Facts in evidence: Zimmerman was getting his head bashed

The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy, I just can not imagine the sorrow within the Martin family. That said, I’m disappointed – to say the least – at the media, many Hollywood actors, sport stars and other supporters of Martin who are completely ignoring the fact Zimmerman was getting beat up.

In no way, shape or form was this case ever about the stand your ground law in Florida. This was 100 percent a self-defense case. Why in the world are supposedly smart adults – like New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg – suggesting we must now take a serious look at the stand your ground laws in various states?

“Sadly, all the facts in this tragic case will probably never be known,” Bloomberg said in a statement. But one fact has long been crystal clear: ‘shoot-first’ laws like those in Florida can inspire dangerous vigilantism and protect those who act recklessly with guns. Such laws – drafted by gun lobby extremists in Washington – encourage deadly confrontations by enabling people to shoot first and argue ‘justifiable homicide’ later.”

Nowhere in his statement does Bloomberg mention Zimmerman’s injuries, and to ignore those injuries – which are undisputed facts – is immoral and slanderous. I can not understand why people are ignoring these injuries when blows to the head can be deadly.

If someone took a baseball hat to Bloomberg’s head, would his security detail be justified in shooting the attacker? If Martin was banging Zimmerman’s head against a concrete sidewalk, does Zimmerman have the right to self-defense? Does he have the right to stop the threat? Certainly if Martin was slapping Zimmerman with an open hand, shooting would not be an acceptable level of defensive, but he wasn’t slapping him, evidence and witnesses – not just Zimmerman – indicate Martin was beating on him. All of the offensive injuries except the gun shot were on Zimmerman. Martin’s knuckles were injured as shown in evidence … the autopsy.

If you don’t think Zimmerman’s injuries justified shooting Martin to stop the threat, at what point do you think it would have been acceptable for Zimmerman to shoot if the attack continued? We have a broken, bloody nose and evidence showing blows to the head. At what point – if ever – would you feel justified making the attempt to stop the threat?

In early May, a soccer referee was punched by a 17-year old player and crumbled to the ground. With no visual injuries he was brought to the hospital and quickly went into a coma and died within a week. That was a closed-fist punch, just imagine what two blows to the head against a concrete sidewalk can do to someone.

We hear reports of baseballs killing people. Concussions killing people. Again, why is the media and fools like Bloomberg ignoring this?

I’m not saying I know Zimmerman’s injuries showed he was close to death and if he didn’t attempt to stop the threat he would die. I have no idea. Zimmerman states he believed his life was in danger, and his injuries certainly indicate this is a possibility. Do we ignore his statement and injuries?

You can try to blame Zimmerman for following Martin, but Zimmerman called the non-emergency police line before and while he was following Martin. Evidence suggests, Zimmerman STOPPED following Martin after the police dispatcher suggested “you don’t need” to follow Martin.

What it comes down to is this … after hearing weeks of testimony, the jury did not think Zimmerman committed either second degree murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt. For those of you who think he should be convicted, how could you justify either charge? Honestly, this case never should have gone to trial, but it did … and justice was done.

The woman on TV last night telling Geraldo the case proves “we have an injustice system” is not right in the head.

Although not part of the court decision, you have to understand the jury felt Zimmerman felt his life was being threatened at the time and he had to make a terrible decision. Put his faith in God or blind luck that Martin would stop beating him, die, or fight. After at least two blows to the head on hard concrete, I could completely understand Zimmerman thought his life was in immediate danger and he was about to die if he didn’t do something.

To sum up again, this case had nothing to do with stand your ground laws and everything to do with self defense. If you hear anyone start talking about “fixing” the stand your ground laws because of this case, they need to have their head examined.

13 replies
  1. Eric
    Eric says:

    Facts don’t mean much to liberals. ?Their concern is on the big picture, and that only. ?So what if Mr. Zimmerman is innocent. ?Wouldn’t it LOOK great to the rest of the world if we WHITE PEOPLE here in the states tossed another WHITE (latino) man in jail for “stalking and then brutally murdering a poor, defenseless BLACK youngster.” ?This makes for great copy but none of it’s true. ? I’d make a really lousy liberal. ?Facts do mean a lot to me, and especially when someone’s life is on the line. ?The fact that Martin was a fighter, a real aggressive guy who liked to fight, is something not to be overlooked or taken casually. ?For one reason or another he had a chip on his shoulder? and it was clearly a racist chip if one is to believe his “girlfriend’s” allegations. ?George Zimmerman on the other hand is quite plainly not a fighter. ?Yes he carried a gun for self defense, which is allowed by law in every state in this country, so long as one is properly licensed to do so? as Mr. Zimmerman was! ?Zimmerman didn’t want to use his gun though. ?I don’t know anyone who carries a concealed weapon who is looking for an excuse to shoot someone with it? in spite of what all those anti-2nd amendment types ?are trying to sell…

    • ricbee
      ricbee says:

      I’ll write it again that young S O B would’ve got near enough to touch me before I put a hole in him.

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Anyone who kept up with the trial, and knew the facts, could not reach any other conclusion than GZ was getting his head bashed in, and TM was the guy on top of him doing it.
    My only surprise was that it took the jury as long as it did to come up with their verdict, but I am sure all the riot talk made them double check everything.? I hope they can stay anonymous, but I doubt it.

  3. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    In America, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Zimmerman never had a chance with the MSM, they tampered with the 911 tape and the pictures that showed Martin as a tween instead of a grown man was ludicrous. Despite all of this, a jury listened to all of the evidence, deliberated and came to a decision. Justice prevailed.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      The media was complicit in as far as keeping the facts from the low information crowd was concerned. ?Al Sharpton did the same thing. ?Instead of keeping people informed he did his best to foment anger, hostility, all the motivating factors needed to create chaos. The BEST thing that could happen to black America is throwing their race-baiting “leadership” under the bus and join the rest of us in being the best non-hyphenated Americans we can be. ?These professional race-baiters do not want harmony between the black community and anyone else! ?That would take away their power, and the only thing that matters to these guys is power? and money. ?They do NOT want good race relations. ?

  4. bien-pensant
    bien-pensant says:

    This whole thing has been forced to be seen as a racial incident, promoted by the media, produced by the media, and the liberals desperately want it to fit their narrative. The jury deliberated and found GZ innocent. Deal with it. But, no. Now the whining and gnashing of teeth, wailing for justice and threats of riot are all the liberals have to say. Nothing about reality.
    If this had been in Chicago, would the media have promoted this as a racial incident? What was the casualty count for Cook County just over the weekend?
    This is not over.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      You’re not a racist. ?There’s for certain a double standard in the criminal justice system where race is perceived to be a factor. ?In this country, the media determines who will hang and who will not. ?It shouldn’t be that way but this is how our present DOJ operates. ?Eric Holder is doing his bosses bidding, and when Barry says jump? he jumps! ?Black on black crime is ignored for the most part. ?You’ll never see the media break a sweat on this one. ?Black on white crime is almost excused. ?That’s because white Americans have it coming in most cases. ?But white on black crime? ?Hold onto your hats folks, ’cause this one’s gonna’ be BIG. ?Anytime a white person becomes the perp in a white on black confrontation he is immediately at fault, regardless of what the facts are. ?Look at what the press did to George Zimmerman. ?They called him white because he wasn’t black. ?I know? go figure. ?But the press colluded with each other in “developing” the case against Zimmerman? and they made the case airtight. ?They’re as bad as that clown we call a president right now.

  5. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    And now there are riots coast to coast. In Oakland mobs closed down both directions of a major highway, smashed storefronts, and attacked a white reporter because he wasn’t supposed to be there… ?And the post-racial uniter-in-chief doesn’t say a word while Eric Holder race baits? ?And the media draws no judgement…

  6. Flossie Mae
    Flossie Mae says:

    I would be very interested in what our president’s or even the media’s views on the?Roderick Scott ?case are.?
    If they don’t accept the verdict in the Zimmerman case…..shouldn’t this case be revisited as well?
    <span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;…

Comments are closed.