Originally Posted by go bowe
since when has the law of regarding self-defense ever spelled out allowable vs. non-allowable specifics?
other than the use of a weapon or the like (zimmerman) hasn't the standard always been that of a reasonable man and not whether 1 finger or 2 were broken or whether a nose is bloody or *gasp* broken?
would a reasonable man in those circumstances have been in fear for his life because he got his nose broken? mr. z wouldn't want me on his jury...
The facts of the case aren't in, so you taking that position just shows that you're either too prejudiced or too stupid to sit on the jury.