We'll keep that in mind if someone ever breaks into your home and threatens you at knifepoint. Don't shoot them. That would be bad.

Did Treyvon have a knife?
Because if he did then the gun is justified.
If not then the gun wasn't necessary.
He was 17 years old, zimmerman's like 30. He should be able to beat the **** out of the little **** unless he was getting ganged up on by a bunch of people.

TIL it's not possible to kill someone with your bare hands, even if you attacked them by surprise.

Also, Trayvon was about the same size as Zimmerman.

I didn't say he should've killed the kid, just beat him up.

Where do you get all this information?
I want to read it from the actual source because I don't trust anyone here.
Too many racists or secret racists trying to make it seem like zimmerman did good because he didn't kill the kid out of a racist spite.

trusting people just because they seem trustworthy is generally a bad idea

You can't trust anyone on the internet.
Half the crap they say online would never be said in person because it's either incredibly racist or because they don't have faith in their idea.

Yes.
Damn ************ .

Look at the damned pictures. The dude's head was bashed into the pavement.

Is your argument seriously that when someone gets attacked, you should try not to injure your attacker too much? I don't think anyone gives a **** about the safety of the person that attacked them.

You're doing the same thing all Trayvon supporters have been doing: making it about race, when it wasn't, and trying to evade the fact that Trayvon attacked first.

As for "this information", I've read dozens of articles on this. They were **************** .

No **** sherlock, I know he acted in self defense. He got attacked. Of course he's going to be beat up a bit.
No I didn't say that. It's your right to defend yourself but ****** is still ****** . There should be consequences.
No I am not. I am not making it about race. Are you retarded? I repeat for the millionth ******* time. It's not a racial issue. It's about whether or not this is ****** . **** the ethnic backgrounds. That doesn't prove anything. Yes treyvon attacked first, but the question is if the end justified the means? Did this man have to kill someone? Couldn't the gun have been aimed at the Martin's Leg, stomach, or somewhere that would disable him without it being lethal? I want the facts.
No you didn't read dozens of articles. I bet you simply read the title and took that as the truth then ranted with a bunch of people who argue about how zimmerman is innocent because some stupid black people chose to make it about race. I bet you know just as much as I do and that's nothing.

****** =/= killing someone. ****** is ****** . Self defense is not ****** for the defendant. Death penalty is not ****** for the executioner. Most don't consider deaths in war to be ****** .

"No I am not. I am not making it about race. Are you retarded? I repeat for the millionth ******* time. It's not a racial issue"
And then you say
"Too many racists or secret racists trying to make it seem like zimmerman did good because he didn't kill the kid out of a racist spite."
"Half the crap they say online would never be said in person because it's either incredibly racist "

Are you kidding? You're not making it about race? Are you sure?

You can't blame the defendant for the ********* getting hurt. That's ridiculous. That's truly ridiculous. That's like if a guy was attempting to rape someone, so the victim smashed his nuts with what she had on hand, which was a lamp, which destroyed one of the would-be rapist's testicles. And then you get mad at the victim. That's ******* idiotic.

Oh, ok. I didn't read them. Ok. I'm sure you know better. Solid logic, there.
And again, making it about race by implying anyone supporting Zimmerman is inherently a racist.

I'm done arguing with you you ******* .

I'll make it clear for you though.
I'm not making it about race.
I'm making it about Racism!
As in saying other people are basing their facts and beliefs on the racism.
Like how some people say African American, and that one ******* tells you to just call them black and to stop trying to be politically correct all the time.
Or the idiots who are trying to make ****** an official term for ignorant/ghetto black folk even though that's pretty much it's meaning and you know someone's going to use it to insult the non-ignorant ones.
Most of the arguments in support of zimmerman derive from the fact that blacks are making it about race, so people say he's innocent because it's not about race. Since it's not about race like many say he is innocent. Screw the facts right? He wasn't being racist when he killed the kid. He's innocent.
Now stop your autistic rants, I don't really care about this trial anyway.

"I'm not making it about race.
I'm making it about Racism! "

That is the single stupidest thing I've read all week.

"Like how some people say African American, and that one ******* tells you to just call them black and to stop trying to be politically correct all the time. "

.......you know that a majority of black people in the U.S. are not from Africa, right? They're black americans, not african americans.

"Or the idiots who are trying to make ****** an official term for ignorant/ghetto black folk"

liiiiiiiiiiiiiike........Chris Rock?

"Most of the arguments in support of zimmerman derive from the fact that blacks are making it about race, so people say he's innocent because it's not about race. "

No, most of the arguments in support of Zimmerman use evidence from the case. Nobody in support of Zimmerman is using race as a reason why. Everyone in support of Trayvon IS using race as a reason why.

>is an idiot
>calls someone who makes better arguments autistic instead of making better arguments

Dude, my point is you can't grant someone innocent just because they weren't being racist. A crime is a crime.

I never said they were. I'm saying if you want to call someone who's from african decent you should be allowed to call them african american if you want, not black because he might not be african american.

What about Chris Rock? Did he say this in a joke? Did he say it in real life? Why does his opinion matter on the subject of using the word ****** ? Is it because he's...African American?

I think most arguments in support of him are based on evidence if the supporter is a part of the legal system or followed the case down to every second. Otherwise, they're basing their support on what others are saying even though they're wrong.

>Smarter than you think
>Not better arguments just doing that thing where you nitpick every little thing I missed in my argument as if me not saying that all blacks aren't african american means I'm wrong. Sort of like those people who argue that zimmerman has to be innocent because someone who called him guilty got one meaningless fact wrong.

I know your kind. There's no point in arguing with you because you're just going to nitpick at everything I missed to piss me off because that's the only way you win at debates.

Thought you were done talking to me because I'm autistic or some **** ?

He was granted innocence for being found not guilty, not for not being a racist. Guilt and innocence are not dictated by racist or not-racist. There are other things. You know. Like evidence.

You ARE allowed to call them african american. That's valid. It's just not necessary. Black american is equally correct.

The thing you described was pretty much explicitly a comedy bit by Chris Rock. You're calling him one of 'the idiots".

"I think most arguments in support of him are based on evidence if the supporter is a part of the legal system or followed the case down to every second. "
What you have literally just said is that anyone who actually followed every part of the case would find him not guilty.

I'm not nitpicking. I'm refuting each and every part of your statements, piece by piece.

You're still arguing, and you're still mad. How's that going for you?

There you go nitpicking even further.
No one cares about the case's ending, we're interested if it was the right call or no.
Yes I know evidence exists.
Yes I know both are correct.
Yes, a comedy bit by a comedian saying ******** a term, he must be so right and be serious.
Yes I did said that. Good for you for noticing that.
Yes you are. Nitpicking. Refuting means you're proving me wrong. You are not. You're just pointing out all the trivial flaws in my statements.
I'm not even mad.
It's going well.
I like talking to brilliant people like you.
If it weren't for you I wouldn't know what I just said. Or not know what I didn't say.
You're so smart.

"Yes you are. Nitpicking. Refuting means you're proving me wrong. You are not. You're just pointing out all the trivial flaws in my statements."

When your entire argument is trivial flaws, it's very easy to refute.

We've now graduated from anger to condescending sarcastic compliments. Oh goodness, I've never gotten any of those before.

You really are something special.
Can recognize that I missed some points but can't tell that you're being a know it all **** .
My god you sure do like narrating what's happening.
Are you morgan freeman?

So now we're 100% ad hominem. Not even gonna try to talk about the case any more.

I appreciate all your downvotes. The won't stick for long.

Because there's better people down below who have explained the case instead of nitpicking, so I know what I need to know and feel like justice was served.

I'm not downvoting you.
I got better things to do.
But if it makes you feel so bad, I'll thumb you up.

COMMENT TRAIN CHOO CHOO

We already have our jails filling up and you want to put more people in jail for defending themselves?

Read my comment below.

Though the fact that prisons aren't too full isn't my concerned.
The government needs to fix that by making it so that less people go to jail(Being more easy on the men who committed a small theft, sold/used drugs, and not imprisoning what may be innocent people).

And I'm not going to discuss why he's innocent and shouldn't go to jail.
He killed someone.
Isn't that all that matters?
If anything he should get some community service or something.

Well I didn't hear anything about the kid having a weapon.
If he was armed, then I guess he was right.
But if the kid was just throwing punches he should've just punched back.

They have these kind of rules for police officers.
They can't pull out a gun if he's throwing punches.
At best only a taser gun.

I don't really care one way or another about the Zimmerman verdict but your argument is flawed. Police officers are trained to use a chain of escalation when dealing with an ********* and responding with proper force is part of their job. Civilians have no such training and therefore are not obligated to respond based on it.

If someone is ********** you then you are pretty much suppose to ****** they are trying to kill you. All it would take is one good hit to knock someone to the ground and allow the attacker to kick them in the head until their skull caves in. Not everyone is honorable enough to stop when the fight is clearly over like you seem to be ******** .

I didn't consider that.

Though I'm still left wondering if Zimmerman had no choice but to kill the guy.
I know the verdict has been made, he's legally innocent.
But I wonder if he had a chance to just disable the kid by shooting him in the knee or somewhere non-lethal, but chose to shoot to kill.
Then I would know if he was acting in self defense or if he chose to kill him.

You try aiming in a scuffle. The forensic pathologist even said that the way the bullet went through the shirt and even into Trayvon that he had to have been hunched over Zimmerman. You try aimiing at someone's kneecap when someone is directly on top of you bashing your head in.

I did not know that.
So I guess zimmerman had no choice and shot what he could get.
Thank you Bjorntheberserk.
The one person who explained it to me and now I know he's pretty much innocent.

Though i still feel there should be some sort of punishment for killing a person.
I'm not demanding everyone feel that way, I just have that kind of moral thought.