On Apr 30, 2:26*am, jps wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:47:44 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:21:51 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:01:00 -0400, wrote:

... a kid who was beating the **** out of him.

How many times would your head have to hit the pavement before you
thought you were "in danger of great bodily harm"?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised you bought that bull****. *If
Zimmerman would have shown any signs whatsoever of being subject to
the kind of trauma that would result in a concussion (which beating
the **** out of him would indeed imply) he'd have shown signs of it
and would have been taken immediately to the hospital for tests and
observation.

According to everyone who witnessed him, he was alert and doing well.

Whatever Greg, understand you need to be against the black kid because
you're a conservative in the south.

The legal question is not actual bodily harm, only the FEAR of great
bodily harm. There are pictures of two cuts in the back of his head
from the concrete. He was not required to wait for a concussion before
he had the right to defend himself.

Maybe it is different up where you live.

I speak of the EMT's who attended to him. *Any sign of trauma to the
head and they would immediately take him to the hospital since the
liability could create a catastrophic situation for whomever the EMTs
work for.

He pursued the kid with a weapon against the advise of the 911
dispatcher and then found himself in a situation where he feared for
his life? *Does that sound as stupid to you as it's going to sound to
a jury or will you convince yourself otherwise? *They guy promoted and
invited the situation but you think "stand your ground" is going to
rule the day? *Ridiculous.

Why are you so angry JPS? Haven't been getting your full dose of
pecker lately? Did your boyfriend cu you off?