|
Metallicube said: no you have to prove you were acting in self defense, which by definition makes trayvon not an "inncocent kid". nevermind the fact that he wasnt really a kid or that innocent. he was 17, and led the life of a thug gangster. none of this would have happened if trayvon hadnt attacked zimmerman, breaking his nose and smashing his skull into pavement. but then again assaulting someone is a crime, following someone isnt. oh, wait that proves my point even further. nevermind the fact that you dont need a gun to kill someone. more people are killed by fists (like the ones martin was using to beat zimmerman with) than by scary "assault rifles" (note: i know he used a pistol). but i guess by your logic, the likes of ted bundy, and jeffrey duhmer arent really murderers. well yeah, by the mere fact that there even had to be a trial to prove his innocence proves this |







