Convenient store stand-your-ground shooter charged

[MacTheKnife]

Lot of conservatives here who would convict the guy ....the film is damning.......side angle especially.............

Nonsense...this all happened very,very quickly. You were not the one who had been violentlly assaulted so it is easy for you to sit back and monday morning quarter back.

What would you do if you had been the one violently assaulted. Sit there on the ground and pray the black guy would go away? Ridiculous.

 

[Manonthestreet]

But we for

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

And reality of this case doesn't fit into that box

 

[MacTheKnife]

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

You are so confused. Get your shit straight before calling me out again, dumbass! You tell me what I said. The reason you are stalling is that you can't find anything that disagrees with my statements in this incident.

I want you to admit what you said. Why is that so difficult for you? Why should I have to tell you what you said. You know what you said.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Lot of conservatives here who would convict the guy ....the film is damning.......side angle especially.............

Nonsense...this all happened very,very quickly. You were not the one who had been violentlly assaulted so it is easy for you to sit back and monday morning quarter back.

What would you do if you had been the one violently assaulted. Sit there on the ground and pray the black guy would go away? Ridiculous.

Isn't that what jury does...Monday morning qb ....ooooops

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But we for

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

As has been stated before, he should not have felt his life was in danger. His actions were unconscionable.

Had the victim continued to attack him, I say that the shooter should have ventilated him, but that didn't happen, did it?

 

[MacTheKnife]

But we for

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

And reality of this case doesn't fit into that box

the investigative officers thought so...are you claiming you know more than them? I don't think so chump.

 

[Manonthestreet]

But we for

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

And reality of this case doesn't fit into that box

the investigative officers thought so...are you claiming you know more than them? I don't think so chump.

And yet he was charged ...you claim to know .....oooops

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

You are so confused. Get your shit straight before calling me out again, dumbass! You tell me what I said. The reason you are stalling is that you can't find anything that disagrees with my statements in this incident.

I want you to admit what you said. Why is that so difficult for you? Why should I have to tell you what you said. You know what you said.

How about because I simply have no ******* idea what you are talking about?

If you take those earbuds out of your ears that keep playing, "Breathe in, breathe out, breathe in, breathe out..." you are going to die!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But we for

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

And reality of this case doesn't fit into that box

the investigative officers thought so...are you claiming you know more than them? I don't think so chump.

Think the cops saw all of the videos before letting him walk the first time? My money is on "not a chance"!

 

[MacTheKnife]

But we for

That is the question the jury will have to decide....was the white guy in reasonable fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm?

First of all he had already been violently assaulted that in and of itself was enough to have caused grievious bodily harm and the white guy was fortunate that he apparantly suffered no serious injury from that....but he had no idea what was to follow...he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm by the mere fact of the violent assault...he had no reason to believe the attack would stop...he was on the ground and very vulnurable to further violent actions by the black guy such as a kick to the head etc.

People getting beaten to death is not an uncommon event. And, thus it is very reasonable to conclude the white guy was in fear of his life or grievious bodily injury. I am confidant the jury will understand that and with the help of expert testimony-- the state's case is very,very weak. Even the initial investigation agreed the white guy was in compliance with the law. It was only when political pressure was brought to bear that the state attorney decided to reverse the decision of the investigative officers.

Thankfully, in America we have a system of trial by jury of one's peers.

You refuse to repeat what you said about Zimmerman---why is that? Do you not remember?

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

As has been stated before, he should not have felt his life was in danger. His actions were unconscionable.

Had the victim continued to attack him, I say that the shooter should have ventilated him, but that didn't happen, did it?

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa talking about naive stupidity. If he had waited he might have been rendered unconscious. In a case like that if one waits he is gambling with his life. Now, sitting in the comfort of your abode and hiding behind your computer screen, name calling etc. it is easy for you to say the white guy was not acting out of fear of his life and or of grievious bodily harm. It was not your life that was on the line, it was not you who had been violently assaulted. You are simply a biased naive imbecile that watches too much fake news and believes that b.s.

Now let me ax you dis boyo--in your entire life have you ever been assaulted?

 

[MacTheKnife]

But we for

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

And reality of this case doesn't fit into that box

the investigative officers thought so...are you claiming you know more than them? I don't think so chump.

Think the cops saw all of the videos before letting him walk the first time? My money is on "not a chance"!

Puhleeezzzzzzzze do not tell me you are that stupid....do you have no comprehension of what homicidal investigators do? Obviously not...let me tell you that first of all they gather all ...as in.......ALL of the evidence, videos, witness statements etc.etc. They declared he was in full compliance with the law...the only thing that changed was that by the time the state attorney's office got the case...demonstrations had begun, political pressure was being applied and thus to placate the media the powers that be decided to have a trial just like in the zimmerman case. You do remember that don't you?...but you seem to have convieniently forgotten what you said about dat. hehheh

 

[MacTheKnife]

Lot of conservatives here who would convict the guy ....the film is damning.......side angle especially.............

Nonsense...this all happened very,very quickly. You were not the one who had been violentlly assaulted so it is easy for you to sit back and monday morning quarter back.

What would you do if you had been the one violently assaulted. Sit there on the ground and pray the black guy would go away? Ridiculous.

Isn't that what jury does...Monday morning qb ....ooooops

The jury system is not perfect but our legal jurisprudence system is the best in the world. They will hear and see all the available evidence, they will listen to expert testimony and they will make their decision on all that not like you and so many on here who stupidly believe your biased opinions are more important than the law and the evidence.

 

[MacTheKnife]

But we for

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

And reality of this case doesn't fit into that box

the investigative officers thought so...are you claiming you know more than them? I don't think so chump.

And yet he was charged ...you claim to know .....oooops

Now you are just revealing your ignorance of this case...He was not charged by the investigators of the case...they cleared him and went on t.v. and said he was in compliance with the law of self defense.

It was the state attorneys office who after political pressure was brought to bear decided to reverse the decision of the investigative team. Try and keep up boyo and you will not look so foolish next time.

 

[Manonthestreet]

But we for
But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

And reality of this case doesn't fit into that box

the investigative officers thought so...are you claiming you know more than them? I don't think so chump.

And yet he was charged ...you claim to know .....oooops

Now you are just revealing your ignorance of this case...He was not charged by the investigators of the case...they cleared him and went on t.v. and said he was in compliance with the law of self defense.

It was the state attorneys office who after political pressure was brought to bear decided to reverse the decision of the investigative team. Try and keep up boyo and you will not look so foolish next time.

Cops get political too.....now you're chasing your tail excuse making....how many said he would never be charged?....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But we for

Judging by the poll that was done here....the guy has no shot and should take a plea deal if offered

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

As has been stated before, he should not have felt his life was in danger. His actions were unconscionable.

Had the victim continued to attack him, I say that the shooter should have ventilated him, but that didn't happen, did it?

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa talking about naive stupidity. If he had waited he might have been rendered unconscious. In a case like that if one waits he is gambling with his life. Now, sitting in the comfort of your abode and hiding behind your computer screen, name calling etc. it is easy for you to say the white guy was not acting out of fear of his life and or of grievious bodily harm. It was not your life that was on the line, it was not you who had been violently assaulted. You are simply a biased naive imbecile that watches too much fake news and believes that b.s.

Now let me ax you dis boyo--in your entire life have you ever been assaulted?

If he waited to pull the trigger he would be rendered unconscious by a man backing away from him? Are you desperately trying to be the stupidest poster on this forum? Keep it up and I am sure you will get there!

As a matter of fact, I get assaulted all the time. I train special operations troops. My job is to be the bad guy and I have been repeatedly manhandled, abused and often injured. I have been zip-cuffed more times than you have probably been laid. Not once was I ever "shot" without my provoking it.

 

[MacTheKnife]

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

And reality of this case doesn't fit into that box

the investigative officers thought so...are you claiming you know more than them? I don't think so chump.

And yet he was charged ...you claim to know .....oooops

Now you are just revealing your ignorance of this case...He was not charged by the investigators of the case...they cleared him and went on t.v. and said he was in compliance with the law of self defense.

It was the state attorneys office who after political pressure was brought to bear decided to reverse the decision of the investigative team. Try and keep up boyo and you will not look so foolish next time.

Cops get political too.....now you're chasing your tail excuse making....how many said he would never be charged?....

He should not have been charged. The state of Florida is making a mockery of its on laws in order to accede to the demands of the media and the protestors.

 

[MacTheKnife]

But we for

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa laughable. I case you have not noticed this discussion on the clearwater incident reveals a lot of ignorance.....first of all what the law says....and so many on here have no capacity to understand that law as simple as it is.

Do not take any poll conducted on this board as any indicator of anything....other than that so many on here are biased and believe the fake news that is drummed into them daily.

No ability to think for selves logically or even in a common sense mode.

Pathetic is the woid dat comes to mind boyo.

But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

As has been stated before, he should not have felt his life was in danger. His actions were unconscionable.

Had the victim continued to attack him, I say that the shooter should have ventilated him, but that didn't happen, did it?

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa talking about naive stupidity. If he had waited he might have been rendered unconscious. In a case like that if one waits he is gambling with his life. Now, sitting in the comfort of your abode and hiding behind your computer screen, name calling etc. it is easy for you to say the white guy was not acting out of fear of his life and or of grievious bodily harm. It was not your life that was on the line, it was not you who had been violently assaulted. You are simply a biased naive imbecile that watches too much fake news and believes that b.s.

Now let me ax you dis boyo--in your entire life have you ever been assaulted?

If he waited to pull the trigger he would be rendered unconscious by a man backing away from him? Are you desperately trying to be the stupidest poster on this forum? Keep it up and I am sure you will get there!

As a matter of fact, I get assaulted all the time. I train special operations troops. My job is to be the bad guy and I have been repeatedly manhandled, abused and often injured. I have been zip-cuffed more times than you have probably been laid. Not once was I ever "shot" without my provoking it.

bullshite Are you are really so ignorant is to try and claiming that training with the troops is equivalent to being assaulted by some stranger who you know nothing about--- his capabilities, his intentions etc. I cannot believe anyone involved with special ops can possibly be so stupid.

Well, maybe being the punching bag has inflicted some brain damage?

Are you claiming you have been shot while in training?

BTW you are still refusing to admit what you said about the Z affair. Try and be a stand up guy...as in be honest with us.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Next the dumbass will be claiming he was on the team that killed Osama.

 

[there4eyeM]

He was carrying a firearm and was ready to use it. That's premeditation, by definition. It didn't jump into his pocket unnoticed as he walked out his door.
When one 'packs' for self defense, one remains discrete and is concerned with defending him/her self. At the most extreme, one might intervene in a life or death situation to save another. Other than that, packing and then going into dubious places and situations is irresponsible to the point of feloniously so.
Getting oneself shoved onto one's posterior in a parking lot is humiliating, certainly. We can all agree that the shooter felt anger and resentment.
At the same time, look again at the action. The initial conflict began with a push. A real attack would have been other than a strong push. Pushing away someone separates them from your control. It even gives an opponent time and space to regain and prepare. And, the 'aggressor' did stop. If he had been charging forward, he would have arrived before the gun actually went off.
Finally, that moment of hesitation before firing communicates something to my perceptions.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But we for
But we for sure should believe your expert opinion. Yeah pathetic would describe that

I am merely telling you what the law says. The law grants the defendant the legal right to use deadly force if he felt his life was in danger and or that he might suffer grievious bodily harm. Yet so many seem unable to grasp that???

As has been stated before, he should not have felt his life was in danger. His actions were unconscionable.

Had the victim continued to attack him, I say that the shooter should have ventilated him, but that didn't happen, did it?

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa talking about naive stupidity. If he had waited he might have been rendered unconscious. In a case like that if one waits he is gambling with his life. Now, sitting in the comfort of your abode and hiding behind your computer screen, name calling etc. it is easy for you to say the white guy was not acting out of fear of his life and or of grievious bodily harm. It was not your life that was on the line, it was not you who had been violently assaulted. You are simply a biased naive imbecile that watches too much fake news and believes that b.s.

Now let me ax you dis boyo--in your entire life have you ever been assaulted?

If he waited to pull the trigger he would be rendered unconscious by a man backing away from him? Are you desperately trying to be the stupidest poster on this forum? Keep it up and I am sure you will get there!

As a matter of fact, I get assaulted all the time. I train special operations troops. My job is to be the bad guy and I have been repeatedly manhandled, abused and often injured. I have been zip-cuffed more times than you have probably been laid. Not once was I ever "shot" without my provoking it.

bullshite Are you are really so ignorant is to try and claiming that training with the troops is equivalent to being assaulted by some stranger who you know nothing about--- his capabilities, his intentions etc. I cannot believe anyone involved with special ops can possibly be so stupid.

Well, maybe being the punching bag has inflicted some brain damage?

Are you claiming you have been shot while in training?

BTW you are still refusing to admit what you said about the Z affair. Try and be a stand up guy...as in be honest with us.

Again, I have NO ******* IDEA what you are talking about and apparently neither do you! Post what I said.

You can't because you lied.