putting someones head into the concrete is deadly force. if you don't want to recognize that I don't know what to tell you.
yes it is. well done. first factually correct thing I have read from you in this thread. Are you in a holiday inn express right now?
Which has zero bearing here because: 1. Zimmerman had no insight to those accusations before hand. 2. Martin was on his way home from buying skittles and tea while on the phone with his girlfriend 3. Trayvon was tested in a toxicology exam and came back clean. 4. Trayvon had no large sums of money or drugs in his possession. 5. Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend. Who looks to steal and break into homes while on the phone. Seriously people.
Well according to this logic I should pick a fight with you, let you start to win, then shoot you in the chest. There would me massive body counts if every lost fight that ended with a broken nose or a small amount of bleeding constituted shooting someone. Hope your child doesn't get in a fight and starts winning it, even if he didn't start it, because....KAPLOW is what he deserves.
so you have any link on his drug test being clean or did you make it up like all of the other stuff you type?
I'm curious to know what Zimmerman meant by it looked like he was going to steal something. If Martin wasn't peeping in the window of houses or cars why would you get that impression or fill the need to call the cops?
Given that Martin was not high at the time of the shooting, I would imagine that Zimmerman's ability to discern a person's drug use is pretty horrible.
Ok maybe a bit of an assumption given that they did the test immediately afterwards and haven't released findings. I think if he came back dirty it would of been immediately released. Oh and as for the defense excuse. "(Zimmerman) was standing over the body, basically straddling the body with his hand on Trayvon's back," said Cutcher, adding that they called three times to him before he finally asked them to call police. "It didn't seem to me that he was trying to help him in any way." And Martin's girlfriend was on the phone with him prior to the shooting, according to a lawyer for the shooting victim's family. So within seconds of being on the ground and being beaten to the point that your nose is broken and your life is in jeopardy, you shot the child. Rolled him off of you, straddled him, put your hand on his back. Riiiiight.
Well in a few of the fights I have had I guess this means that I had the right to shoot those people because here I am now and obviously my life was in jeopardy.
Because Zimmerman had been right before the 46 other times he had "suspicions" right? Its stupid how you can chase a kid down, attempt to fight him, and then just shoot and kill him because you lost; then get off it because of some backwards self-defense law that just breeds more violence than it prevents. How about a law that self-defense is not applicable unless you are actively running away from danger, makes more sense than being able to run TOWARDS danger and then claim self defense.
Because it's long been proven that the guy in the photo on the bottom right is not Trayvon Martin (or at least the one who got shot). Keep up.
If you are hunting a deer and then you get too close to the deer and the deer is aggressive toward you, maybe even breaking your nose, and then you shoot the deer and then the deer dies... Who started the altercation? You or the deer? Need more facts?
I would just like to go on the record with my bias. Every time an armed man kills an unarmed man, I will be biased toward the unarmed dead man. Also, when I see a woman get hit by a man, I often do not think to myself, "I wonder what she did to deserve that?" I usually just have a bias toward the woman that just got hit. Am I to understand that you believe bias to be a bad thing? That would confuse me. I thought you were for racial profiling.
I think this will be important come trial because Zimmerman himself tells us that Martin ran away from him, a person who was not an authority figure and who didn't identify himself as a concerned citizen, and then proceeded to chase after a person who had run away. With Martin being dead, he'll never be able to claim that he had tried to retreat and a stranger in the night continued pursuing him, giving Martin the right to stand his ground and engage Zimmerman. The red oval next to the "A" is supposedly where the incident occurred. According to Zimmerman and his representatives, he was getting back in his truck/SUV when Martin came up behind him and attacked him. Unless he drove his truck behind those houses, he wasn't exactly just a few feet from getting back into his vehicle. Did they have a knockdown drag out "They Live" kind of fight that led from the street to around and then behind the houses? As for Martin's mother trademarking some phrases, I was happy to see the posters in here who have been preaching that we not rush to judgement immediately rush to judgement and assume she's profiting off of her son's death. If I may try some bigtexxx style shot in the dark wild speculation, how do we know she didn't trademark them for use in a future charity in Trayvon's name? Or maybe she trademarked them so that she could have legal course to prevent other people from profiting off her son's death. I mean, you've seen the commercials for 9/11 coins, what's to stop some people from making Trayvon Hoodies and selling them for profit....oh wait, trademarking these phrases could prevent that.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ar-campaign-against-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/ The smear campaign has began. What's funny is how BT/the usual jumped right on it. Accepting pictures/links that originated on such notable sites as STORMFRONT to validate their erroneous assumptions. But we need more facts right?
