George Zimmerman's bloody head

[RetiredGySgt]

Whats wrong, you can not handle facts or evidence of your stupidity?

 

[KissMy]

To the racist OP!

 

[Ariux]

Well, well, new evidence revealed to the public, which supports Zimmerman, and not these racist shitheads who defend that f*cking c**n burglar.

 

[kwc57]

Bump for Marc

 

[Douger]

When they get the paramedics who worked on him to the stand, you'll have your nosegasm.

 

[Peach]

Only medical records will tell. His skin appeared to be paler from today's photos it seems.

 

[BDBoop]

George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk

George Zimmerman, the neighbourhood watch volunteer charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin, unexpectedly took the stand at a bail hearing on Friday and apologised to the teenager's family.

"I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of their son. I did not know how old he was – I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not," Zimmerman said.

So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?

 

[eflatminor]

So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?

I'm not prepared to take sides on this story because I don't have all the evidence but there is another side to your comment here. So, without referring to any particular case, if you were in the process of being beat to death by a stronger foe, wouldn't you use any weapon you might have at your disposal to stop your pending death?

I would.

 

[BDBoop]

I'm still going with my original question.

 

[Jackson]

George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk

George Zimmerman, the neighbourhood watch volunteer charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin, unexpectedly took the stand at a bail hearing on Friday and apologised to the teenager's family.

"I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of their son. I did not know how old he was – I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not," Zimmerman said.

So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?

I am surprised his attorney allowed him to say that. If he was armed, he would have used his weapon instead of his hands. I can see that as an argument.

 

[Nosmo King]

So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?

I'm not prepared to take sides on this story because I don't have all the evidence but there is another side to your comment here. So, without referring to any particular case, if you were in the process of being beat to death by a stronger foe, wouldn't you use any weapon you might have at your disposal to stop your pending death?

I would.

Where's your evidence that he was being beat to death by a stronger foe? That part of the story is easier to believe than Zimmerman acted out of pure blood lust I suppose.

 

[BDBoop]

George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk

George Zimmerman, the neighbourhood watch volunteer charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin, unexpectedly took the stand at a bail hearing on Friday and apologised to the teenager's family.

"I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of their son. I did not know how old he was – I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not," Zimmerman said.

So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?

I am surprised his attorney allowed him to say that. If he was armed, he would have used his weapon instead of his hands. I can see that as an argument.

Thank you. That's what I'm saying.

 

[Oldstyle]

George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk

George Zimmerman, the neighbourhood watch volunteer charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin, unexpectedly took the stand at a bail hearing on Friday and apologised to the teenager's family.

"I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of their son. I did not know how old he was – I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not," Zimmerman said.

So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?

Zimmerman has never stated that he shot Martin because he suspected he was armed...Zimmerman has maintained that he shot Martin because Martin assaulted him and he feared for his life. I fail to see what this "apology" means other than the fact that George Zimmerman isn't a racist monster and he wishes Martin's death hadn't happened.

 

[BDBoop]

And Martin assaulted him why?

If people could just own that he should not have racially profiled a young man out to get a soda and skittles, none of this would have happened? That'd be great.

 

[eflatminor]

I'm still going with my original question.

Then yes, there could be a situation in which it would be considered reasonable to use deadly force upon an unarmed man or a man you did not know was or was not armed. Certainly, the unarmed man better be in the process of inflicting serious harm on the armed man.

Again I ask, if you were in the process of being beat to death by a stronger foe, wouldn't you use any weapon you might have at your disposal to stop your pending death?

 

[BDBoop]

How about - would I fight for my life if some stranger followed me for a time, and then accosted me?

Yes. I would.

 

[eflatminor]

So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?

I'm not prepared to take sides on this story because I don't have all the evidence but there is another side to your comment here. So, without referring to any particular case, if you were in the process of being beat to death by a stronger foe, wouldn't you use any weapon you might have at your disposal to stop your pending death?

I would.

Where's your evidence that he was being beat to death by a stronger foe? That part of the story is easier to believe than Zimmerman acted out of pure blood lust I suppose.

I have no such evidence, which is why I stated "I'm not prepared to take sides on this story because I don't have all the evidence". I merely commented on the hypothetical statement of shooting someone without knowing if they were or were not armed. I'll leave the Zimmerman case to the jury.

 

[eflatminor]

How about - would I fight for my life if some stranger followed me for a time, and then accosted me?

Yes. I would.

Excellent. So would I. But you didn't answer my question. Will you?

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm not prepared to take sides on this story because I don't have all the evidence but there is another side to your comment here. So, without referring to any particular case, if you were in the process of being beat to death by a stronger foe, wouldn't you use any weapon you might have at your disposal to stop your pending death?

I would.

Where's your evidence that he was being beat to death by a stronger foe? That part of the story is easier to believe than Zimmerman acted out of pure blood lust I suppose.

I have no such evidence, which is why I stated "I'm not prepared to take sides on this story because I don't have all the evidence". I merely commented on the hypothetical statement of shooting someone without knowing if they were or were not armed. I'll leave the Zimmerman case to the jury.

There should never had been any question that this case should be heard by a jury, stand your ground law or no stand your ground law. Whenever deadly force is used, someone should be held accountable for it.

 

[eflatminor]

Whenever deadly force is used, someone should be held accountable for it.

I do not agree with this statement. For example, there are plenty of cases in which repeat offenders (burglars, rapists, etc) have armed themselves and broken into the home of what they perceive to be a vulnerable single woman. Occasionally, that woman is armed and ends up using deadly force. In such circumstances, I would consider putting that woman on trial or even before a grand jury to be a travesty. Defending one's life with deadly force is not necessarily a bad thing.

Again, I make no comparison here to the Zimmerman case.