Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who initiated the confrontation doesn't matter. Kim Pham was beaten to death outside a Santa Ana night club. Her killers said they were not at fault because Pham threw the first punch. That's not a defense and why the murderers have been arrested right now.
Of course it matters, don't be ridiculous. You're citing a case where a) it hasn't yet been proven who threw the first punch; and b) if they will be acquitted if they prove Pham threw the first punch. Also, the laws in California don't apply in Florida.
You are wrong, who threw the first punch does not entitle the victim of that punch to beat the attacker to death. The laws in California and Florida aren't THAT different. If some punk hit me, even so much as a slap on the ass, I would LOVE for that to be license to beat them to death.
Who cut the cheese?
Oh, wait, it's just Asscleptopias the racist, never mind.
Umm... Travon Martin had only been in Sanford about a week. Just a couple of years short (at least) of the crime spree in the Retreat. Which, coincidentally, is about how far away your brain is from reality.Riiight.He was protecting his neighbors property by observing what that little shit Martin was u p to.
The burglaries have since become almost entirely gone since.
Good job George.
As to his 'plight', he will have plenty of cash once his lawsuits get done. The Big Lie Media told some real big lies on him and the courts are likely to let George have plenty of compensation.He was protecting their property from an unarmed teenager who had every right to be there.
He was protecting his neighbors from a gang of robbers who Martin was apparently working for, scouting out likely apartments to target.
FACT: the robbery spree ended with Martins life.
Not a coincidence, most likely.
Of course leftards like you have been cheering on criminals for decades now.
Lay off the crack. There were no sealed records and there was no record of violent crimes.That's silly. He was protecting himself from an attack by a thug. He also had every right to be where he was while he was and do what he was doing. The dead dipshit Martin got himself killed.
A "thug" is a person who commits violent crimes. What violent crimes had Trayvon Martin committed?
You mean the ones his parents and the race baiters got sealed by court order?
If Zimmerman is willing to work, why isn't he? Probably because it's easier to sponge off his parents than actually find a job.
If Zimmerman was trying to detain Martin until police arrived, what kind of mark would that leave? Or if Zimmerman brandished his firearm, what kind of mark would that leave?You have no proof that Zimmerman didn't initiate the physical confrontation. If that's all you've got, you have nothing.Beating up Zimmerman. What the hell is wrong with you?
There is the forensic report and autopsy that showed no other injuries to Martin the thug other than the gun shot wound he so richly deserved.
How can you be so fucking stupid?
Wrong, you fucking imbecile. The [false] assertion made was that Martin attacking Zimmerman defines Martin as a thug. Your problem, and for those just as brain-dead as you, is that you cannot prove Martin initiated the altercation; rendering any judgement that Martin was a thug to be nothing but a figment of your rightarded imagination.This failure is all yours. Embrace it. You're the one claiming Martin was a thug because he was winning a fight with Zimmerman, but you can't prove he wasn't provoked into the fight by Zimmerman initiating the physical confrontation. Makes your case that Martin was a "thug," wrong.The burden of proof was on the prosecution so to establish that Martin was defending himself by beating up Zimmerman. They failed miserably just as you are doing now. Zimmerman had the right to be where he was and to defend himself - case closed.
Lol, you are wrong in ever respect; by law, by the jury's verdict, by not being able to present valid arguments on a fucking message board.
You are just a butt-hurt loser fascist.
You have no proof that Zimmerman didn't initiate the physical confrontation. If that's all you've got, you have nothing.Beating up Zimmerman. What the hell is wrong with you?
There is the forensic report and autopsy that showed no other injuries to Martin the thug other than the gun shot wound he so richly deserved.
How can you be so fucking stupid?
Other notable moments in Zimmermans interview, seven months after the trial:
- He says he never realized that Martin was unarmed, but that Martin was clearly trying to grab the gun from him.
- He initially thought that his bullet had missed Martin and potentially struck a neighbors house.
- He expresses no regrets about the shooting.
- He has a debt of $2.5 million owed to his lawyers, Mark OMara and Don West. He has raised more than $300,000 from online donors and said he hopes to collect additional funds through a lawsuit hes filed against NBC News over an edited 911 call, which he alleges made him look racist because a question and answer were mixed.
- He says he hasn't collected welfare and will work as a cook if he has to. Hes living off his family for now.
- He blames sensationalized media coverage for making him notorious, saying people recognize him everywhere because of what the press did with the incident in 2012, in February.
George Zimmerman says he's homeless and suffers from PTSD - latimes.com
He's living off his family right now. Why? If he can be a cook, go be a cook. What's he waiting for?
And what's the hold up on the NBC/MSNBC court case.
That's a strawman. I'm not claiming that had Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, that gave Martin permission to kill Zimmerman; or even that Zimmerman didn't have the legal consent to kill Martin under that scenario. What I am claiming is that if Zimmerman did initiate it, Martin did have the right to defend himself.Who initiated the confrontation doesn't matter. Kim Pham was beaten to death outside a Santa Ana night club. Her killers said they were not at fault because Pham threw the first punch. That's not a defense and why the murderers have been arrested right now.
Of course it matters, don't be ridiculous. You're citing a case where a) it hasn't yet been proven who threw the first punch; and b) if they will be acquitted if they prove Pham threw the first punch. Also, the laws in California don't apply in Florida.
You are wrong, who threw the first punch does not entitle the victim of that punch to beat the attacker to death. The laws in California and Florida aren't THAT different. If some punk hit me, even so much as a slap on the ass, I would LOVE for that to be license to beat them to death.
Of course it matters, don't be ridiculous. You're citing a case where a) it hasn't yet been proven who threw the first punch; and b) if they will be acquitted if they prove Pham threw the first punch. Also, the laws in California don't apply in Florida.
You are wrong, who threw the first punch does not entitle the victim of that punch to beat the attacker to death. The laws in California and Florida aren't THAT different. If some punk hit me, even so much as a slap on the ass, I would LOVE for that to be license to beat them to death.
Thats not what he said. If TM had of killed or hurt Z after Z provoked the fight then TM would be in trouble. Z started the fight. All the evidence points to that. The jury was racist against the dangerous Black kid or just easily punked by the racists on the jury. Their acquittal means nothing and that is the reason Z is crying now. He has messed up his life as well as taking the life of a child.
You are wrong, who threw the first punch does not entitle the victim of that punch to beat the attacker to death. The laws in California and Florida aren't THAT different. If some punk hit me, even so much as a slap on the ass, I would LOVE for that to be license to beat them to death.
Thats not what he said. If TM had of killed or hurt Z after Z provoked the fight then TM would be in trouble. Z started the fight. All the evidence points to that. The jury was racist against the dangerous Black kid or just easily punked by the racists on the jury. Their acquittal means nothing and that is the reason Z is crying now. He has messed up his life as well as taking the life of a child.
I'm not saying that either. I don't know who started the fight. There were only two witnesses to that event; and one is dead and the other is the one who killed him. There's evidence to suggest either one of them could have started it, but in reality, no one here can prove which one started it.
I'm also not saying the jury was racist or even wrong. I always believed Zimmerman was overcharged and that he committed manslaughter and not murder.
I also don't believe their acquittal means nothing, though I do maintain the acquittal offers no proof as to who initiated the altercation.
If Zimmerman is willing to work, why isn't he? Probably because it's easier to sponge off his parents than actually find a job.
Unlikely in the Economic Utopia that the Obama Administration has created with their Stimulous Program.
The one part of that I vehemently disagree with is the jury not using their common sense to fill in the gaps. No juror should ever fill in gaps. Every conclusion they reach should be based solely on the evidence presented to them during the trial. If there's a gap, it's not their job to figure out how to fill it.Thats not what he said. If TM had of killed or hurt Z after Z provoked the fight then TM would be in trouble. Z started the fight. All the evidence points to that. The jury was racist against the dangerous Black kid or just easily punked by the racists on the jury. Their acquittal means nothing and that is the reason Z is crying now. He has messed up his life as well as taking the life of a child.
I'm not saying that either. I don't know who started the fight. There were only two witnesses to that event; and one is dead and the other is the one who killed him. There's evidence to suggest either one of them could have started it, but in reality, no one here can prove which one started it.
I'm also not saying the jury was racist or even wrong. I always believed Zimmerman was overcharged and that he committed manslaughter and not murder.
I also don't believe their acquittal means nothing, though I do maintain the acquittal offers no proof as to who initiated the altercation.
The rest is all mine after I said that is not what you said. I think Z started the fight, figured out he bit off more than he could chew, and shot TM. Seeing there is no proof that TM started the fight and that Z disregarded the dispatchers advice I would have to believe Z started it. Where in the jurors minds they saw fit to let him off scott free after shooting a unarmed teen is beyond me. The acquittal means nothing because it does not mean he is innocent. It only means that the prosecution failed to prove their case and the jury did not use common sense to fill in the blanks. I believe one of the jurors even publicly announced that they believed he was guilty.
I heard he was out in public today in Miami and was chased by some folks out to collect a bounty on his head. No restaurant is going to hire him.If Zimmerman is willing to work, why isn't he? Probably because it's easier to sponge off his parents than actually find a job.
Unlikely in the Economic Utopia that the Obama Administration has created with their Stimulous Program.
He even said he'd cook or wash dishes. There's plenty of openings in central Florida for line cooks and dishwashers.
I just don't know if he's go the skill set.
Other notable moments in Zimmerman’s interview, seven months after the trial:
- He says he never realized that Martin was unarmed, but that Martin was clearly trying to grab the gun from him.
- He initially thought that his bullet had missed Martin and potentially struck a neighbor’s house.
- He expresses no regrets about the shooting.
- He has a debt of $2.5 million owed to his lawyers, Mark O’Mara and Don West. He has raised more than $300,000 from online donors and said he hopes to collect additional funds through a lawsuit he’s filed against NBC News over an edited 911 call, which he alleges made him look racist because a question and answer were mixed.
- He says he hasn't collected welfare and will work as a cook if he has to. He’s living off his family for now.
- He blames sensationalized media coverage for making him notorious, saying people recognize him everywhere because “of what the press did with the incident in 2012, in February.”
George Zimmerman says he's homeless and suffers from PTSD - latimes.com
He's living off his family right now. Why? If he can be a cook, go be a cook. What's he waiting for?
And what's the hold up on the NBC/MSNBC court case.
If Zimmerman is willing to work, why isn't he? Probably because it's easier to sponge off his parents than actually find a job.
Unlikely in the Economic Utopia that the Obama Administration has created with their Stimulous Program.
Other notable moments in Zimmermans interview, seven months after the trial:
- He says he never realized that Martin was unarmed, but that Martin was clearly trying to grab the gun from him.
- He initially thought that his bullet had missed Martin and potentially struck a neighbors house.
- He expresses no regrets about the shooting.
- He has a debt of $2.5 million owed to his lawyers, Mark OMara and Don West. He has raised more than $300,000 from online donors and said he hopes to collect additional funds through a lawsuit hes filed against NBC News over an edited 911 call, which he alleges made him look racist because a question and answer were mixed.
- He says he hasn't collected welfare and will work as a cook if he has to. Hes living off his family for now.
- He blames sensationalized media coverage for making him notorious, saying people recognize him everywhere because of what the press did with the incident in 2012, in February.
George Zimmerman says he's homeless and suffers from PTSD - latimes.com
He's living off his family right now. Why? If he can be a cook, go be a cook. What's he waiting for?
And what's the hold up on the NBC/MSNBC court case.
The thing that sticks out here, for me? That he has no regrets.
I can't help but think, were I to find myself in a situation where I was forced to take the life of another no matter how justified, that I would feel some regret at some level. I'd like to think any normal person would, or should.
I don't want to be put in that position, but if it comes down to him or me and mine, I won't hesitate. But I also know myself well enough to know I'f be sick about later...
