Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the irritated people who are still so full of anger.
So, 1 question for the OP. What type of holster was GZ wearing? Was it a IWB (Side, left or right, or tuck in small of back) was it possibly a shoulder holster.
Fat little guy carrying a pistol has an altercation with a faster more agile teenager. Teenager punches the guy out- GZ is knocked backwards - his head bonks on the ground and skids a bit causing a couple of elongated superficial scratches and a small piercing from a pebble. GZ is enraged that some punk just broke his damned nose..GZ gathers himself - gets to his feet. He is totally enraged--so he loses control of himself and shoots Martin.
I really believe it was that simple. The problem was in the charging- Zimmerman gives the police a fairly probable story. His nose is bleeding - so they believe him. The charge should have been involuntary manslaughter. He would have been convicted of that.
Involuntary means he was not in full control and there was no premeditation. He simply lost his temper and USED more force than was needed to protect himself- Once the gun was drawn the altercation was over. This is a classic case of the reverse being true- guns do kill people..If Zimmerman was not packing there would not have been a death.
If Zimmerman was known as a person who could not control his temper - he should have had his gun permit revoked. Gun control dropped the ball here...If someone is known to beat on people because he has an anger problem---then NO GUN FOR YOU law should have been invoked.
you should continue your comedy writing, its most entertaining...
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the irritated people who are still so full of anger.
So, 1 question for the OP. What type of holster was GZ wearing? Was it a IWB (Side, left or right, or tuck in small of back) was it possibly a shoulder holster.
If he had his gun drawn then why would Martin be silly enough to first hit him in the face, and then not take the gun away. That makes zero sense and even fanatical Martin defenders should understand that.
What likely happen is that he got away from that position so he could grab his gun. That wasn't very difficult to explain. Martin defenders, it is time to give up. You should use your time defending real victims.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
