The Prosecution brought on a law professor to try to prove that
Zimmerman had prior knowledge of the "stand your ground".. it backfired
when that states witness made it clear that:

Even if you start the "encounter", if you are met with what you consider
overwhelming and deadly force, you may pull your pistol and shoot the
guy beating on you... Period... so it's irrelevant who started the
encounter, or who followed who. Specifically, it's irrelevant even, who
started the fight in the first place...

In article ,
says...

The Prosecution brought on a law professor to try to prove that
Zimmerman had prior knowledge of the "stand your ground".. it backfired
when that states witness made it clear that:

Even if you start the "encounter", if you are met with what you consider
overwhelming and deadly force, you may pull your pistol and shoot the
guy beating on you... Period... so it's irrelevant who started the
encounter, or who followed who. Specifically, it's irrelevant even, who
started the fight in the first place...

Checkmate my ASS. There are a LOT of what-ifs. First of all, who are YOU
to say that Zimmerman was being "beat on"? Man, you just take what FOX
spoon feeds you, don't you?

On 7/3/13 10:31 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
The Prosecution brought on a law professor to try to prove that
Zimmerman had prior knowledge of the "stand your ground".. it backfired
when that states witness made it clear that:

Even if you start the "encounter", if you are met with what you consider
overwhelming and deadly force, you may pull your pistol and shoot the
guy beating on you... Period... so it's irrelevant who started the
encounter, or who followed who. Specifically, it's irrelevant even, who
started the fight in the first place...

Since the shooter isn't claiming stand your ground defense, what is the
relevance of your checkmate?