Trayvon Martin - black kid armed with skittles killed in "self-defense"

[Wild Cobra]

Martin was the one facing imminent threat when Zimmerman had a gun.

I must really be an ignorant dumb-ass, because it seems, to me that a person who has a concealed carry permit is seldom thought of as an imminent threat. I always thought is was one who illegally carried a weapon.

How about looking up the definition of "imminent" for me. I must be too stupid to find it. Please do and quote it for us.

[cantthinkofanything]

Punching somebody in the nose if somebody else assaulted you first is not assault. We need to move on from this "who started the first physical attack" phase because we just don't know.

No one even knows if his head was even "pounded" on the pavement and Team Zimmerman already lied in this case.

None of that has anything to do with the point that you decidedly were not making earlier.

[GSH]

Punching somebody in the nose if somebody else assaulted you first is not assault. We need to move on from this "who started the first physical attack" phase because we just don't know.

No one even knows if his head was even "pounded" on the pavement and Team Zimmerman already lied in this case.

And if Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first, I'll totally agree with you. Find ANY evidence that happened. Until then, you're just making up to try and justify a lynch mob.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL... but they did say that there were no signs of any head injury, even though that was a lie. And they did overlay their logo and other text over Zimmerman's head, right at the time that the mark was visible. (Strangely, now that they've been outed, they have removed the overlay on that part of the video.)

It was good that they removed the overlay. That was annoying.

[ChumpDumper]

And if Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first, I'll totally agree with you. Find ANY evidence that happened. Until then, you're just making up to try and justify a lynch mob.

What is the evidence Martin attacked first?

[Creepn]

And if Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first, I'll totally agree with you. Find ANY evidence that happened. Until then, you're just making up to try and justify a lynch mob.

lol making up? I'm going by statements they made, the video released, and the Florida law to come up with my basis.

[Wild Cobra]

What is the evidence Williams attacked first?

Whit is this third person, Williams?

Why haven't we heard of him before?

[Fabbs]

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Why does ABC need to speculate like you do? It's not like they blurred it out.

LOL... but they did say that there were no signs of any head injury, even though that was a lie. And they did overlay their logo and other text over Zimmerman's head, right at the time that the mark was visible. (Strangely, now that they've been outed, they have removed the overlay on that part of the video.) But, hey, why let facts get in your way? You never did before.


Now jump, puppet. Think of some other excuse.

RumpHumper gettin owned again.
It's too easy.

[Creepn]

I must really be an ignorant dumb-ass, because it seems, to me that a person who has a concealed carry permit is seldom thought of as an imminent threat. I always thought is was one who illegally carried a weapon.

How about looking up the definition of "imminent" for me. I must be too stupid to find it. Please do and quote it for us.

lol as if Martin was supposed to know that a man following him around had a permit for the gun.

[ChumpDumper]

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Why does ABC need to speculate like you do? It's not like they blurred it out.


RumpHumper gettin owned again.
It's too easy.

Not really, considering the alleged severity of his near death experience.

I doubt anyone expected him to look that good.

[CosmicCowboy]

Punching somebody in the nose if somebody else assaulted you first is not assault. We need to move on from this "who started the first physical attack" phase because we just don't know.

No one even knows if his head was even "pounded" on the pavement and Team Zimmerman already lied in this case.

You can't even be consistent, moron.

No, it's a fact that he started the WHOLE thing. Since the beginning.

And who started the physical attack first IS THE WHOLE CASE. If they can't prove Zimmerman started it then they have NO case.

Zimmerman could have cussed Martin up one side and down the other and called him every de able name in the book but if Martin threw the first punch and was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the concrete (which the physical injuries suggest is true) Zimmerman will be no billed.

[Sec24Row7]

let's see:
- nobody knows who threw the first punch
- nobody knows the extent of Z's injuries
- nobody knows what evidence the victim's body has to account for the incident

we know nothing. ppl arguing on either side are mainly talking

-No one but Zimmerman, but the only witness that actually saw the fight before the shot confirms Zimmerman's story up to that point
-The police, DA and medical team do. That Zimmerman has not been charged is telling on this point.
-Investigators by now have all the evidence that they are going to have on this as well.

[Wild Cobra]

lol as if Martin was supposed to know that a man following him around had a permit for the gun.

Wouldn't it be a stupid assumption to think that someone is weapons clean, especially if they are following you?

[CosmicCowboy]

Wouldn't it be a stupid assumption to think that someone is weapons clean, especially if they are following you?

I now assume EVERYONE has a gun.

I haven't flipped off anyone driving in years.

[Creepn]

You can't even be consistent, moron.




And who started the physical attack first IS THE WHOLE CASE. If they can't prove Zimmerman started it then they have NO case.

Zimmerman could have cussed Martin up one side and down the other and called him every de able name in the book but if Martin threw the first punch and was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the concrete (which the physical injuries suggest is true) Zimmerman will be no billed.

How in the are you rich?? You keep bringing up "first attack" and I keep telling you that it's not a fact either way for these guys. None of us have substantial evidence so this whole thread was pretty much speculation. My initial response to this was that I think Zimmerman's whole case of Martin assaulting and acting in self defense because he was beating the out of him is bull . His injuries does not look like the self-defense "great bodily harm" stance that his lawyer is taking. That is my speculation. Understand?

[Sec24Row7]

I now assume EVERYONE has a gun.

I haven't flipped off anyone driving in years.

Thats because you have a beer in the hand that isn't hold the steering wheel...

[CosmicCowboy]

How in the are you rich?? You keep bringing up "first attack" and I keep telling you that it's not a fact either way for these guys. None of us have substantial evidence so this whole thread was pretty much speculation. My initial response to this was that I think Zimmerman's whole case of Martin assaulting and acting in self defense because he was beating the out of him is bull . His injuries does not look like the self-defense "great bodily harm" stance that his lawyer is taking. That is my speculation. Understand?

You finally get it moron. Unless they can prove Zimmerman physically attacked Martin first he will be found not guilty under Florida law.

There is an eye witness that saw Martin pounding Zimmerman's head into the concrete. Deadly force can be justified.

And Florida doesn't give a what you think or speculate.

[CosmicCowboy]

Thats because you have a beer in the hand that isn't hold the steering wheel...

[Creepn]

You finally get it moron. Unless they can prove Zimmerman physically attacked Martin first he will be found not guilty under Florida law.

And Florida doesn't give a what you think or speculate.

I keep saying that since the beginning you idiot! YOU finally get it. Don't get it twisted. I've always felt Zimmerman may get the walk because of the lack of evidence. A lot of things don't give a what we say on a messageboard. It's a messageboard, this is what we do. I never lost sight of that.

[Creepn]

There is an eye witness that saw Martin pounding Zimmerman's head into the concrete. Deadly force can be justified.

You talking about "John"? I don't think he said all that. He did state that Martin was on top of him. Don't recall a "pounding head against pavement" statement.

[CosmicCowboy]

I keep saying that since the beginning you idiot! YOU finally get it. Don't get it twisted. A lot of things don't give a what we say on a messageboard. It's a messageboard, this is what we do. I never lost sight of that.

No, three pages ago you were saying Zimmerman couldn't legally shoot Martin because he wasn't hurt enough. Did you already forget that you were totally destroyed on that position?

It's irrelevant? It's very relevant because their law states that if you feel you are on the verge of death or suffered "GREAT bodily harm" (actual text), that you can use deadly force.

Looking at that video, I just don't see that "GREAT bodily harm". Plus he didn't even need to go to the hospital.

[Creepn]

No, three pages ago you were saying Zimmerman couldn't legally shoot Martin because he wasn't hurt enough. Did you already forget that you were totally destroyed on that position?

I still stand by that. The law says "Imminent Death" and/or "Great bodily harm". According to the statements, examination and the video, don't see deadly self defense needed in this case. Take that to the lawmakers.

[Wild Cobra]

I now assume EVERYONE has a gun.

I haven't flipped off anyone driving in years.

Exactly. Never be over confident.

[cantthinkofanything]

I still stand by that. The law says "Imminent Death" and/or "Great bodily harm". According to the statements, examination and the video, don't see self defense needed in this case. Take that to the lawmakers.

Getting one's head smashed into the ground can easily be construed as "great bodily harm". I bet that sometimes people even die from injuries that don't even bleeded.

[CosmicCowboy]

I still stand by that. The law says "Imminent Death" and/or "Great bodily harm". According to the statements, examination and the video, don't see deadly self defense needed in this case. Take that to the lawmakers.

I posted the law for you, dumbass. It doesn't say that.