderly Japanese women have in the past tried to force-feed me miso.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I personally haven't, no. I grew up in a rural backwater with a harsh climate but I was still a child. I did in fact know other people, including, remarkably, some adults.

What you are describing is, of course, why one does not generally shoot unarmed people.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Duty-to-retreat tradition is designed to do the same thing.

It's also hard to describe somebody who was being stalked as a 'perpetrator'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Right. It's SYG in a public place that was new about this law, and part of what will be adjudicated, I imagine, as well as whether or not Zimmerman was, in fact, acting in self-defense as he claims.

Duty to retreat's other purpose is, of course, to protect the public from rumbles and gunfights. It can be argued whether or not it does so.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course it is. Shooting to incapacitate is one of the funniest lines told by people who don't have a clue.

This is, in turn, one of the most sickening lines told by bloodthirsty wannabe-badasses, so at least I'm amusing.

He's actually correct.  It's a Hollywood myth, like cars exploding when shot or falling off a cliff.

Well, clearly it's why you don't shoot.