Zimmerman Trial - NOT GUILTY

[[MPGH]arunforce]

What he should have done is irrelevant. He supposedly feared for his life, and acting accordingly.
Also, if someone's on top of you beating you senseless, I don't really believe flashing your gun is going to go very smoothly.

Zimmerman confronts him, shows his gun. Kid sucker punches him and starts beating him down. But that's what you guys are saying, I read that the parent said it was their kid screaming on the phone. I don't know if it's considered actual fact that the kid was beating him down or even disputed, though I don't think it's hard to check the kid's fists, not like he's out there faking the kids knuckles damage.

I'm going on what I read about the trial myself.

Zimmerman yes, was a fat fuck and a moron who felt like playing town hero and I am not advocating that he was correct in doing so. HOWEVER, if the kid ended up on top of him beating the crap out of him, by Florida state law he had the full right to shoot for the kill. Trayvon is not as innocent as you keep making him out to sound. Read up on the findings of his text messages, how he consistently talked about violence and how he was going to buy a gun. Zimmerman was a fat fucking moron, but Trayvon was a punk ass dead beat of a kid. I mentioned this in my last post on another thread quoting Dave, but I would have preferred if they killed each other. Either way, Zimmerman in all technicality broke no law.

My point is, the kid might have attacked first in self defense (physical words do count as a threat), the guy sounds like he was looking for a fight, though if two people acting in self defense (or at least claims), I guess it's the one who wins. But you do make the most sense out of all three of you guys. I don't know anything about the kid, I'm not trying to defend him specifically, I'm just looking at the (partial) facts I know.

I'm not speaking out of my ass, witnesses clearly said Trayvon was the one who engaged the fight. And in my opinion, the last thing I would do is fight someone while they have a gun pointed at me.

I wasn't disputing if the kid punched him first. "I can say "Nana boo boo big fat poo eater" and you punch me, you will be at fault not me. That's exactly what happened." Zimmerman could have threatened him by lifting his shirt revealing his gun (if it was there, which makes the most sense), not pointing it at him, and the kid being in physical range to defend himself, striked back.

[Lehsyrus]

My point is, the kid might have attacked first in self defense (physical words do count as a threat), the guy sounds like he was looking for a fight, though if two people acting in self defense (or at least claims), I guess it's the one who wins. But you do make the most sense out of all three of you guys. I don't know anything about the kid, I'm not trying to defend him specifically, I'm just looking at the (partial) facts I know.

I understand your side, it is confusing as shit. When I first heard of the attack I was completely against Zimmerman, but now that I'm moving to Florida I decided to learn more about Florida's laws and once reading and understanding the "Stand your Ground" law, the case made sense. Even if it was in cold blood, Zimmerman hid it like a pro. Gave nothing away.

I still wish they had just killed each other, I hate it when the media gets involved in these cases, they're always in Florida and I'm fucking moving there

[Kibstor]

someone is going to take matters to their own hand usually they do