Roderick Scott Case vs Zimmerman

[HappyHappy]

Ok folks, I will begin by saying that in both the case
of Roderick Scott and George Zimmerman they had the
right to defend themselves, and did what was nessesary
to save their own lives.

Similarities are there, but differences are also many.

The chief difference is we don't have Al Shitton and Action Jackass
beating the race drum.

http://themartialist.net/?p=306

HH

[Pudfark]

I see your point HH. I, also, know it.

Here's some food for thought to anyone who reads this.....
Any time a person is forced or chooses to lawfully shoot/kill someone?
It's gonna cost them at least half of a million dollars and that's on the cheap end..really cheap.
Not to mention your reputation...and your families reputation...the forthcoming lawsuits and being
financially "tied up" for many years. Which means? No new house, car, college for your kids and most
likely the inability to work and or change jobs. You will be sued. It don't matter if you are right or wrong.
The entire quality of your life will be irrevocably changed. Truly, if your life is in danger? Ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Just know, what I wrote above, will apply.

[HappyHappy]

Funny how we have had several fatal self defence shootings here in NH
over the past few years, most recently on Lake St in Manchester.
the shooters acted in self defence and never saw the inside of a courtroom.
Best part is we the people did not have to feed and lodge these criminal
assholes for many years. We just had to bury them...MUCH cheaper.

Fronteer justice? Hell yea! That's why we have a low violent crime rate!

HH

[Pudfark]

Well....if ya have any assets, at all?
What, I wrote earlier, is totally applicable.

Responsible people pay, the irresponsible don't.
That ain't an opinion, it's a fact.