Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The murderer made sure of that, didn't he?

Murder? Ok there Rev. Al.

[PMartin37 161]

Murder? Ok there Rev. Al.

If the 9mm fits.....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Murder? Ok there Rev. Al.

In my book, killing an unarmed minor is murder. Simple as that.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Murder? Ok there Rev. Al.

I like how in your world, anyone who could possibly think Zimmerman might be guilty is "Al Sharpton".

Not sure what that says about you.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Evylin

[xebec 195]

If he shot him at 2,3 or 45.678 range, doesn't change the fact that IF he wanted to disable Martin until authorities arrived, he would have aimed at his shoulder, leg, foot, crotch. NOT HIS CHEST. Only one reason to do that.

You are speculating about things you don't understand. You should probably educate yourself a little bit about self-defense with a firearm before posting something like this. You are, in fact, correct on a single point- there is only one reason to shoot into the thoracic or ocular-cranial cavities. That is to stop an attacker. This is what is taught by every firearms trainer. Not some, but every one- from police, to civilian, to military instructors. Nobody with even a basic understanding of these matters would intentionally shoot someone in the leg, arm, or crotch (you do understand that this would be fatal, right? And extremely painful while you were dying from shock and blood loss). The only people who peddle this ####### are those who developed their understanding of firearms use by watching movies.

[Ban Hammer 12,848]

If he shot him at 2,3 or 45.678 range, doesn't change the fact that IF he wanted to disable Martin until authorities arrived, he would have aimed at his shoulder, leg, foot, crotch. NOT HIS CHEST. Only one reason to do that.

yeah, there's only one reason to do that - because it works in hollywood movies.

[xebec 195]

Nevermind....

Edited May 18, 2012 by xebec

[xebec 195]

I like how in your world, anyone who could possibly think Zimmerman might be guilty is "Al Sharpton".

Not sure what that says about you.

The reference is clear. Rev. Al is out there jumping to conclusions about a case that he can't possibly decipher with the facts available to him. So are many here who use terms like "murder." These posters seem to have something in common. They are hoplophobic opportunists, who are jumping on a case that seems perfect to push their agenda. Just like Al. Maybe that agenda is simply to "prove" that they are right about "civilian" gun ownership and/or concealed carry. Just like Al. Maybe the agenda is to "prove" that America is fundamentally racist. Just like Al.

I'm quite sure what that says about you.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

So everyone who thinks Zimmerman was in the wrong has some kind of agenda. Got it.

Zimmerman is no murderer. Murder suggests premeditation. He did kill someone. And I believe he was in the wrong for doing so. I don't care what that says about me, really. It's quite irritating to be told by strangers how I feel about something or why I feel that way. I have no agenda. No desire to be correct about the murder of a young man I didn't know. I think, based on what I've read, that Zimmerman did the wrong thing. That's it, that's all.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Evylin

[PMartin37 161]

You are speculating about things you don't understand. You should probably educate yourself a little bit about self-defense with a firearm before posting something like this. You are, in fact, correct on a single point- there is only one reason to shoot into the thoracic or ocular-cranial cavities. That is to stop an attacker. This is what is taught by every firearms trainer. Not some, but every one- from police, to civilian, to military instructors. Nobody with even a basic understanding of these matters would intentionally shoot someone in the leg, arm, or crotch (you do understand that this would be fatal, right? And extremely painful while you were dying from shock and blood loss). The only people who peddle this ####### are those who developed their understanding of firearms use by watching movies.

Yeah, the crotch part I just threw in because I was being sarcastic. So what you're saying is that aiming for someone's heart, you are simply trying to stop them correct? And they are expected to recover from that correct? You expect a full recovery from an "intermediate rang" chest shot is that correct? If you say yes, then you're peddling some #######.

[xebec 195]

Yeah, the crotch part I just threw in because I was being sarcastic. So what you're saying is that aiming for someone's heart, you are simply trying to stop them correct? And they are expected to recover from that correct? You expect a full recovery from an "intermediate rang" chest shot is that correct? If you say yes, then you're peddling some #######.

Their recovery isn't my problem. If I have to defend myself with a firearm, then stopping the attack is my problem. Like I said, you clearly know nothing about this. Educate yourself if you wish to speak intelligently on the matter.

[PMartin37 161]

The reference is clear. Rev. Al is out there jumping to conclusions about a case that he can't possibly decipher with the facts available to him. So are many here who use terms like "murder." These posters seem to have something in common. They are hoplophobic opportunists, who are jumping on a case that seems perfect to push their agenda. Just like Al. Maybe that agenda is simply to "prove" that they are right about "civilian" gun ownership and/or concealed carry. Just like Al. Maybe the agenda is to "prove" that America is fundamentally racist. Just like Al.

I'm quite sure what that says about you.

I don't even look at this from a race standpoint. I look at it as a case of right and wrong. And Zimmerman was wrong for what he did. Whether it's white on white, white on black, purple on green, whatever. It doesn't matter. And frankly, I don't care if you carry a gun or anyone else. As long as you're responsible and don't think you're freakin Clint Eastwood just because you carry one. The 2nd Amendment is fine with me, guns should be for defense by RESPONSIBLE gun owners. I simply don't believe Zimmerman was responsible by taking the law into his own hands.

Anyway, I'm whiter than you are, so don't give me that Al Sharpton #######.

Edited May 18, 2012 by PMartin37

[xebec 195]

So everyone who thinks Zimmerman was in the wrong has some kind of agenda. Got it.

Glad you got it, because it's pretty clear that people repeatedly posting hyperbole like "murderer" and "innocent teen," when they can't possibly know this to be fact, have a dog in the fight. (no pun intended).

[xebec 195]

I don't even look at this from a race standpoint. I look at it as a case of right and wrong. And Zimmerman was wrong for what he did. Whether it's white on white, white on black, purple on green, whatever. It doesn't matter. And frankly, I don't care if you carry a gun or anyone else. As long as you're responsible and don't think you're freakin Clint Eastwood just because you carry one. The 2nd Amendment is fine with me, guns should be for defense by RESPONSIBLE gun owners. I simply don't believe Zimmerman was responsible by taking the law into his own hands.

Anyway, I'm whiter than you are, so don't give me that Al Sharpton #######.

Yes....I'm quite sure you are "whiter" than I am......whatever that means.

You have no idea whether Zimmerman was wrong. You are emoting, plain and simple.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Yes....I'm quite sure you are "whiter" than I am......whatever that means.

You have no idea whether Zimmerman was wrong. You are emoting, plain and simple.

Same as those who say Zimmerman was right in what he did, that he was simply defending himsel, that Martin was just some young punk who was up to no good.