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.
And? The guy punched him in the face. Did the guy who got punched have any way of knowing that the guy who did the punching wasn't going to beat him to a bloody pulp, or stab him, or shoot him? Nope. The guy did what anyone would do when attacked, he defended himself. If someone decides to attack another individual the individual being attacked has every right to defend himself ... be it with their fists, a pipe, a knife, a gun, etc. Don't want to get punched, or whacked with a pipe, or stabbed or shot? Don't attack other people with your body or anything else.
"The guy did what anyone would do when attacked..."
I don't believe so.
1. The station was closed....he could have ignored the customer
2. The opened the locked door, and engaged in in the verbal dispute
3. The punch had very limited effect
4. If the attack had continued, or a deadly weapon used, the use of the gun would have been appropriate. Not here.
5. "anyone" would not have behave so....and I can prove it.
Licensed gun owners try to avoid the use of the gun....
"In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker."
Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
and
But violent crimes have been rare among carrying a concealed weapon license holders. Only 2% of license holders have been sanctioned for any kind of misbehavior, State Police records show.
Guns Don?t Kill People; Dangerous Minorities Do ? The Detroit Edition | Stuff Black People Don't Like 2.0
So...if you and I were on a jury and the charges were based on the vid, our votes would, it seems, be very different.
If I were on the jury I'd be seeing a whole lot more evidence from both sides about the case. Where's the rest of the surveillance vid? How did you get all that info from just watching the vid?
You cut my sentence. "The guy did what anyone would do when attacked..." You stopped there. What he did was to defend himself.Yes, someone who gets attacked will try to defend themselves. Many different ways to do that, not just with a gun."anyone" would not have behave so....and I can prove it.
The clerk had been held up and shot in the previous year. He got punched by an obviously angry guy so he defended himself and didn't take the chance on being shot again. Unfortunately for the attacker the guy's choice of self defense was a gun.
So, lets say for some odd reason Zimmerman does not pull the gun and shoot, gets pummeled, and suffers serious injury at the hands of the 17 year old, do you still defend Trayvon?
What would you do if some scary, creepy guy was following you in a dark area where no one was around? If I could, yes, I'd attack him and beat the shit out of him. I'm a woman and if a would be rapist were following me in a dark area and I'm alone, and I had a chance, I'd rip the guy to shreds. I used to run and took a big dog with me. If any guy had bothered me or scared me like that, I'd have sent the dog on him w/o hesitation, and if the dog chewed him to bits, I'd be happy about it. People keep saying there is no law against following anyone. They have apparently not been followed at night in a deserted area: let me tell you, it scares the shit out of you; your heart pounds like it's going to break through your ribcage; it's terrifying. I don't at all fault someone for attacking a would be rapist or any other kind of would be attacker. No one has the right to put fear and terror in someone the way some scary, creepy ass whatever would do if he were following you around at night in a dark deserted area. He deserves to have the shit beat out of him. Why the hell didn't Zimmerman simply identify himself as Neighborhood Watch?????????
So, lets say for some odd reason Zimmerman does not pull the gun and shoot, gets pummeled, and suffers serious injury at the hands of the 17 year old, do you still defend Trayvon?
What would you do if some scary, creepy guy was following you in a dark area where no one was around? If I could, yes, I'd attack him and beat the shit out of him. I'm a woman and if a would be rapist were following me in a dark area and I'm alone, and I had a chance, I'd rip the guy to shreds. I used to run and took a big dog with me. If any guy had bothered me or scared me like that, I'd have sent the dog on him w/o hesitation, and if the dog chewed him to bits, I'd be happy about it. People keep saying there is no law against following anyone. They have apparently not been followed at night in a deserted area: let me tell you, it scares the shit out of you; your heart pounds like it's going to break through your ribcage; it's terrifying. I don't at all fault someone for attacking a would be rapist or any other kind of would be attacker. No one has the right to put fear and terror in someone the way some scary, creepy ass whatever would do if he were following you around at night in a dark deserted area. He deserves to have the shit beat out of him. Why the hell didn't Zimmerman simply identify himself as Neighborhood Watch?????????
Exactly! The whole verdict doesn't speak well for going out at night.
They say that it's normal for someone to follow you and come up to you to ask questions at night. How many people are going to capitalize on that and use it as a modus operandi to rob people or like you say rape them?
If that is normal and you are expected to wait to see the intentions of someone that has flagged you down at night, by the time you stand there supposedly trying your best to explain YOURSELF, they could have stabbed you, grabbed you, or done just about anything.
What would you do if some scary, creepy guy was following you in a dark area where no one was around? If I could, yes, I'd attack him and beat the shit out of him. I'm a woman and if a would be rapist were following me in a dark area and I'm alone, and I had a chance, I'd rip the guy to shreds. I used to run and took a big dog with me. If any guy had bothered me or scared me like that, I'd have sent the dog on him w/o hesitation, and if the dog chewed him to bits, I'd be happy about it. People keep saying there is no law against following anyone. They have apparently not been followed at night in a deserted area: let me tell you, it scares the shit out of you; your heart pounds like it's going to break through your ribcage; it's terrifying. I don't at all fault someone for attacking a would be rapist or any other kind of would be attacker. No one has the right to put fear and terror in someone the way some scary, creepy ass whatever would do if he were following you around at night in a dark deserted area. He deserves to have the shit beat out of him. Why the hell didn't Zimmerman simply identify himself as Neighborhood Watch?????????
Exactly! The whole verdict doesn't speak well for going out at night.
They say that it's normal for someone to follow you and come up to you to ask questions at night. How many people are going to capitalize on that and use it as a modus operandi to rob people or like you say rape them?
If that is normal and you are expected to wait to see the intentions of someone that has flagged you down at night, by the time you stand there supposedly trying your best to explain YOURSELF, they could have stabbed you, grabbed you, or done just about anything.
You do realize that nothing in the above posts has anything to do with facts in the Zimmerman case, correct?
Just asking since it seems that's what Pop started with but it ended up about some other scary, threatening, deserted area, rape scenario.
What the neighborhood watch captain in my area told me was this: "A good neighborhood watch captain would get to know the residents of his neighborhood and would have rolled down the window and offered the kid a ride home, that way you make a connection, you can store his face in your memory for future reference, and you find out where he lives".
GZ apparently didn't think to do ANY of those things, along with not even bothering to help revive the kid once he shot him.
What's frightening about this verdict is that it allows for someone to follow GZ, pick a fight with him, and then kill him, and as long as that person has a good story they made up, they'll get off scott-free, too, because murder is state-sanctioned in America now, and oddly enough, the small government people are the ones cheering it! Go fucking figure...
You are forgetting that there actually needs to be evidence that it wasn't self defence. Innocent untill proven guilty!
All the liberals are now acting as if you can just go out the street, kill bunch of people and be all ok. Well, that has ALWAYS been the case if there is no evidence! And in Zimmerman case there wasn't.
The State does not have to prove the absence of self defense. Self defense is what as know as an affirmative defense which means the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. It is the defendant who must prove he acted in self defense. The interesting thing about the Zimmerman case is that he was able to prove self defense without even taking the stand. The prosecution played the tape of his interviews with police, in fact they played it twice. All the information the defense needed to prove self defense was on those tapes so Zimmerman didnt have to testify. This is the first time I have heard of anyone proving self defense without testifying. Many legal experts criticized the prosecution for playing the tapes. Most prosecutors salivate over the idea of cross-examining a defendant and the Zimmerman prosecutors blew their chance.
To continue to persecute Zimmerman is a violation of his civil rights.
To continue to persecute Zimmerman because Trayvon Martin happened to be black, is racist.
And note he didn't say a thing about BOTH men's lives destroyed.More divisive bullshit whose sole intent is to take the attention away from him and place it somewhere else. Nobody wants to talk about Syria or the NSA when they've got a dead punk and a Hispanic guy to concern themselves with.
Cowards don't deserve to shoot first and ask questions later.
Zimmerman could have put up with a lot more than a couple of 1 cm cuts to his head and a broken nose before he took out a gun and put it in that kid's chest.
He KNEW when he pulled the trigger that he was killing somebody. He knew it.
If T.M. had brandished a knife or similar weapon and Zimmerman saw that before the fight, you could say he had a reason to use a gun. Otherwise, he's just the fat-faced pussy we saw on television for three weeks, lying his ass off to the court.
I don't want to confuse you with the actual facts, but Zimmerman got out of the car because he lost sight of him in the rain. He got out to see where he was, not to confront him. Then he was attacked and thrown to the ground and had his head pounded into the ground. The only witness saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman. But you go on believing whatever fairytale helps you sleep at night.
He didn't need to get out of the car. He didn't need to call the police. That's the point that critics of Zimmerman are trying to make. The right looks at this case and sees nothing wrong with the call to the cops at all, the left sees it as the first among many stupid, racist decisions by dumb-butt Zimmerman, self-appointed, real American hero.
Dear stupid Conservatives, black kids walking down your street are not worthy of a call to the police. And to expect deference from them when confronted by you is an absurd expectation. They will stand their ground against you.
Whether George Zimmerman needed or didn't need to do something is none of your business.
We don't need a NATIONAL "Justice for George Zimmerman" Day.
Thankfully, every once in a while, despite the best efforts of the race hustlers and the liberal media, our system of justice still manages to work.
He was acquitted. As he should have been. George Zimmerman GOT justice to that extent.
What happened to Trayvon may have been tragic, but it was not an injustice. What Zimmerman is facing (threats of violence, etc) IS unjust.
If Zimmerman didn't have a gun that night, he wouldn't have followed Martin.
That gun made him feel like a hot shot, tough guy, trigger happy Enforcer.
We don't need a NATIONAL "Justice for George Zimmerman" Day.
Thankfully, every once in a while, despite the best efforts of the race hustlers and the liberal media, our system of justice still manages to work.
He was acquitted. As he should have been. George Zimmerman GOT justice to that extent.
What happened to Trayvon may have been tragic, but it was not an injustice. What Zimmerman is facing (threats of violence, etc) IS unjust.
And that should be the mantra of freedom loving people everywhere. If we do not respect the rule of law; if we do not respect the jury system, then there can be no rule of law and no system of justice.
George Zimmerman was indicted, tried, and found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Whether or not he should have been indicted or what the circumstances were is now moot. He was indicted. He was tried. And he was found not guilty. And that should be the end of it for everybody including our government and the race baiters who have the unmitigated gall to call themselves 'civil rights leaders'.
Heaven help us if this is the new normal. If the government or the mob mentality can continue to savage somebody after the due process of law has been concluded, then none of us are safe. And there is no more unalientable right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness as it was understood in the Declaration of Independence.
To continue to persecute George Zimmerman now is to violate his civil and unalienable rights.
To continue to persecute George Zimmerman because Trayvon Martin was black is racist.
If Zimmerman didn't have a gun that night, he wouldn't have followed Martin.
That gun made him feel like a hot shot, tough guy, trigger happy Enforcer.
Werd. What Zimmerman lovers always want to ignore and never argue against is that he followed WITH A gun. Even when I have said in this thread, they want to ignore this, they further ignore it. Why would you want to defend someone that follows another person with a gun?
Trayvon Martin didn't need to attack him either. That's what led to his death.
Yes, he did. He was being followed by an armed man. He had a right to protect himself from Zimmerman's aggression.
Merely following someone is not an aggressive act. No one has the right to attack someone because they are being followed. Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman, beat him, broke his nose and lacerated his head. That's aggression. That was the last act and Martin the last actor that could have prevented the shooting.
Martin thought he could beat someone up because he didn't know that Zimmerman was armed. The person randomly chosen by Trayvon Martin could have been anyone. Following someone is not now, nor has it ever been grounds for assault and battery.
Yes, he did. He was being followed by an armed man. He had a right to protect himself from Zimmerman's aggression.
Merely following someone is not an aggressive act. No one has the right to attack someone because they are being followed. Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman, beat him, broke his nose and lacerated his head. That's aggression. That was the last act and Martin the last actor that could have prevented the shooting.
Martin thought he could beat someone up because he didn't know that Zimmerman was armed. The person randomly chosen by Trayvon Martin could have been anyone. Following someone is not now, nor has it ever been grounds for assault and battery.
And nobody has the right to shoot someone point-blank dead, unless their life had really been in danger. A few scratches and a barely broken nose isn't any proof, especially when Zimmerman refused medical attention.
