|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On April 12 2012 01:45 randomKo_Orean wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 01:41 UisTehSux wrote:On April 12 2012 01:37 cameler wrote: A human life was taken, and nothing, not even a walnut, was taken from George Zimmerman.
That is justice in the good ol' USA. I guess your post is demonstration of ignorance in good ol' Canada? Anyways, I have been riding this out without taking anybody's side. But if Zimmerman is running away from all of this, maybe something fishy did happen. There is no point in speculation though, just have to wait for law enforcement to do there job. And don't doubt that if they really have to find him that they can't. Because they'll find him. Lol. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but if the law enforcement was doing their job properly, Zimmerman would be in jail by now, wouldn't you think so? With that being said, I want to ask the TL audience this question. Which of you honestly believe that the killing or the handling of the case was not racially motivated at all? I want to hear your answers why you'd think that way. Sanford apparently has a track record of not being terribly concerned about African-Americans according to the media. of course, i will take that with a grain of salt. so, there could be a racially motivated reason why Zimmerman (half white, half hispanic) was not arrested. however, the involvement of the state attorney (a much higher office, and an attorney) tends to make me think that it was less racially motivated. nevertheless, we will never know. we can only look at the facts that have been spoon fed to us and determine whether we think that it was proper for him not to be arrested. because there is at least an arguable basis for not arresting him, i am going to assume his arrest was not primarily based on race (especially since he is not 100% white, and most racists/prejudiced individuals like hispanics as much as blacks).
|
On April 12 2012 02:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 01:45 randomKo_Orean wrote:On April 12 2012 01:41 UisTehSux wrote:On April 12 2012 01:37 cameler wrote: A human life was taken, and nothing, not even a walnut, was taken from George Zimmerman.
That is justice in the good ol' USA. I guess your post is demonstration of ignorance in good ol' Canada? Anyways, I have been riding this out without taking anybody's side. But if Zimmerman is running away from all of this, maybe something fishy did happen. There is no point in speculation though, just have to wait for law enforcement to do there job. And don't doubt that if they really have to find him that they can't. Because they'll find him. Lol. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but if the law enforcement was doing their job properly, Zimmerman would be in jail by now, wouldn't you think so? With that being said, I want to ask the TL audience this question. Which of you honestly believe that the killing or the handling of the case was not racially motivated at all? I want to hear your answers why you'd think that way. Sanford apparently has a track record of not being terribly concerned about African-Americans according to the media. of course, i will take that with a grain of salt. so, there could be a racially motivated reason why Zimmerman (half white, half hispanic) was not arrested. however, the involvement of the state attorney (a much higher office, and an attorney) tends to make me think that it was less racially motivated. nevertheless, we will never know. we can only look at the facts that have been spoon fed to us and determine whether we think that it was proper for him not to be arrested. because there is at least an arguable basis for not arresting him, i am going to assume his arrest was not primarily based on race (especially since he is not 100% white, and most racists/prejudiced individuals like hispanics as much as blacks).
Do we know that the police knew he was half hispanic at the time they would have arrested him? He doesn't have a Hispanic-sounding name and has light skin, and he doesn't seem to have an accent based on the recordings of his voice, so it seems plausible that the police would have assumed he was white.
|
On April 12 2012 02:42 Blennd wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 02:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2012 01:45 randomKo_Orean wrote:On April 12 2012 01:41 UisTehSux wrote:On April 12 2012 01:37 cameler wrote: A human life was taken, and nothing, not even a walnut, was taken from George Zimmerman.
That is justice in the good ol' USA. I guess your post is demonstration of ignorance in good ol' Canada? Anyways, I have been riding this out without taking anybody's side. But if Zimmerman is running away from all of this, maybe something fishy did happen. There is no point in speculation though, just have to wait for law enforcement to do there job. And don't doubt that if they really have to find him that they can't. Because they'll find him. Lol. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but if the law enforcement was doing their job properly, Zimmerman would be in jail by now, wouldn't you think so? With that being said, I want to ask the TL audience this question. Which of you honestly believe that the killing or the handling of the case was not racially motivated at all? I want to hear your answers why you'd think that way. Sanford apparently has a track record of not being terribly concerned about African-Americans according to the media. of course, i will take that with a grain of salt. so, there could be a racially motivated reason why Zimmerman (half white, half hispanic) was not arrested. however, the involvement of the state attorney (a much higher office, and an attorney) tends to make me think that it was less racially motivated. nevertheless, we will never know. we can only look at the facts that have been spoon fed to us and determine whether we think that it was proper for him not to be arrested. because there is at least an arguable basis for not arresting him, i am going to assume his arrest was not primarily based on race (especially since he is not 100% white, and most racists/prejudiced individuals like hispanics as much as blacks). Do we know that the police knew he was half hispanic at the time they would have arrested him? He doesn't have a Hispanic-sounding name and has light skin, and he doesn't seem to have an accent based on the recordings of his voice, so it seems plausible that the police would have assumed he was white. he is identified as a white male in the police report.
http://www.craigboyce.com/w/2012/03/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-police-report/george-zimmerman-police-report-002/
http://www.craigboyce.com/w/2012/03/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-police-report/george-zimmerman-police-report-003/
he doesnt look "white" to me as he appears to have hispanic features. but i have never met him in person, only seen the few pictures that heve been disclosed, so that means little.
|
In my country alot of cases involving cops abusing,beating ended up with no penalties to the cop even with all the case being in major newspaper and news channels. I saw this Zimmerman is not even a cop ? so why everyone says that "police cover for him" ? Maybe because they let him roam free with his patrol habbits and if he goes down then they go down too and that's just pure corruption , nothing else. Every citizen out there could carry a weapon or have suicidal/ criminal thoughts in process but you can't arrest/shoot everyone without proof/previous good info on the subject and it's intentions. And all this "racist" ,racist murder, racist cop..is no good. It was not racism it was a mad guy who may have had previous harsh experiences with black people and had alot of anger towards them. This is not racism is just corruption in the justice dep of US.
|
On April 12 2012 01:45 randomKo_Orean wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 01:41 UisTehSux wrote:On April 12 2012 01:37 cameler wrote: A human life was taken, and nothing, not even a walnut, was taken from George Zimmerman.
That is justice in the good ol' USA. I guess your post is demonstration of ignorance in good ol' Canada? Anyways, I have been riding this out without taking anybody's side. But if Zimmerman is running away from all of this, maybe something fishy did happen. There is no point in speculation though, just have to wait for law enforcement to do there job. And don't doubt that if they really have to find him that they can't. Because they'll find him. Lol. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but if the law enforcement was doing their job properly, Zimmerman would be in jail by now, wouldn't you think so? With that being said, I want to ask the TL audience this question. Which of you honestly believe that the killing or the handling of the case was not racially motivated at all? I want to hear your answers why you'd think that way.
The "Stand your Ground" law is not racist.
Thinking that a young black man that you've never seen before, in your neighborhood with a history of break-ins, may be it racial profiling and distasteful but not necessarily illegal and racist.
Giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt? Not tracking down Trayvon's cell phone call or interviewing neighbors and key eyewitness until a week after the shooting? These are the bigger issues that have racial implications.
It betrays a double standard. Everyone knows that if Trayvon was on the neighborhood watch, and had shot a suspicious man that in his neighborhood, he would have been arrested already, or the case would be handled far differently.
Personally, that's where my 'outrage' comes from.
|
|
NBC: George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin case
The special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case will announce criminal charges against George Zimmerman Wednesday afternoon, a law enforcement official told NBC News.
The nature of the charges weren't immediately known, the official told NBC News Justice Department correspondent Pete Williams, speaking on condition of anonymity. But because Angela Corey, the special prosecutor appointed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott to re-examine the case, previously announced that she wouldn't take the case to a grand jury, first-degree murder is not an option.
Authorities in Sanford, Fla. — where Zimmerman, 28, a neighborhood watch volunteer, shot Martin, 17, on Feb. 26 — also began preparing for an announcement from Corey, NBC station WESH of Orlando reported. Seminole County sheriff's deputies spent Wednesday morning setting up barricades along the booking area for new inmates at the county jail.
Stephanie Gosk and Dave Forman of NBC News, Miranda Leitsinger of msnbc.com and NBC station WESH of Orlando, Fla., contributed to this report by M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com. Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook.
Martin's father, Tracy Martin, said he was looking forward to Corey's announcement.
"It's 44 days later, and George Zimmerman is still walking free," Martin said at a news conference during a meeting of the National Action Network in Washington. "It's 44 days later, and my son is in a mausoleum."
Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin's father, thanks supporters and vows he won't let his son's death "be in vain."
Benjamin Crump, the attorney for Martin's parents, urged people to "remain peaceful" after the expected announcement.
Zimmerman, whose father is white and whose mother is Peruvian, says he shot Martin, who was black, in self-defense after following him in a gated community in Sanford. Police questioned Zimmerman but decided against pressing charges.
The lack of an arrest or charges has sparked protests nationwide, with critics alleging that Zimmerman confronted Martin because of his race. Zimmerman's supporters deny that.
Corey said Tuesday that she wouldn't convene a grand jury probe. That announcement came before Zimmerman's attorneys said they had lost touch with their client and were withdrawing from the case.
A federal civil rights investigation is also under way, but U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the Justice Department had to meet a "high bar" to bring any charges.
The main federal role is to "support the state in its ongoing investigation," Holder told reporters Wednesday morning in Washington. At the same time, he said, the Justice Department is conducting its "own thorough and parallel investigation" to try to resolve the case "in as fair and complete a way and as quickly as we can."
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/11/11144255-nbc-george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-case?lite
edit: i totally got ninja'd
|
I have a bad feeling that he gonna escape the country somehow they should have arrested him , and t hen made sure he couldn't fly out of the usa etc, then let him pay bail if he could.. but now he has a chance to get away lol
|
So they are announcing charges in about 3 hours?
Are they actually going to charge him for something? Scary although i dont deem him innocent completely, I dont feel he should be found guilty of what happened
|
Has anyone been following this notion that Zimmerman reached out to Sean hannity? I'm curious to know if hannity has made any statements regarding this which I heard mentioned in the attorney press conference yesterday.....
I think manslaughter is the most likely outcome, given the evidence released to public but with the way this whole thing has played out you never know.....
|
On April 12 2012 04:00 AllHailTheDead wrote: So they are announcing charges in about 3 hours?
Are they actually going to charge him for something? Scary although i dont deem him innocent completely, I dont feel he should be found guilty of what happened
It's much more scary that you can kill an unarmed person in the U.S. and not be arrested.
|
In a very general sense, I would prefer to live in a society composed of (perhaps overzealous) law-abiding do-gooders like Zimmerman, than small-time wannabe hoodlums like Martin. Society is a more pleasant place when people are not antagonistic to its foundational values. Unfortunately, this is a negative side effect of multiculturalism where one culture is pitted against another to retain and reinforce racial identity.
That being said, I absolutely agree with the assessment that the "Stand Your Ground" law creates a kind of Wild West situation where people are almost encouraged to use deadly force to protect their honor. In that sense, it is not desirable and should be repealed.
|
On April 12 2012 04:00 AllHailTheDead wrote: So they are announcing charges in about 3 hours?
Are they actually going to charge him for something? Scary although i dont deem him innocent completely, I dont feel he should be found guilty of what happened
Well, he's just being charged. The police believe he is guilty, and they will do all they can to prove that he is. However, the defense team will do all it can do to prove that he is innocent. Then the jury would decide. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
My question is that how can they select a jury; seems like everyone is going to have their own bias entering the courtroom.
|
On April 12 2012 04:10 wunsun wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 04:00 AllHailTheDead wrote: So they are announcing charges in about 3 hours?
Are they actually going to charge him for something? Scary although i dont deem him innocent completely, I dont feel he should be found guilty of what happened Well, he's just being charged. The police believe he is guilty, and they will do all they can to prove that he is. However, the defense team will do all it can do to prove that he is innocent. Then the jury would decide. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. My question is that how can they select a jury; seems like everyone is going to have their own bias entering the courtroom.
Are manslaughters Jury cases in Florida?
|
On April 12 2012 04:04 jdsowa wrote: In a very general sense, I would prefer to live in a society composed of (perhaps overzealous) law-abiding do-gooders like Zimmerman, than small-time wannabe hoodlums like Martin. Society is a more pleasant place when people are not antagonistic to its foundational values. Unfortunately, this is a negative side effect of multiculturalism where one culture is pitted against another to retain and reinforce racial identity.
That being said, I absolutely agree with the assessment that the "Stand Your Ground" law creates a kind of Wild West situation where people are almost encouraged to use deadly force to protect their honor. In that sense, it is not desirable and should be repealed.
That's funny, because from what I have found is that Zimmerman is the one who has had prior arrests, while Martin has never been arrested....what facts truly promote Martin as a hoodlum? Pot at school. Silly picture poses?
|
On April 12 2012 04:04 jdsowa wrote: In a very general sense, I would prefer to live in a society composed of (perhaps overzealous) law-abiding do-gooders like Zimmerman, than small-time wannabe hoodlums like Martin. Society is a more pleasant place when people are not antagonistic to its foundational values. Unfortunately, this is a negative side effect of multiculturalism where one culture is pitted against another to retain and reinforce racial identity.
That being said, I absolutely agree with the assessment that the "Stand Your Ground" law creates a kind of Wild West situation where people are almost encouraged to use deadly force to protect their honor. In that sense, it is not desirable and should be repealed.
Um, how is Zimmerman a law-abiding do-gooder? He shot someone in a fist fight at best and killed a crying teenager at the worst. He essentially hasn't said anything, but he will be tried and we will find out the 'truth.' He was also told specifically by a police dispatcher that he did not need to follow the kid, but he didn't listen. Nothing about Martin sounds like a wannabe hoodlum either. He was still in school for one, despite being suspended (which I am too confused about).
So I really don't see how you can claim Martin was antagonistic to any societal values. He went to school, lived in a fine neighborhood, ran away from a creep man following him (which is exactly what I would have done), etc. Our society is based on individualism more than anything and we don't just walk around in the rain following kids with skittles and Arizona. We also don't encourage anything like vigilantism or over-zealous do-gooders who are looking for trouble where it isn't.
For that matter, the only person who was abiding to the Stand Your Ground law was Martin as he preformed his obligated duty to run from creepy men. Zimmerman chased him down and presumably caught him and tackled him. I mean if anyone was breaking that law it was him.
|
On April 12 2012 04:13 justinpal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 04:04 jdsowa wrote: In a very general sense, I would prefer to live in a society composed of (perhaps overzealous) law-abiding do-gooders like Zimmerman, than small-time wannabe hoodlums like Martin. Society is a more pleasant place when people are not antagonistic to its foundational values. Unfortunately, this is a negative side effect of multiculturalism where one culture is pitted against another to retain and reinforce racial identity.
That being said, I absolutely agree with the assessment that the "Stand Your Ground" law creates a kind of Wild West situation where people are almost encouraged to use deadly force to protect their honor. In that sense, it is not desirable and should be repealed.
Um, how is Zimmerman a law-abiding do-gooder? He shot someone in a fist fight at best and killed a crying teenager at the worst. He essentially hasn't said anything, but he will be tried and we will find out the 'truth.' He was also told specifically by a police dispatcher that he did not need to follow the kid, but he didn't listen. Nothing about Martin sounds like a wannabe hoodlum either. He was still in school for one, despite being suspended (which I am too confused about). So I really don't see how you can claim Martin was antagonistic to any societal values. He went to school, lived in a fine neighborhood, ran away from a creep man following him (which is exactly what I would have done), etc. Our society is based on individualism more than anything and we don't just walk around in the rain following kids with skittles and Arizona. We also don't encourage anything like vigilantism or over-zealous do-gooders who are looking for trouble where it isn't. For that matter, the only person who was abiding to the Stand Your Ground law was Martin as he preformed his obligated duty to run from creepy men. Zimmerman chased him down and presumably caught him and tackled him. I mean if anyone was breaking that law it was him.
I agree, seems like alot of people who support zimmerman just ignore this. Everything is really starting to come upfront now, lawyers gone, zimmerman acting like a nutcase got websites up trying to make money etc and not even contacting his lawyers who have been supporting him this whole time, bet money that zimmerman will not be found he is long gone now.
|
On April 12 2012 04:04 jdsowa wrote: That being said, I absolutely agree with the assessment that the "Stand Your Ground" law creates a kind of Wild West situation where people are almost encouraged to use deadly force to protect their honor. In that sense, it is not desirable and should be repealed.
I think this case is going to have the Stand Your Ground law put under intense scrutiny. The law as the "Castle Doctrine" makes perfect sense, wherein if someone enters your house to cause harm, you have every right to protect yourself, and receive immunity for it. It doesn't make sense that people can get into a fight in public areas and end up shooting someone.
Um, how is Zimmerman a law-abiding do-gooder? He shot someone in a fist fight at best and killed a crying teenager at the worst. He essentially hasn't said anything, but he will be tried and we will find out the 'truth.' He was also told specifically by a police dispatcher that he did not need to follow the kid, but he didn't listen. Nothing about Martin sounds like a wannabe hoodlum either. He was still in school for one, despite being suspended (which I am too confused about).
So I really don't see how you can claim Martin was antagonistic to any societal values. He went to school, lived in a fine neighborhood, ran away from a creep man following him (which is exactly what I would have done), etc. Our society is based on individualism more than anything and we don't just walk around in the rain following kids with skittles and Arizona. We also don't encourage anything like vigilantism or over-zealous do-gooders who are looking for trouble where it isn't.
For that matter, the only person who was abiding to the Stand Your Ground law was Martin as he preformed his obligated duty to run from creepy men. Zimmerman chased him down and presumably caught him and tackled him. I mean if anyone was breaking that law it was him.
That sounds almost as sensationalized as what the media has portrayed. Zimmerman is law-abiding or he wouldn't have been able to register a carry & conceal firearm permit. Reading through the rest of this thread, it was a suggestion that he not follow, not a direct order. As far as Martin goes, being suspended from school for something drug related is what I, and probably most others would consider a hoodlum. Drug use as a teenager may not depict how the rest of his life is going to go, but he could have easily been arrested for paraphernalia and given a criminal record. Would that have made him a hoodlum?
|
this thread is sorely lacking in polls. =D read the definitions before you vote.
Murder - 2nd Degree
+ Show Spoiler +To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Victim) is dead. 2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant). 3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Definitions. An ―act‖ includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that: 1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and 2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and 3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life. In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.
Manslaughter
+ Show Spoiler +To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Victim) is dead. Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof. 2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of (victim). b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused the death of (victim). c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant). The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide: Negligence: Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. Justifiable Homicide: The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat. Excusable Homicide: The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances: 1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or 2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or 3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner. § 782.03, Fla. Stat. Give only if 2a alleged and proved. In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death. Give only if 2b alleged and proved. To ―procure‖ means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something. 128 Give only if 2c alleged and proved. I will now define ―culpable negligence‖ for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
Assault and/or Battery
+ Show Spoiler +To prove the crime of Assault, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. (Defendant) intentionally and unlawfully threatened, either by word or act, to do violence to (victim). 2. At the time, (defendant) appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat. 3. The act of (defendant) created in the mind of (victim) a well-founded fear that the violence was about to take place.
To prove the crime of Battery, the State must prove the following element beyond a reasonable doubt: Give 1 or 2 as applicable. 1. [(Defendant) intentionally touched or struck (victim) against [his] [her] will.] 2. [(Defendant) intentionally caused bodily harm to (victim).]
now, vote for the HIGHEST charge; do not include lesser included offense (e.g., a murder is necessarily a battery, etc.)
Poll: What SHOULD Zimmerman be charged with?Manslaughter (25) 40% Nothing (20) 32% Second Degree Murder (18) 29% Assault and/or Battery (0) 0% 63 total votes Your vote: What SHOULD Zimmerman be charged with? (Vote): Second Degree Murder (Vote): Manslaughter (Vote): Assault and/or Battery (Vote): Nothing
Poll: What do you think Zimmerman WILL be charged with?Manslaughter (33) 65% Second Degree Murder (13) 25% Nothing (5) 10% Assault and/or Battery (0) 0% 51 total votes Your vote: What do you think Zimmerman WILL be charged with? (Vote): Second Degree Murder (Vote): Manslaughter (Vote): Assault and/or Battery (Vote): Nothing
|
On April 12 2012 04:17 syn0r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 04:04 jdsowa wrote: That being said, I absolutely agree with the assessment that the "Stand Your Ground" law creates a kind of Wild West situation where people are almost encouraged to use deadly force to protect their honor. In that sense, it is not desirable and should be repealed.
I think this case is going to have the Stand Your Ground law put under intense scrutiny. The law as the "Castle Doctrine" makes perfect sense, wherein if someone enters your house to cause harm, you have every right to protect yourself, and receive immunity for it. It doesn't make sense that people can get into a fight in public areas and end up shooting someone.
yeah seems crazy right... imagine some guy assaulting you trying to rob ya, then you win the fight and bloody him up good but he pulls a gun and kills ya nobody see's it and he claims self defense and has wounds to prove it.
|
|
|
|