George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Inthemiddle]

All of the evidence so far points to Zimmerman defending himself from his attacker.

No.

Yes, it does. Zimmerman was defending himself from an attacker, Martin. So far the evidence in the case strongly points to just that.

No.

 

[Ariux]

1. Probably and good point but the last part is speculation. But time does not lie and the timeline favors Z.

It's hardly speculation. Trayvon knew Zimmerman was watching him, yet the two had an encounter in the same location were Trayvon was three minutes earlier. That's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trayvon chose to confront Zimmerman rather than leave.

2. Maybe and there is evidence that Martin did cause injuries but who laid the first blow? Speculation again.

Not speculation, but sound reason. An armed man would not choose to physically assault a suspected thug and a bigger man. He'd call police and/or pull his gun.

3. All speculation and no evidence.

I'm not speculating that Trayvon had motive. He did, shithead. It's not disputed that he knew Zimmerman was watching him. And, Afro shits generally agree that justifies assault (e.g. look at the Afro shit protesters who argue about Travyon's right to "stand his ground.")

4. You are leaning over the deep end.

Statistics isn't proof, but it's a good starting point. Statistically, Trayvon started the fight. He's a member of the most violent race. He's at the most violent age. He's a druggie. And, Trayvon's background is far more damning than Zimmerman's background.

5. That is the law without the hyperbole.

"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't just the law, it's common decency. But, someone who doesn't have this common decency, and pisses on the evidence of innocence, deserves that hyperbole.

 

[Againsheila]

Please provide some details on what this "strong" evidence is that Martin was the attacker excluding Zimmerman's statements as the survivor of the confrontation.

WW, you worthless piece of racist roach shit:

1) The timeline that show Trayvon doubled back to find Zimmerman, rather than leaving the area.

2) Zimmerman's injuries shows that he was no match for Trayvon, meaning he (a chubby hispanic) wouldn't have started a fight with Trayvon (a bigger man, in prime condition).

3) Only Trayvon had motive to start a fight, to punish Zimmerman for following him.

4) Trayvon is a f-ing cold. What more evidence do you need?

5) The burden of proof is on you, not me, you f-ing piece of shit. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight? You got nothing, so **** off and die.

1. Probably and good point but the last part is speculation. But time does not lie and the timeline favors Z.
2. Maybe and there is evidence that Martin did cause injuries but who laid the first blow? Speculation again.
3. All speculation and no evidence.
4. You are leaning over the deep end.
5. That is the law without the hyperbole.

I don't think it matters who threw the fist blow. I think the important part is that Zimmerman was getting his head pounded into the cement, which can cause anywhere from brain damage to death. Makes it self defense in my book. Whatever happened to not hitting a person when they're down?

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Yes, it doesnt matter, zimmerman clearly hunted and murdered this kid...but i love watching vile racist filth go out of their way to twist their logic into pretzels coming up with a different take

 

[Ariux]

I don't think it matters who threw the fist blow. I think the important part is that Zimmerman was getting his head pounded into the cement, which can cause anywhere from brain damage to death. Makes it self defense in my book. Whatever happened to not hitting a person when they're down?

True enough. Even if we entertain the absurd notion that Zimmerman threw the first punch, the injuries and the witnesses show that Trayvon was in control of the fight and he kept attacking Zimmerman even after he had already "won the fight" and Zimmerman was helpless, leaving Zimmerman with shooting in self-defense.

But, there's no need to go there because the evidence overwhelmingly shows that Trayvon started the fight.

 

[Ariux]

Yes, it doesnt matter, zimmerman clearly hunted and murdered this kid...but i love watching vile racist filth go out of their way to twist their logic into pretzels coming up with a different take

Speaking of logic, are you even capable of attempting to use logic? Is there any wonder why I regard Liberals as mere animals. They're mindless creatures, driven by instinct.

 

[Gadawg73]

1. Probably and good point but the last part is speculation. But time does not lie and the timeline favors Z.

It's hardly speculation. Trayvon knew Zimmerman was watching him, yet the two had an encounter in the same location were Trayvon was three minutes earlier. That's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trayvon chose to confront Zimmerman rather than leave.

2. Maybe and there is evidence that Martin did cause injuries but who laid the first blow? Speculation again.

Not speculation, but sound reason. An armed man would not choose to physically assault a suspected thug and a bigger man. He'd call police and/or pull his gun.



I'm not speculating that Trayvon had motive. He did, shithead. It's not disputed that he knew Zimmerman was watching him. And, Afro shits generally agree that justifies assault (e.g. look at the Afro shit protesters who argue about Travyon's right to "stand his ground.")

4. You are leaning over the deep end.

Statistics isn't proof, but it's a good starting point. Statistically, Trayvon started the fight. He's a member of the most violent race. He's at the most violent age. He's a druggie. And, Trayvon's background is far more damning than Zimmerman's background.

5. That is the law without the hyperbole.

"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't just the law, it's common decency. But, someone who doesn't have this common decency, and pisses on the evidence of innocence, deserves that hyperbole.

The defendant never has to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" in his theory of defense and proof.
The entire burden of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[Gadawg73]

Zimmerman never hunted anything.
Surveillance is legal.

 

[Gadawg73]

Who threw the first punch is everything in this caseand every case like this where the party that is killed had no weapon.
If Zimmerman threw the first punch he is at the very least guilty of manslaughter in some degree.

 

[Gadawg73]

WW, you worthless piece of racist roach shit:

1) The timeline that show Trayvon doubled back to find Zimmerman, rather than leaving the area.

2) Zimmerman's injuries shows that he was no match for Trayvon, meaning he (a chubby hispanic) wouldn't have started a fight with Trayvon (a bigger man, in prime condition).

3) Only Trayvon had motive to start a fight, to punish Zimmerman for following him.

4) Trayvon is a f-ing cold. What more evidence do you need?

5) The burden of proof is on you, not me, you f-ing piece of shit. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight? You got nothing, so **** off and die.

1. Probably and good point but the last part is speculation. But time does not lie and the timeline favors Z.
2. Maybe and there is evidence that Martin did cause injuries but who laid the first blow? Speculation again.
3. All speculation and no evidence.
4. You are leaning over the deep end.
5. That is the law without the hyperbole.

I don't think it matters who threw the fist blow. I think the important part is that Zimmerman was getting his head pounded into the cement, which can cause anywhere from brain damage to death. Makes it self defense in my book. Whatever happened to not hitting a person when they're down?

It does matter as that is the law, especially if the one killed is not armed.
If Zimmerman threw the first punch then Martin has every right to defend himself and pound heads into cement because Zimmerman HAD A LOADED GUN.
"Not hitting a person when they're down" He had a gun!

 

[ConzHateUSA]

sometimes when i read what rabid racists are saying, I hang my head in shame that they are human

 

[Ariux]

Zimmerman never hunted anything.
Surveillance is legal.

And coon season is year-around in Florida.

 

[Againsheila]

1. Probably and good point but the last part is speculation. But time does not lie and the timeline favors Z.
2. Maybe and there is evidence that Martin did cause injuries but who laid the first blow? Speculation again.
3. All speculation and no evidence.
4. You are leaning over the deep end.
5. That is the law without the hyperbole.

I don't think it matters who threw the fist blow. I think the important part is that Zimmerman was getting his head pounded into the cement, which can cause anywhere from brain damage to death. Makes it self defense in my book. Whatever happened to not hitting a person when they're down?

It does matter as that is the law, especially if the one killed is not armed.
If Zimmerman threw the first punch then Martin has every right to defend himself and pound heads into cement because Zimmerman HAD A LOADED GUN.
"Not hitting a person when they're down" He had a gun!

Unless he was aiming the gun at Trayvon, it didn't matter that he had one. You don't hit someone when they are down.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Zimmerman never hunted anything.
Surveillance is legal.

And coon season is year-around in Florida.

and a few other states I fear...they want a war, obviously

another civil war, they are very angry they cant own Black people anymore

but too bad

 

[Ariux]

It does matter as that is the law, especially if the one killed is not armed.
If Zimmerman threw the first punch then Martin has every right to defend himself and pound heads into cement because Zimmerman HAD A LOADED GUN.
"Not hitting a person when they're down" He had a gun!

Trayvon wasn't defending himself against a loaded gun. If Trayvon knew that Zimmerman had a gun, he would have taken it, fucktard.

Trayvon was pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground because Trayvon was a f-ing cold, an Afro thug.

Also, shithead, the law allows lethal force in self-defense against threat of serious bodily injury of death, regardless of who starts the fight. In other words, fuctkard, just because you get shoved or grabbed by someone, that someone does't lose his right to splatter that shit in your skull if you decide to attempt to beat that someone to death for trying to grab you.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Trayvon was trying to stand his ground, was murdered anyway

anybody see the hypocrisy in the racists position here

****, how sick can you garbage get

 

[tjvh]

Trayvon was trying to stand his ground, was murdered anyway

anybody see the hypocrisy in the racists position here

****, how sick can you garbage get

Trayvon was trying to stand his ground? When Zimmerman gets acquitted for self defense, what moral high road are you going to take? The racism is using the Zimmerman/ Martin case as a vehicle to further an agenda of racism... Or we'd be hearing about most every other crime that involved a shooting and self defense... Oh I forgot, blacks killing blacks is OK.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

w o w

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, it does. Zimmerman was defending himself from an attacker, Martin. So far the evidence in the case strongly points to just that.

Please provide some details on what this "strong" evidence is that Martin was the attacker excluding Zimmerman's statements as the survivor of the confrontation.

(BTW - Injuries to the back of the head are not "strong" evidence on who initiated hostilities (i.e. who was the initial attacker), Zimmerman's injuries simply show at some point he was losing the fight - not who started it.)



Thank you in advance.

WW

>>>>

LOL, oh the internet drama! It's all over this thread, the media and every other piece of information out there about the case and you know it.

Thanks in advance.

So you have no actual evidence as to who initiated hostilities?


Your opinion is that Martin was the attacker and Zimmerman the defender. The evidence equally supports that Zimmerman initiated hostilities and Martin the defender.


Personally? I don't know, but I'm honest enough to admit it and not make assumptions.


>>>>

 

[Bigfoot]

Please provide some details on what this "strong" evidence is that Martin was the attacker excluding Zimmerman's statements as the survivor of the confrontation.

(BTW - Injuries to the back of the head are not "strong" evidence on who initiated hostilities (i.e. who was the initial attacker), Zimmerman's injuries simply show at some point he was losing the fight - not who started it.)



Thank you in advance.

WW

>>>>

LOL, oh the internet drama! It's all over this thread, the media and every other piece of information out there about the case and you know it.

Thanks in advance.

So you have no actual evidence as to who initiated hostilities?


Your opinion is that Martin was the attacker and Zimmerman the defender. The evidence equally supports that Zimmerman initiated hostilities and Martin the defender.


Personally? I don't know, but I'm honest enough to admit it and not make assumptions.


>>>>

The evidence to this point supports Zimmerman's story and you know it. If it holds up in court remains to be seen or if more evidence is presented. In my opinion you are far from being honest, you are being overly dramatic.