Zimmerman was on the ground being punched when he shot Trayvon Martin

Okay, but he was eventually arrested, he wasn't at the time because of conflicting witnesses. Police didn't even handle the Trayvon case the same, there are discrepancies. The man is having his day in court. I see many differences in the two case.

you asked for a specific instance. I gave it to you. the fact that they were handled differently as time went on is irrelevant, especially considering the investigation status. the ONLY reason you're pissed is because the 'killer' wasn't arrested immediately. zimmerman will still probably have to face a jury, yet that won't stop you from whining about it.
 
If deadly force is not required, it is in my opinion. You would shoot without justifiable cause, like Zimmerman.
just because YOU don't agree on what justifiable cause means, does not mean that others are then lawless. as Desh would always say...'YOU don't get to decide'.
 
unlike hollywood, reality demands that you shoot to stop the threat. this is what police and military people are taught. I am former military, it's what I was taught.

Even in the military, you weren't taught to shoot first and ask questions afterwards. There is a concept known as rules of engagement.
 
unlike hollywood, reality demands that you shoot to stop the threat. this is what police and military people are taught. I am former military, it's what I was taught.

Now that you're a civilian, you don't get to shoot first and ask questions later.

And it's ironic that you cite police being trained to shoot to stop threats, and then spend hours crying about it.
 
I wonder if Zimmerman had a "throbbing erection" (sic) from "carassing" (sic) his Kel-Tec?

Or maybe he was drunk...
 
Now that you're a civilian, you don't get to shoot first and ask questions later.
you cannot argue away the use of force to meet a threat just because you don't like killing. I have the RIGHT to use reasonable force to stop harm to myself or others. if someone is swinging at me or hits me, it's reasonable to stop that threat even if it's lethal force.

And it's ironic that you cite police being trained to shoot to stop threats, and then spend hours crying about it.
it's even more ironic that you can't see the inequality of that comparison.
 
I wonder if Zimmerman had a "throbbing erection" (sic) from "carassing" (sic) his Kel-Tec?

Or maybe he was drunk...

I wonder if you're queer and suck the dick, picturing this "throbbing erection" in your sick mind.....or maybe you have a mental disability.....good chance its both...
 
bFmJ6l.jpg


I've waited over two years for one to come to market, be available, and at the right price. Finally I got a good enough deal on one at Christmas time and put the order in. And today I got the call, to go pick up my BRAND NEW KEL TEC RFB!

I have it next to me and a throbbing erection from carrassing it.
.
 
liar. prove your claim like you demand of others.

Sorry...nobody (including you) seems to want to answer my requests for proof, so your request for proof is going to run into the same brick wall you toss up in front of me every time I ask for proof.


:fu:
 
you cannot argue away the use of force to meet a threat just because you don't like killing. I have the RIGHT to use reasonable force to stop harm to myself or others. if someone is swinging at me or hits me, it's reasonable to stop that threat even if it's lethal force.

it's even more ironic that you can't see the inequality of that comparison.

So you think it's "reasonable" to kill someone for THREATENING to hit you...

WOW...just wow!

This world truly is going to hell in a handbasket.
 
did you forget how to read? if someone is swinging at me or hits me, it's reasonable to stop that threat even if it's lethal force.

Not in my opinion, but that is where we differ. I bet Zimmerman now wishes he had run that errand, or had left the gun in the car.
 
Back
Top