Cop beaten because he's afraid to use his gun, onlookers cheer

@no1marauder said
If I recall correctly, Zimmerman claimed both that A) Martin was pounding his head on the concrete; and B) That Martin tried to grab his gun (which Zimmerman claimed he forgot he had).

Those are both pretty implausible but apparently not to the jury, at least for them to reject them beyond a reasonable doubt.

Zimmerman NEVER SAID HE FORGOT HE HAD A GUN YOU LIAR,
Nobody who puts a gun on their hip has ever said they forgot they had it.
It'd be like saying you forgot you were wearing shoes.

@dood111 said
Zimmerman NEVEr SAID HE FORGOT HE HAD A GUN YOU LIAR,

I don't like being called a liar. I said "if I recall correctly" and it is my memory that in one of his many statements he said that.

To your EDIT: Zimmerman made many unbelievable claims like he forgot the name of one of the two streets in the housing development.

@dood111 said
If a cop or ANYONE is being beaten down by a superior force they have every right to stop the attack with lethal force.

I suspect that you need to "know" they are going to kill you. just before you die might be acceptable.

@dood111 said
Zimmerman NEVER SAID HE FORGOT HE HAD A GUN YOU LIAR,
Nobody who puts a gun on their hip has ever said they forgot they had it.
It'd be like saying you forgot you were wearing shoes.

"During an interview and truth verification test on Feb. 27 that was recorded on video, Zimmerman said that he feared for his life when he fatally shot Martin and said he had forgotten he was carrying a gun until Martin reached for his holster.

“To be honest with you, the whole time I forgot that I had the gun. When he said I was going to die and I felt him brushing, it automatically clicked he was going for my gun," Zimmerman said."

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/omara-releases-zimmermans-statements/1898182/

You can apologize or simply delete your post.

@jimmac said
I suspect that you need to "know" they are going to kill you. just before you die might be acceptable.

No, a reasonable belief that "one is in imminent danger of death or serious injury" is all that is needed. Note the standard is both subjective (you have to believe it) and objective (it must be a reasonable belief under all the circumstances).

Right wingers really should stop trying to make claims that they know little or nothing about.

@no1marauder said
No, a reasonable belief that "one is in imminent danger of death or serious injury" is all that is needed. Note the standard is both subjective (you have to believe it) and objective (it must be a reasonable belief under all the circumstances).

Right wingers really should stop trying to make claims that they know little or nothing about.

"a reasonable belief", that is ok if you get it right, you die if you get it wrong.
I do actually believe in the reasonable force clause but I feel many circumstances can exclude that. I have always said that in the event of a home invasion ( been happening here with some monotonous regularity ) I would use maximum force, ( we do not have guns ), inc knives, asap before asking, are you going to hurt anyone? in my home "reasonable force " does not apply. I know it does legally but the law can go jump in this situation as far as I am concerned. Also, in the event that I am assaulted, I am not going to ask, excuse me can you please advise how much pain you intend to inflict? I would, if I could, and I doubt I could, use max available force to down the attacker and I am not sure I would stop once they were down. Seen to many movies to trust that they stay down. I would not intend to kill but in the right situation, IF I had a gun, it may be the right move.

@jimmac said
"a reasonable belief", that is ok if you get it right, you die if you get it wrong.
I do actually believe in the reasonable force clause but I feel many circumstances can exclude that. I have always said that in the event of a home invasion ( been happening here with some monotonous regularity ) I would use maximum force, ( we do not have guns ), inc knives, asap before aski ...[text shortened]... wn. I would not intend to kill but in the right situation, IF I had a gun, it may be the right move.

State laws vary as to the use of deadly force to defend against a home invasion:

"Typically, state laws can allow for the use of deadly physical force and it's legally presumed to be justified if an intruder is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering a dwelling or residence."

"There is a split amongst the states as to whether or not deadly force can be used. The majority of states hold that any degree of physical force, including deadly force, can be used by the occupant to protect against an invader. But there is a strong minority of states, including West Virginia, that requires a reasonable believe that the intruder intended to inflict serious bodily injury."

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/may-i-shoot-an-intruder.html

@dood111 said
Are you happy now, libtards?
If he had shot the guy he'd be going to prison.

You don’t find the situation a little toxic?
Yet, when people try to diffuse the situation, your answer is always: support the police, use the guns, use more guns and spewing racist claptrap.

You don’t seem to comprehend that what you’re doing is creating a situation which is only going to escalate.

No “liberal” wants cops (or anyone else for that matter) beaten up. Or people filming the incident instead of helping.

But if the likes of you can’t help de-escalate the whole sordid business, this is what’s going to happen.
And the next cop will shoot again.
And the next crowd will kill him.
And the next... etc.

The police should be helping grannies with heavy grocery bags crossing busy roads.
They should be talking and joking with corner kids.
They should be part of the community.

Until your country (and many others) step back from the brink and see that authoritarianism leads to violence, you’re only going to suffer as things go from bad to to worse.

@mott-the-hoople said
“ "The use of deadly force is only permissible where one is in imminent danger of death or serious injury”

The cop had every right to repel the attack with what ever means available under that law. You seem to have a magic ball that can foresee the future.

You do realise there is a difference between the actual law and right wing blood lust.

@no1marauder said
(Shrug) The law doesn't allow you to shoot someone every time you get in a fight.

He didn't "get" into a fight, HE WAS ATTACKED.
If someone bigger and stronger than you starts beating you mercilessly for no reason you certainly may use deadly force.

@dood111 said
He didn't "get" into a fight, HE WAS ATTACKED.
If someone bigger and stronger than you starts beating you mercilessly for no reason you certainly may use deadly force.

The law doesn't agree with you. Get over it.

And I'm still waiting for that apology and/or removal of your post.

@dood111 said
Zimmerman NEVER SAID HE FORGOT HE HAD A GUN YOU LIAR,
Nobody who puts a gun on their hip has ever said they forgot they had it.
It'd be like saying you forgot you were wearing shoes.

This is the post No1 is refering to, just in case you don't have the overview.

The Caps for emphasis have been done by you, the Quote by Zimmermann is a few Posts down.

@no1marauder said
The law doesn't agree with you. Get over it.

And I'm still waiting for that apology and/or removal of your post.

If you really are a lawyer, you must be a crummy one, because depending on the situation the law DOES agree with me.
Remember Michael Brown? Unarmed.
Trayvon Martin? Unarmed.
There's countless cases of people shooting someone unarmed in self defense and getting off because they were being attacked and had no choice.

@dood111 said
If you really are a lawyer, you must be a crummy one, because depending on the situation the law DOES agree with me.
Remember Michael Brown? Unarmed.
Trayvon Martin? Unarmed.
There's countless cases of people shooting someone unarmed in self defense and getting off because they were being attacked and had no choice.

That's already been explained.

And your version isn't the law.

@no1marauder said
That's already been explained.

And your version isn't the law.

If it's not "the law" then why do people get exonerated when they use a gun to defend themselves against an attacker beating the snot out of them that is unarmed?