By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Metallicube said:
So all you have to do to get away with murdering some innocent kid in a hoodie is say you "feel threatened" by him?

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.

This man should have listened to the cop who told him NOT TO FOLLOW the kid, and none of this would have happened in the first place.

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.

This kid didn't even have a gun on him. The man did. That should tell you enough right there. How exactly is the man with the gun the one to feel "threatened"?

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.

Man, our justice system is completely fucked...

well yeah, by the mere fact that there even had to be a trial to prove his innocence proves this