Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="soberups" data-source="post: 1174627" data-attributes="member: 14668">So what would you change?This case boiled down to whether or not the jury believed Zimmerman&#039;s version of the story. There werent any direct witnesses, there wasnt any definitive physical evidence, and Martin couldnt give his side of the story.... so you either believed Zimmerman or you didnt. His version was that he was flat on his back and getting his head pounded into the pavement by Martin. All I know is that if I&#039;m flat on my back and you are on top of me pounding the back of my head into the pavement, I&#039;m gonna blow as many holes in you as I have to in order to make you stop. I dont want to die and I dont want to end up with brain damage from a crushed skull and I have a fundamental human right to defend myself from death or grievous injury. In this case, the jury believed Zimmerman&#039;s version of the story, so they acquitted him. Assuming that Zimmerman was being truthful, is it your contention that the law should not have allowed him to defend himself with a weapon?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="soberups, post: 1174627, member: 14668"] So what would you change? This case boiled down to whether or not the jury believed Zimmerman's version of the story. There werent any direct witnesses, there wasnt any definitive physical evidence, and Martin couldnt give his side of the story.... so you either believed Zimmerman or you didnt. [I]His[/I] version was that he was flat on his back and getting his head pounded into the pavement by Martin. All I know is that if I'm flat on[I] my[/I] back and you are on top of me pounding the back of [I]my[/I] head into the pavement, I'm gonna blow as many holes in you as I have to in order to make you stop. I dont want to die and I dont want to end up with brain damage from a crushed skull and I have a fundamental human right to defend myself from death or grievous injury. In this case, the jury believed Zimmerman's version of the story, so they acquitted him. Assuming that Zimmerman was being truthful, is it your contention that the law should not have allowed him to defend himself with a weapon? [/QUOTE]

Verification