Victor Cruz tweets about Zimmerman

[In58men]

@TeamVic: Thoroughly confused. Zimmerman doesn't last a year before the hood catches up to him.



He deleted it minutes after he tweeted and we wait until we hear he was hacked.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by ARROW2

I mentioned the previous break ins as a reason he wrongly assumed Martin was there to perform a break in.....Which he wasn't....

How do you know? He died prior to finishing his trip that night.
Posted via Mobile Device

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by Alex Smith HATER

He was suspicious of an individual with a history of running afoul of the law.

Would you say his suspicions were confirmed when he felt the concrete cracking his head open?

GZ also had run ins with the law...

[ARROW2]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

How do you know? He died prior to finishing his trip that night.
Posted via Mobile Device

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!

[ARROW2]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

GZ also had run ins with the law...

OOPS!!!

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Alex Smith HATER

Sounds legal.

Could be?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

GZ also had run ins with the law...

Did he break any laws that night before being assaulted?

You're better than this.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

It actually is it is called stand your ground

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Following isn't cause to fear great bodily harm
Posted via Mobile Device

[BigCatDaddy]

BTW Victor Cruz and Nico Johnson are pieces of shit. I'd like to see Nico cut tomorrow.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

Following isn't cause to fear great bodily harm
Posted via Mobile Device

You don't know what happened when they confronted each other. That is why I amended my post to could be?

This is probably why the Stand your Ground law is probably not the best idea.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by notorious

These topics will always go down the AIDS route.


Tis the way of CP.

It's one of the things I've come to appreciate about reddit's threaded discussion organization. It's much harder for one person to completely derail a discussion in that format.

That said, there are a lot of benefits to the flat format we use here as well.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Could be?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

So being followed is considered "great bodily harm" or an "imminent commission of a forcible felony"?

You guys should probably stop trying to argue with Clay and his bullshit because you're making yourselves look just as ignorant doing so.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Alex Smith HATER

He was suspicious of an individual with a history of running afoul of the law.

Would you say his suspicions were confirmed when he felt the concrete cracking his head open?

I'm pretty sure you're trolling but **** it.

1) Martin had no criminal history. Zimmerman did.

2) The only injuries to Zimmerman's head were a 0.5cm cut and a 2cm cut. Both required only a bandaid.
Posted via Mobile Device

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Did he break any laws that night before being assaulted?

You're better than this.

We don't know.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

You don't know what happened when they confronted each other.

Exactly.

I'm not sending a guy to prison based on what I think might've happened.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by -King-

1) Martin had no criminal history.

Right.

His own mother wanted nothing to do with him...standup kid.