If GZ had time and opportunity to pull out his gun and shoot then he had time to gain an advantage in the fight without killing him.

 

My 18 year old son is shorter than I am and weighs less than I do. He squats over 400 pounds and can bench 235. I am 37. I have no clue what I can bench but I ain't putting up 235. I have been in a total of 3 fights and my record is 1-1-1. He can't whip me. Period. GZ is a sucka for getting handled by a 17 year old and any grown man who gets handled by a 17 year old kid that they outweigh is a sucka. Period.

 

And the absurdity level rises

And the absurdity level rises

 

How? You aks me, he is saying that Zimmerman allowed this beating to taker place so he could kill him and claim self-defense.

If GZ had time and opportunity to pull out his gun and shoot then he had time to gain an advantage in the fight without killing him.

 

My 18 year old son is shorter than I am and weighs less than I do. He squats over 400 pounds and can bench 235. I am 37. I have no clue what I can bench but I ain't putting up 235. I have been in a total of 3 fights and my record is 1-1-1. He can't whip me. Period. GZ is a sucka for getting handled by a 17 year old and any grown man who gets handled by a 17 year old kid that they outweigh is a sucka. Period.

 

I haven't met your son, but my money is on him.

How? You aks me, he is saying that Zimmerman allowed this beating to taker place so he could kill him and claim self-defense.

 

It's absurd to keep saying a 17 year old couldn't beat up someone older than him that weighs more than him. Actually it's so far beyond absurd I don't even know the right word for it.

And the absurdity level rises

 

Pretty sure he's saying if Zimmerman had time to pull his gun and put Martin 6 feet under, he had enough time to a) gain the upperhand in the fight, or b) get away from the preceived "danger" without killing an innocent kid. I agree, and to me, that eliminates a self-defense defense.

Pretty sure he's saying if Zimmerman had time to pull his gun and put Martin 6 feet under, he had enough time to a) gain the upperhand in the fight, or b) get away from the preceived "danger" without killing an innocent kid. I agree, and to me, that eliminates a self-defense defense.

And you would both be wrong. Someone is on top of you beating your head into the sidewalk and punching you. Your telling me it's just as easy to take control of the fight as it would be to pull a gun from your waist and shoot the person on top of you?

How? You aks me, he is saying that Zimmerman allowed this beating to taker place so he could kill him and claim self-defense.

I give PP82 way more credit then that. Talk about absurdity.

And you would both be wrong. Someone is on top of you beating your head into the sidewalk and punching you. Your telling me it's just as easy to take control of the fight as it would be to pull a gun from your waist and shoot the person on top of you?

 

Where's the proof that he (Martin) was on top of him when the gun was fired?

The ACT punishes you for guessing wrong. Zimmerman took the ACT on Feb. 26.

 

Just to be accurate, the ACT does NOT punish you for guessing wrong.

 

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

And the absurdity level rises

 

Why? Because I expect 28 year old men to be able to handle unarmed 17 year old boys without shooting them? That's absurd to me right there.

I give PP82 way more credit then that. Talk about absurdity.

 

PP92. PP92. You've called me PP82 twice now. :lol:

 

PP92. I graduated in 1992 not 1982. You trying to make me 47?

I haven't met your son, but my money is on him.

 

My pride would not allow it. :lol:

 

He'd have to kill me......wait....:lol:

If you were told to wait in your car for the police to check out the kid and you thought he might whip you would you still leave the car with your loaded weapon to check on the kid even after the dispatcher said, "we got this Clizzy, be easy." I wouldn't. I enjoy living and breathing and if I was that suspicious of him to call the police in the first place I definitely am not leaving my vehicle with my glock to check on him. People get paid to do that. I'm just a volunteer without healthcare keeping an eye on my neighborhood.

 

So you , I, 85, and almost every other BGPer wouldn't do it.

 

So what?

How? You aks me, he is saying that Zimmerman allowed this beating to taker place so he could kill him and claim self-defense.

 

To be clear is this an 85 FACT or is this a supposition because it sounds like a wacked out theory.

Why? Because I expect 28 year old men to be able to handle unarmed 17 year old boys without shooting them? That's absurd to me right there.

 

Yes. If you think every 28 year old man can beat up every 17 year old male under all circumstances then your thoughts on that subject are absurd.