|
SadistDave -> RE: UNMODERATED ZIMMERMAN (7/13/2013 3:19:01 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: SadistDave
It's not illegal to follow someone.
It's not a crime to carry a licensed weapon.
In fact, George Zimmerman committed no crime prior to the fight. He alleges, and the prosecution cannot disprove, that Travon Martin, a punk-ass, wanna-be thug, piece of garbage attacked George Zimmerman with a punch in the face that broke his nose.
It IS illegal to sucker punch someone and break their nose when you attack them.
I don't know why you fail to understand that simple distinction. Read this slowly and let it sink in:
If you're following me, there is no reason to use any kind of force at all. It is not a crime for you to follow me. It might be annoying. It might irritate me. It does nothing to harm me though. On the other hand, if I walk up on you and break your nose, then start pounding your head into a sidewalk over and over again then you most definately have the right to defend yourself. If I were pounding your head into a soft, down filled pillow I think the use of deadly force would be a little much, but since pounding your head into concrete could concievably kill you, it would be reasonable for you to shoot me before I did.
As for what Zimmerman did or didn't say... he didn't say it in court, which puts it on the prosecution to prove that he lied. Unfortunately, the physical evidence presented at trial shows that Zimmerman did not lie about the chain of events that lead to the death of a completely useless punk kid. The prosecutions own witnesses gave evidence that backs up Zimmermans story. The prosecution failed to show that their version of the events was even very likely.
-SD-
The problem is you believe the proven liar. I believe the evidence.
First Martin was on the phone with his friend when the fight started. I really doubt he was chit chatting with her and then went insane with rage as you claim.
Second Zimmerman's injuries are so minor as to not require or need medical treatment and are consistent with exactly one punch and his head hitting something hard once.
Just because something could conceivably kill you doesn't entitle you to use deadly force. You must have a reasonable person's fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Absolutely nothing in Zimmerman's physical condition indicates that such force was being used against him.
Zimmerman's version of events is simply a knowing lie to claim self defense. If Martin was straddling him at the waist as he once claimed neither of them could have possible seen or reached the gun. In another version of the tale Martin had his knees in Zimmerman's armpits which would have made it impossible for either of them to reach the back of Zimmerman's pants where the gun is supposed to have been and it is exceptionally unlikely Martin would have ever even seen it in that position.
Zimmerman then went into public, with the clear intent to influence the jury pool, and lied about not knowing the Florida SYG and self defense laws. Zimmerman also knowingly lied about his financial situation during his bail hearing.
Zimmerman has lied over and over again and it is simply ridiculous to believe anything he claims at this point.
That leaves us with the facts, Zimmerman and Martin were in a minor scuffle and Zimmerman shot Martin. That's 2nd degree murder.
You don't believe that there was enough damage to Zimmerman to show a reasonable fear of eminent bodily harm.
Okay
This is the crime scene photo of Travon Martin's body that was shown in court (and on MSNBC).
Please note the lack of damage to the body, the lack of blood on the clothing, body, or ground, and the fact that we all agree that this is one dead motherfucker. Only a complete fucking moron would claim that Travon Martin didn't suffer enough damage to die, and Zimmerman looked worse than this dead piece of shit after the fight was over. In fact, if you look really closely, you'll see that Martin doesn't even appear to have been struck. He isn't bleeding anywhere, so if Zimmerman even landed a blow it probably didn't do enough harm to phase him.
Your theories about how much damage Zimmerman suffered mean precisely dick.
And I'm sorry, but you can't convict a man of murder for lying about his bank account or not understanding a law even though he thinks he does. Zimmerman might be a man with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, but that does not mean that he did not have the right to defend himself with deadly force.
Your whole argument is that you don't believe him. Okay. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. But you don't get to make up your own facts, or make unimportant bullshit the basis of your case without looking like a complete idiot in a court of law. The prosecuter made up his own facts and based his case on unimportant bullshit and ended up looking like an idiot just like you're trying to do.
And if you believe that you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself with deadly force if someone who is attacking you is capable of killing you, then you deserve to die if anyone ever attacks you, just for being to dumb to defend yourself...
-SD-
|
|
|
|
