(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Hit Parade: Bloody new photo of George Zimmerman has been released

03 Dec 2012 11:40 PM   |   16833 clicks   |   Yahoo
Showing 1-50 of 477 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
edmo    [TotalFark]  
Trayvon Martin still dead.

03 Dec 2012 08:57 PM
MaudlinMutantMollusk     
DRINK!

03 Dec 2012 09:02 PM
Peter von Nostrand    [TotalFark]  

edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.


Totally different with him, he didn't have the right to defend himself. Plus he had Skittles and once tweeted about Marijuana

03 Dec 2012 09:04 PM
wambu     
Must be that time of the month . . .

03 Dec 2012 09:07 PM
BSABSVR     
I will need more than 8 and less than 10 beers to deal with this thread.

03 Dec 2012 09:19 PM
borg    [TotalFark]  
quick, somebody call 9beers

03 Dec 2012 09:26 PM
MaudlinMutantMollusk     

borg: quick, somebody call 9beers


I'm sure his Zimmeradar will alert him quickly enough

03 Dec 2012 09:33 PM
ThatGuyFromTheInternet     

Peter von Nostrand: edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.

Totally different with him, he didn't have the right to defend himself. Plus he had Skittles and once tweeted about Marijuana


Moe importantly, he was a negro.

03 Dec 2012 09:57 PM
Fark Me To Tears    [TotalFark]  
FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

03 Dec 2012 10:01 PM
Shostie    [TotalFark]  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: DRINK!


OH THANK GOD!

I've been so thirsty these many months!

03 Dec 2012 10:08 PM
MaudlinMutantMollusk     

Shostie: MaudlinMutantMollusk: DRINK!

OH THANK GOD!

I've been so thirsty these many months!


I don't know about you, but after the debate, campaign and election drinking games, I seriously needed to dry out for a day or two

/thankfully THAT little nightmare is over now

03 Dec 2012 10:22 PM
borg    [TotalFark]  

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?


Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

03 Dec 2012 10:22 PM
jmadisonbiii     
i780.photobucket.comView Full Size


ZIMMERMAN THREAD!!!

03 Dec 2012 10:22 PM
Mangoose     

jmadisonbiii: [i780.photobucket.com image 397x247]

ZIMMERMAN THREAD!!!


03 Dec 2012 10:24 PM
Lionel Mandrake    [TotalFark]  
A bloody nose?

That's a killin'

03 Dec 2012 11:01 PM
skandalus     
In the name of parity, I feel the family of Trayvon Martin should release a few bloody photos from that fateful night. Seriously, if a stranger jump out of a car, confronts me, and follows a course of actions that results in him gunning me down in the middle of the street, the least I could do is break his nose. It's still a question of who threw the first punch, as well as who committed the first truly threatening action. Contrary to what many backing Zimmerman believe, a person walking down your street does not present a threat. But given those initial conditions and considering that Zimmerman presented himself in a way that would make ME feel threatened while minding my business on residential street, only to shoot someone later, I can only conclude he should've had some injuries. Trayvon Martin became the aggressor? Injuries. Zimmerman follows through on the earlier known confrontational behavior to the point that Martin felt threatened and took action? Injuries. Zimmerman threw the first punch, and Martin punched back? More injuries.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation), if Martin laid a finger on him, he deserved it. Martin apparently didn't have a right to stand his own ground. Then, considering that Zimmerman is the one that's still breathing, I'm even getting visuals from the 1950s. After brutally murdering Emmett Till, Roy Bryant and his accomplices present pictures of their bloody knuckles, bruised forearms, and scratched facing, saying, "That little boy was asking for it!" That's if they hadn't blamed Till for the theft of the cotton gin fan used to weigh his body down. Seriously, after beating and murdering a kid, the only thing they were worried about was being arrested for stealing a piece of machinery.

03 Dec 2012 11:06 PM
Godscrack     
Wow. Police Photoshop editors sure work slow.

Maybe they forgot to update the tutorials on Storm Front.

03 Dec 2012 11:09 PM
John Dewey     
A rebuttal to the picture can be found here - Link

Of note - But today's bloody photo doesn't solve the mystery of Trayvon's hands. There were "No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Benjamin Martin" found on them.

03 Dec 2012 11:23 PM
violentsalvation    [TotalFark]  
To repeat what has been said a million times, and should be obvious to anyone who has payed any attention to the case, Trayvon stood his ground.

03 Dec 2012 11:32 PM
Popcorn Johnny     
I still remember when the first grainy photo of Zimmerman at the police station was released and the internet mob was up in arms saying that it proved that Martin hadn't assaulted him.

03 Dec 2012 11:41 PM
super_grass     
Ahh yes, the media is once feasting on the story of the death of a teenager like maggots feeding on his corpse.

03 Dec 2012 11:42 PM
Your Average Witty Fark User     

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?


There was no need to murder the kid. Period. Had he attacked me, I would've beaten him to death. I would've made no mistake.

03 Dec 2012 11:42 PM
Tryfan     
Martin DIDN'T assault him. He defended himself from a stalker.

03 Dec 2012 11:43 PM
FuryOfFirestorm     

MaudlinMutantMollusk: borg: quick, somebody call 9beers

I'm sure his Zimmeradar will alert him quickly enough


QUICK, DEAD BOY! TO THE ZIMMERMOBILE!

03 Dec 2012 11:43 PM
Communist_Manifesto     
If two people are standing there ground and no one else is there to see it, does the tree make a sound?

03 Dec 2012 11:45 PM
pciszek     

Fark Me To Tears: So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?


If you have to get out of your car to "defend yourself" from a guy who is several feet away and unarmed, you're doing it wrong.

03 Dec 2012 11:46 PM
Mr. Eugenides     

borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.


I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?

03 Dec 2012 11:46 PM
Generation_D    [TotalFark]  
I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation)

He was black, Zimmerman shot him, and the gun recoiled hitting him in the face, causing a slight nosebleed. The important thing was Zimmerman shot a black man in cold blood. Once you realize that, all the internet tough guy excuses all start to make sense.

03 Dec 2012 11:47 PM
super_grass     

Generation_D: I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation)

He was black, Zimmerman shot him, and the gun recoiled hitting him in the face, causing a slight nosebleed. The important thing was Zimmerman shot a black man in cold blood. Once you realize that, all the internet tough guy excuses all start to make sense.


I can count up to around 4 [citation needed]s in your post.

Can you find them all?

03 Dec 2012 11:48 PM
Generation_D    [TotalFark]  

Popcorn Johnny: I still remember when the first grainy photo of Zimmerman at the police station was released and the internet mob was up in arms saying that it proved that Martin hadn't assaulted him.


Martin didn't assault him. Zimmerman shot an unarmed guy who was minding his own business on a public street, probably injured himself in the process, and is now continuing to attempt to lawyer the case in the media.

Putzes, racists and asswits are helping him.

03 Dec 2012 11:48 PM
strapp3r     
pixels

/experience

03 Dec 2012 11:49 PM
lohphat    [TotalFark]  
Why didn't he have that bloody and swollen nose in the police station video taken the same night?

03 Dec 2012 11:49 PM
squirrelflavoredyogurt     

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?


So, Zimmerman's "right to defend himself" includes stalking a black kid, losing him, searching for him, finding him again, confronting him, and then once he starts getting his ass kicked, murdering him?

Is that the logic there?

03 Dec 2012 11:49 PM
Gyrfalcon     
Probably the only other pile of feathers on the Internet that can give the GOP's treatment of Obama's birth certificate a run for its money.

03 Dec 2012 11:50 PM
TalenLee     

super_grass: Ahh yes, the media is once feasting on the story of the death of a teenager like maggots feeding on his corpse.


Absolutely. When unjust laws mean that children can be killed in the street for no reason, the responsible thing for the media to do is to avoid drawing any attention to it.

03 Dec 2012 11:50 PM
Generation_D    [TotalFark]  

super_grass: Generation_D: I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation)

He was black, Zimmerman shot him, and the gun recoiled hitting him in the face, causing a slight nosebleed. The important thing was Zimmerman shot a black man in cold blood. Once you realize that, all the internet tough guy excuses all start to make sense.

I can count up to around 4 [citation needed]s in your post.

Can you find them all?


1) An unarmed man was shot by an armed man for walking on a city street. Had Zimmerman remained in his vehicle there would have been no incident, or police could have arrived to make a professional determination.

What else do you need here, except the fact there is an internet tough guy on the loose white knighting against the victim of a murder?

03 Dec 2012 11:50 PM
fusillade762    [TotalFark]  
Clearly self-inflicted.

www.vh1.comView Full Size

03 Dec 2012 11:51 PM
borg    [TotalFark]  

Mr. Eugenides: borg: Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.

I shouldn't let myself get sucked into this, but since you seem to have some sort of oracular knowledge here, what exactly was Zimmerman's aggressive act that caused Martin to defend himself?


Following Mister Martin for several blocks and getting out of his car and confronting Martin with a gun.

03 Dec 2012 11:51 PM
hdhale     

Peter von Nostrand: edmo: Trayvon Martin still dead.

Totally different with him, he didn't have the right to defend himself. Plus he had Skittles and once tweeted about Marijuana


Pick a fist fight with a guy carrying a gun and you run the risk of winning a casket and an all expense paid trip to six feet under.

The kid probably didn't deserve to die, but the neighborhood watch cop wanna be didn't deserve to get his ass kicked either, whether he was stalking Martin through his neighborhood or not.

borg: Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.


We don't know that Martin was doing that at that point. There's lots of holes here and depending upon how you fill in the blanks, you end up with two completely different answers.

A normal jury would find enough reasonable doubt based on what we know so far that Zimmerman should walk. I doubt that things will be left that way even if a jury declines to find him guilty. I can already hear Eric Holder's people warming up in the bullpen.

03 Dec 2012 11:51 PM
iron_city_ap     

Communist_Manifesto: If two people are standing there ground and no one else is there to see it, does the tree make a sound?


Does the Pope shiat in the woods?

03 Dec 2012 11:51 PM
Karma Curmudgeon     
I've looked worse than that after pick-up basketball games. What a friggin pussy.

03 Dec 2012 11:51 PM
BronyMedic     

Popcorn Johnny: I still remember when the first grainy photo of Zimmerman at the police station was released and the internet mob was up in arms saying that it proved that Martin hadn't assaulted him.


Actually, all this proves is that he had a broken nose. And that he hadn't washed his face like he had in the shot the police took for evidence the night he shot Martin.

For your comparison:

i.huffpost.comView Full Size


All this means is that Zimmerman had a broken nose, the above picture shows that was clearly not as bad as this picture portrays it as, since they were both taken the same night. It also doesn't mean anything in terms of explaining what happened, or why Treyvon Martin is dead. Since what happened that night is pretty much dependent on what Zimmerman is claiming it was, all this is is an emotional appeal using a face with blood on it.

03 Dec 2012 11:52 PM
jjorsett     

Tryfan: Martin DIDN'T assault him. He defended himself from a stalker.


Zimmerman has a different story in which he was the one attacked. Without seeing all the evidence unfiltered by the press, there's no way to make an assessment right now. That's the purpose the trial will serve.

03 Dec 2012 11:52 PM
Summoner101     

Tryfan: Martin DIDN'T assault him. He defended himself from a stalker.


Do they call people stalkers for trying to lose people that are stalking them?

03 Dec 2012 11:52 PM
thorthor     

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?


No, the only logic needed here is knowing that a boy was KILLED for walking though a neighborhood. Does a bloody nose change that? You sir have a twisted sense of "logic".

03 Dec 2012 11:52 PM
dudemanbro     
So he shot the guy. What a murdering puss.

03 Dec 2012 11:52 PM
Generation_D    [TotalFark]  

fusillade762: Clearly self-inflicted.

[www.vh1.com image 550x325]


Gun recoil. Or the kid hit him in the face, after he confronted him for no reason for minding his own business on a city public street.

Nothing changes the fact the idiot in the SUV gets out of his vehicle to confront the minor who is minding his own business on a public street.

The rest of this is internet tough guy noise and bullsh*t the right wing keeps fanning the flames with.

03 Dec 2012 11:54 PM
squirrelflavoredyogurt     

skandalus: In the name of parity, I feel the family of Trayvon Martin should release a few bloody photos from that fateful night. Seriously, if a stranger jump out of a car, confronts me, and follows a course of actions that results in him gunning me down in the middle of the street, the least I could do is break his nose. It's still a question of who threw the first punch, as well as who committed the first truly threatening action. Contrary to what many backing Zimmerman believe, a person walking down your street does not present a threat. But given those initial conditions and considering that Zimmerman presented himself in a way that would make ME feel threatened while minding my business on residential street, only to shoot someone later, I can only conclude he should've had some injuries. Trayvon Martin became the aggressor? Injuries. Zimmerman follows through on the earlier known confrontational behavior to the point that Martin felt threatened and took action? Injuries. Zimmerman threw the first punch, and Martin punched back? More injuries.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what they hope to prove unless the argument is, no matter what Zimmerman might have contributed to a bad situation (even as the initiator of the conflict and the only adult in the situation), if Martin laid a finger on him, he deserved it. Martin apparently didn't have a right to stand his own ground. Then, considering that Zimmerman is the one that's still breathing, I'm even getting visuals from the 1950s. After brutally murdering Emmett Till, Roy Bryant and his accomplices present pictures of their bloody knuckles, bruised forearms, and scratched facing, saying, "That little boy was asking for it!" That's if they hadn't blamed Till for the theft of the cotton gin fan used to weigh his body down. Seriously, after beating and murdering a kid, the only thing they were worried about was being arrested for stealing a piece of machinery.


Martin ran from Zimmerman, Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost him, the operator asks if he's going to be waiting where he currently is for the officer, he says, "no have him call me when he gets here." The next thing that happens is that Martin is dead. If you're still trying to figure out who the aggressor is, you're an idiot. Sorry, that's the only explanation. You aren't defending yourself of standing your ground when you're actively searching for and confronting someone by your own recorded admission.

03 Dec 2012 11:54 PM
God-is-a-Taco    [TotalFark]  
Surely there's been a more interesting potentially-racial murder or other serious crime since then?
I'll tell you who the real murderers are, the "journalists" trying to kill me of boredom with this crap.

03 Dec 2012 11:54 PM
keypusher     

borg: Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "Trayvon Martin was defending himself. He had every right to stand his ground to defend himself," Crump said.

So, Trayvon was allowed to defend himself, but Zimmerman was not? Is that the logic here?

Zimmerman was the aggressor. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business.


The Traybots appear to be deploying their talking points more quickly than the Zimmerbots at this stage. Be interesting to check back later.

03 Dec 2012 11:55 PM
Showing 1-50 of 477 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined