Are you suggesting that he is in the situation he is in because of the choices he has made?!? ... Impossible; he must be the victim of "The Man", or his lot in life, or any one of the other excuses you give others.
I don't think he made the terrible mistake of purchasing skittles and cutting through people's lawns. I'm sure like the last two incidents, this will be a story of a man with anger issues and some sort of "Judge Dredd" complex who tried to force his will upon someone else and it backfiring.
Yeah, showing him with a grill would've made all the difference. People with grills deserve to be shot as they demonstrate criminal proclivities.
I think what made the difference was when Trevon got on top of Zimmerman and pounded his head into the ground. I'm not sure if he had a grill when he did it.
The difference was when Zimmerman wasn't minding his own damn business and then created a conflict which he concluded by shooting an unarmed kid. Zimmerman created, escalated and violently ended the situation, yet, it is somehow Martin's fault?
Horseshit. The fact that Zimmerman is proving to be a verifiable piece of shit wannabe-Barney Fife should further cement the fact that he was in the wrong that night by any estimation, including the facts and details of the case. You have to create a really small window for Martin to, somehow, be in the wrong for minding his own business right by his own ****ing house and defending himself against some strange, gun toting dipshit who randomly confronts him at night.
His injuries are not consistent with what you just claimed, and the majority of witnesses did not offer an account consistent with what you just claimed. You're saying things that are not supported by the facts. You don't get scrapes and superficial cuts on your head from it being "pounded" into the ground. You get fractures and concussions. You lose consciousness. That isn't what happened, clearly.
The guy didn't even have any bruising on the back of his head. How can people think his head was "pounded into the ground?" Do we need to get some watermelons out and see what sort of marks are left from pounding them into the ground?
1) you don't know his nose was broken. I don't care if it was, but I just want to point out how often people are stating things as facts that aren't supported. 2) You don't get black eyes from getting your head pounded into cement. You don't get them while being ambushed from behind either, which is Zimmerman's story.
Did Martin knock Zimmerman to the ground, then climb on top of his chest? That is where Martin crossed the line from defending himself, which I agree 100% with Martin to this point, to being a person trying to inflict serious bodily harm. What is the point of punching a person in the face, knocking him to the ground, then mounting him? The reason to mount him is to inflict serious bodily harm. Martin was not defending himself from a guy laying on the ground.
