Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Wow. Just wow. You're either a hypocrite or a f***'ing barbarian.
First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law requiring him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.
TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.
BUT ... accepting your premise arguendo -- following and verbally confronting TM legitimately put TM in fear for his life but TM having Z pinned to the ground and inflicting the injuries evidenced by TM did not put Z in reasonable fear of his own.
Don't look now, you're double standard is showing.
|
Calling me a barbarian is not gonna prove your point. I am making the same argument you are making. If it is resonablee to shoot someone because you feared for your life, then it is resaonable to punch someon if you fear for your life. A strange man approaching you with a gun is life threatening. See, Joe I think you may have a double standard going here. What applies to Martin equally applies to Z.