Friday, July 12, 2013

George Zimmerman Explodes the NRA Fantasy of the Armed Citizen

 Huffington Post

Zimmerman says that Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun. Since no one is claiming Martin set out that evening for anything other than Skittles and an iced tea -- certainly not to kill someone he'd never met before -- even if we believe Zimmerman's story, that story tells us that the presence of a gun helped turn a fist fight into a killing. Without the gun, the encounter might never have happened, since Zimmerman would have been a pistol's-worth less confident about getting out of his car and following Martin.

26 comments:

  1. NRA hero Zimmerman also explodes the myth that a gun always magically protects someone.

    If we make the false assumption that Trayvon Martin set out that fateful evening to cause crime and mayhem---why on earth would he attack someone carrying a gun?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The gun was concealed. Zimmerman was in his own neighborhood where he had a right to be. Martin doubled back and started the physical confrontation that led to Zimmerman having his head slammed into the concrete. These facts explode nothing other than the idea that Martin was an innocent boy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He didn't have his "head slammed into concrete." It was proven in the courtroom the damage was not consistent with that exaggerated bullshit.

      Delete
    2. Once again, you confuse a claim with proof.

      Delete
  3. Jadegold,

    In Florida, the firearm is required to be concealed. In fact, if he were to intentionally display it in a threatening manner he could have been charged. Plus, many in the gun control industry though they actively dislike, get the vapors in a big way at the concept of open carry.
    Guns are not magic, however there has been a study or two that have shown that victims of assault are less likely to sustain injury if armed. If we believe Martins story as you suggest, Zimmerman was knocked to the ground, his nose broken and his head was being slammed into the concrete. Is a victim of assault required to engage in a "fair" fight when attacked?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and there have been studies that show guys with guns are more likely to instigate a fight.

      Delete
  4. Those in the "gun control" movement "get the vapors" over open carry for very good reason. The guys with the guns are not as safe as they say they are. Without that gun that night, there would have been a fight but no one would have died. Without the gun, Zimmerman would likely not have approached Trayvon Martin. The gun made him bolder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having your head slammed into the concrete by someone sitting on you being a safe and enjoyable activity, right?

      Delete
  5. Where was the blood on the concrete? There was none. The rules of being a neighborhood watch person, is to report, not follow, not confront, call the police. He was told not to follow Martin, but he did. If he was so afraid of Martin, why did he get out of his car follow and confront him? Once he shot Martin, why did he not call for an ambulance? If he shot Martin face up with his arms stretched out, how come a photo taken by a neighbor just seconds later showed Martin face down with his arms under his body? He gets straight A's in a "Florida stand your ground" class, but tells Hannity he never heard of a "stand your ground" law. Were there any calls by neighbors that Martin was window peeping, casing apartments, doing suspicious actions? Where was the blood on Martins hands? There must have been Zimmerman's blood on Martin, if Zimmerman's account is real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right. GZ was a lying wannabe cop with a vigilante mentality, extremely prejudiced against black "punks." He should go to prison for a long time and the rest of the tough-guy gun owners should learn a lesson for it.

      Delete
    2. The only lesson here is a dangerous one: Don't get involved. Don't stand up for a civil society. Let thugs do as they please.

      Delete
    3. "Let thugs do as they please?" You mean like walking home?

      Delete
    4. Texas Colt carryJuly 22, 2013 at 7:15 PM

      "Where was the blood on the concrete? There was none."

      This one made me laugh so hard I blew coffee everywhere.

      I have seen gallons of blood on concrete, the funny thing is when water is running, none of it sticks and washes straight away. It was raining that night after all so seeing either Zimmerman's blood or Trayvon's on the concrete would have been impossible. Most would even wash away from the wounds as well.

      "Let thugs do as they please?" You mean like walking home?

      Mike, really? Trayvon wouldn't be a thug if all he had done was just go on home. He became a man when he decided to take on another adult (the reason the judge wouldn't allow a child abuse charge) and became a thug in the fashion he made the confrontation. After the testimony given by his girl friend, she goaded him on. In my view she is just as responsible for his death as he himself was. She agitated him, and him being stupid and young acted on himself feeling invincible.

      I was 17 once too, a LONG time ago, and still remember what it was like. And yeah, was easily dared into stunts I would never try today, or even at 20 back then. Sometimes I am surprised that I am still alive, being able to live past 17.

      During the ages of 15, 16, 17, hell, even in the early part of 18 I started that realize that I was allergic to PAIN! You know pain HURTS! I started to do things that avoid that allergic reaction to pain. Like not being stupid and dared and goaded into doing things that caused pain.

      Pain is NOT good, unless your some sort of sadistic bastard.

      Delete
  6. "Martin doubled back and started the physical confrontation that led to Zimmerman having his head slammed into the concrete. These facts explode nothing other than the idea that Martin was an innocent boy."

    These are not facts, they are Zimmerman's account, that changed many times. Zimmerman never took the stand to testify, why? If he's so innocent why not testify? What's he afraid of? Please point out the factual evidence under sworn testimony, that proves your account as stated above. There is none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read the testimony. My point is that there's plenty of reasonable doubt. No person is required to testify in his own defense, and inferring anything from his choice not to testify shows a lack of understanding of how trials work.

      Delete
    2. Maybe you can explain the taped call that Zimmerman made to the police. You have Zimmerman leaving his car to pursuit Martin for maybe 10 or 15 seconds, then the dispatcher recognizing what was going on and asking "are you following him", followed by "we don't need you to do that". And then (here comes the big exculpatory evidence), Zimmerman says "ok" and the pursuit stops. He goes on for 90 seconds talking to the dispatcher about where to meet the police, and says he doesn't know where Martin is. He is clearly not chasing down a (obviously faster) kid who is running for his life. What other explaination do you have other than Martin doubling back and initiating the confrontation? Mike, can't seem to even address this, maybe you can?

      Delete
    3. I watched every minute (sad) of the trial. There is no testimony that supports your account. I know you want this killer to get off, but at least use sworn testimony to make your case, not made up garbage.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous, did you read what TS gave you? That's part of the total body of evidence that establishes reasonable doubt.

      Delete
    5. There was no reasonable doubt about the manslaughter charge, but the all-white jury still said "not guilty."

      It's deju vu all over again (O.J.).

      Delete
    6. I've said before, O.J. received the correct verdict in both his trials. The criminal case was badly investigated and badly managed. Zimmerman's case was one of political pressure causing a trial that should never have happened in the first place.

      Delete
    7. Anon says, "These are not facts, they are Zimmerman's account, that changed many times."

      Really? Where did you get that info? In fact the officers and investigators involved in the first place testified that his story remained unchanged from the time he was questioned (he waived his right to representation) about the incident from the beginning of the trial to the end leading to his acquittal. His testimony never changed. His testimony was also supported by both physical evidence and witness accounts. Also a defendant is never required to testify in his own behalf. His testimony was already presented in the forms of the 911 recording, recordings at the police station and recorded interviews. He had already testified in his own behalf.

      Something else about this as well, when he was told the his interview was recorded at the police station his reaction was "Oh THANK GOD" with a very relieved expression on his face.

      Delete
    8. Remember when GZ didn't know what SYG was? Hahahahahahaha. That was pretty funny. While still pumped from the manslaughter his little brain was calculating a million miles a minute and it figured it's better for him if he knew nothing about SYG.

      That's the guy you keep defending and identifying with.

      Delete
    9. I still want to know about his story changing, I have went over the police recordings to the court recordings. What story changed? If your going to make that claim, back it up.

      Delete
  7. "NRA hero Zimmerman also explodes the myth that a gun always magically protects someone."

    Looks like it worked just right, it killed the drug addled thug TM real good just like it was supposed to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Drug-addled thug," because he had trace amounts of pot in his system?

      You sound like a real genius.

      Delete
  8. This genius saw "NOT GUILTY!!!!" a mile away..... and thay all she wrote...

    ReplyDelete