Quoted from Sombody

My current job requires ME to carry a 2 million dollar LIABILITY policy-- i am hired as an individual person. In case I cause damage to property or person.  ( $ 1,664 per year ).

Like  a liability policy gun owners should probably carry.

Do you carry insurance on yourself in case you are injured on the job?

Homeowners insurance doesn't cover gun accidents?

Depending on your policy and insurer, a negligent discharge causing injury might be covered

Quoted from bumblethru

I thought, and i could be wrong here, but i thought the 'pre-trial', so to say....is just to see if there is enough evidence on BOTH sides that warrants a 'real trial'......no?

it's not admitting or supporting guilt....just that there is enough evidence ON BOTH SIDES to go to trial.

again i could be wrong here....i'm no attorney for sure!

Pre Trial hearings and Grand Juries are more weighted towards the prosecution presenting its evidence.  That is definitely true for Grand Juries where it is pretty much the Prosecutor's show.

Quoted from Box A Rox

If the evidence showed that scenario, maybe the prosecution would have had a case.

Quoted from Box A Rox

If those are the FACTS, then HE is the aggressor and she is defending herself.
His actions show he was aggressor and uses excessive force.......
DA should be proscuting HIM !

Quoted from Box A Rox

Why isn't it a woman getting out of the car?  How about that scenario?  A woman gets out of the car to follow Trayvon, Trayvon feels threatened, back tracks, surprise attacks the woman and starts bashing her head off the ground, the woman is armed and shoots Trayvon.

That news story gets buried in the local section of the local paper, and Trayvon no longer could be Obama's son.  If anything, they try to find out if Trayvon is involved in a local tea party group, and claim "war on woman".

...since we are doing "what if" scenarios.

Quoted from Box A Rox

NYS likes sh!t like that....that's how public schools 'train'....never ever ever be the aggressor because you are always
wrong...even if you are defending yourself....I know this from first hand experience.....

so it IS about the last guy standing because 'the state' is only concerned about the status quo...because if you're
an elitist it becomes OK....the rest of us must be trained to the status quo....

Quoted from senders

NYS likes sh!t like that....that's how public schools 'train'....never ever ever be the aggressor because you are always
wrong...even if you are defending yourself....I know this from first hand experience.....

so it IS about the last guy standing because 'the state' is only concerned about the status quo...because if you're
an elitist it becomes OK....the rest of us must be trained to the status quo....

if you are the aggressor, how are you defending yourself?

Quoted from joebxr

if you are the aggressor, how are you defending yourself?

it's how the lines are blurred.... "use your words Johnny/Suzie"

public schools keep status quo by making BOTH parties aggressors

Quoted from joebxr

if you are the aggressor, how are you defending yourself?

How do you determine aggressor?  It think in the public school scenario, if a kid is taunting another kid, and mocking him and harassing him, and the kid being harassed punches the the kid taunting, but in the end, the kid doing the taunting dominates the fight --- Who is the aggressor?  Who was defending?

Quoted from CICERO

How do you determine aggressor?  It think in the public school scenario, if a kid is taunting another kid, and mocking him and harassing him, and the kid being harassed punches the the kid taunting, but in the end, the kid doing the taunting dominates the fight --- Who is the aggressor?  Who was defending?

Defending yourself against words and harrasment does not constitute a physical response.
Bullying is an act of ignorance, and you address it as such, you don't resort to physical act.



Still not clear how you can be aggressor when defending yourself!

Quoted from joebxr

Defending yourself against words and harrasment does not constitute a physical response.
Bullying is an act of ignorance, and you address it as such, you don't resort to physical act.



Still not clear how you can be aggressor when defending yourself!

Then Trayvon did the wrong thing based on public school indoctrination. Zimmerman was essentially taunting and harassing Trayvon by following him(you know, the bravado).  According to testimony, Zimmerman was just being a bully by following him(with police on the phone).  No matter if Trayvon felt he was being stalked and harassed, his schooling training should have been to flee and inform the "authorities", not back track and confront the bully.

Quoted from CICERO

Then Trayvon did the wrong thing based on public school indoctrination. Zimmerman was essentially taunting and harassing Trayvon by following him(you know, the bravado).  According to testimony, Zimmerman was just being a bully by following him(with police on the phone).  No matter if Trayvon felt he was being stalked and harassed, his schooling training should have been to flee and inform the "authorities", not back track and confront the bully.

Not going to debate your scenario over and over again...already stated my opinions.

I will however state that you fail to clarify the roles are not the same as the first scenario you posted....
that one of them was in a position to question the presence of a peson that was not a resident
and one of them was a person that was not a resident.

Far cry from words and punch.

So again, how can a person be an aggressor if they are defending themself?

Quoted from joebxr

So again, how can a person be an aggressor if they are defending themself?

The same way many people feel Zimmerman was the aggressor when according to testimony, Trayvon threw the first punch.  People believe Zimmerman was instigating a fight, though he followed and never confronted Trayvon.

It's subjective.