rob. That article was bullshit. info-wars has devolved into pro-gun propaganda, you can't really read that tripe anymore. Besides of which, didn't you catch this in the article?
Quote:
|
Oh, and Roderick Scott was a 42 year old black man about the size of an NFL linebacker. Christopher Cervini was a skinny, 17 year old white kid with a little bit of marijuana in his system. Scott was justified in the killing of the younger man not because of the crime that Cervini had committed, but because Scott rightfully feared for his own safety.
|
That dude was scared for his safety? Bullshit. That dude was pissed off about his car, and went down there to handle business. That skinny white kid was going to "attack" that big dude? That big ass dude couldn't defend himself without the gun against some skinny white kids?? That, again, is a rather stretched definition of self-defense..
I will reiterate it a final time. If y'all can't see how shooting an unarmed black teenager doesn't pass the smell test in Northern Florida, then y'all are denser than a neutron star, and all I can do is pray for your eternal souls
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
law-abiding individuals have the right to self-defense and that should have been the end of the discussion.
thanks for posting that!
|
The over-arching problem here is that too many people have a distorted, warped, or even dangerous interpretation of "self-defense", so Trayvon wasn't law-abiding was he? So Zimmerman was totally following the law for confronting an unarmed young man for no reason other then empty suspicions and insinuated prejudice?
Again, !@#$%!, will just come out of the fucking closet already and admit you joined the fucking T.E.A. Party? Or wait, maybe you joined those redneck Minute Men bastards and hang out at the border for target practice against Mexicans
