nschur

You can rest assured that any references to injuries by the PD will be true and likely photographed. If I made a report and included "the victim had a laceration to the back of his head, a bloddy nose as well as multiple other abrasions to his hands and face" then you had better believe that this is what I ACTUALLY OBSERVED. ***NOTE*** that quoted statement was meant to simulate what I believe the reporting LEO MIGHT have put in his report. There would also likey be other reports. The FD and any attending physician's reports will also contine this. And as someone who has had a broken nose, th

Would be from me but the problem is we would never have hears of it and AS / JJ dedinately would not be involved down there.

Cobb fire has checked hydrants twice a year until the last few. We check them once a year now. It is common for us to check reported hydrants. We usually fix it if possible but that is rare. Or we will forward the repair request to the water dept. to fix.

Some of us are not really defending anyone. To do so without all the evidenceis pointlless. I have consistantly made the arguement that if Martin assaulted Zimmerman first, then Zimmerman is in the right. REGARDLESS of his following the guy across the area. If Zimmerman attempted to physically detain Martin and Martin responded in the assault then Zimmerman is at fault. The whole "wanna be cop" or "he was following him and wasn't a cop" arguements do not amount to anything. It is all about who made first physical contact at this point. And that is begining to look a whole lot like it was M

Ohh.. Okay... I agree with your post but I believe the poster did not mean it quite that way.

Yeah I know about this kind of photagraphy. And by the looks of it, I would have a hard time getting my hotwheels in there.

A TOX screen?!? on what grounds? Just because he shot someone? Since when does that men the defender is a druggie? You can and will be forced to undergo a drug test following a fatality or serious injury crash as an involved driver. That is the law here but not because you defended yourself against an assault. And where are you getting all this info about how witnesses were handled and coached. Would you change your story because of something like that? I have more integrity thatn that. I may be off or flat out wrong about what I think I saw, but it will always be exactly what I think I saw or

Which witness? The only witnesses so far have backed Zimmerman's side of the story.

You meant "do have the right" correct? Well yes you would expect that to be the case but I hesitate to call it a right. But should someone start to follow you around in your subdivision because (for some reason THEY felt you were suspicious), does THAT give you the RIGHT to physically assault them for following you?And yes! you do have the right not to be assaulted for walking around in your subdivision.And that would go for the person following behind you as well.

I must have mised something here.

I still reserve judgement until all the facts come out. The more I hear and read about this leads me to conclude that, while Zimmerman's actions could and did put him at risk of bodily harm, that this in no way gave Martin the right to assault him. That is the case in a nutshell. If Martin assaulted Zimmerman just because he was following him, Martin was, in the eyes of the aw, the aggressor and Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself. Now if Zimmerman tried to physically detain Martin, that would be a whole different story all together. Have you spoken with the LEOs in your

Oh I fully understand. Want some interesting reading? Go look up what happened in Austrailia after they banned guns there.

What's the difference. Someone following behind you on the phone. 911 or girlfriend maybe mom. WTH does it matter? You have the right to walk down the road at any time in any public place talking to whoever you want on the phone or not, without the fear of assault.

You are correct. and then everyone will be carrying machettes and ball bats around and the THUGs will be getting killed with those instead.

You do it (walk behind someone) every day do you not? Even closer at the mall. My common sense tells me that if I feel the need, as I layed it out in my posts about the peeping Tom, I am free to follow and observe said person. It is not up to me to judge them but I have every right to observe while in public and direct police to the scene. The very same way that Zimmeman did. I was not harming this person by following them nor was Zimmerman. Just because you do not like being followed by someone does not give you the right to assault them. Sure you can go up to them and confront them. That is

I was thinking today that considering this took place over a month ago, I find it interesting how it suddenly explodes (because of Sharpton's efforts) at the same exact time as the healthcare law is begining its active time in front of the SCOTUS. Call me a conspirist but it just seems a little too well timed.

So to you folks defending poor little Trayvon let me ask you. Do I have the right to walk down the street behind you? Do I have the right to observe what you are doing in public? Do I have the right to expect that while observing you and making no overtly hostile actions that I should be secure in the knowledge that you DO NOT have the right to simply attack me while we are both in and allowed to be in a public place together? And should you suddenly feel the urge to assault me just because you do not like me following you in a public place, can I not defend myself with any mea

Ughh... :rolleyes: Because yours was the last one I read before I posted. Do you really want me to go back and relist everyone else that posted the same as you did and include their names as well? I guess I will just have to reread all 7 pages and include all parties that posted similar to what you did. Would it make you happier if I removed your name and just included your comment? Why do you take this so personal?

Firstly, I was not calling you out. I was merely responding to something that you posted. Secondly, we have dealt with far worse with my daughter. I have given that info to the OP via pm. Finally, I have already posted how I would expect it to be handled by my daughter several times in this topic. Here it is again... one boy... one warning. After that she is free to slap, punch, kick or knee at her own descretion with my full support. The school WILL punish her as well and I will not say anything to them. Thank your local Liberals and lawyers for that rule. The school has to follow the

You mean that he grabbed another girls fanny?!?

Sadly if Zimmerman is cleared there WILL be riots and likely anothe Rodney King type Beating of an innocent white or hispanic person. That is already a foregone conclusion. The sharks are circling and they will settle for nothing less than blood. No amount of evidence will satiate their calls for blood.

I agree with the first part. It is only wise to do so. The second part not so much. Kids have to learn what the boundries are. Hopefully he has learned. There is no proof that he did not.

Trust me when I say this... This ain't Holly wood. A bullet strike to the chest wiil not lift someone up off the ground and through them backwards. Most people will land face down anyway from a standing position.

The momment has passed. Raising hell now just will not accomplish anything good. What are they going to do. "Well guys, mom is here raising hell so we are going to add on a few more days of ISS and a PUBLIC lashing"? No they won't. I would be here defending the young lady had she slapped, kicked , punced or kneed either of the boys right off. She did not do that. The school can't just tell the boys "ok stand there and let her knee you in the nutz" now. Counsel the girl on what t do next time. An immediate retaliation or a verbal warning then retaliation, I do not care. Raising hell now is poin

Ain't NO WAY I'ma gonna let my daughter practice on me!! I might let practice on Dis jr. though. :o :rofl: