I think there’s a higher than average possibility that Zimmerman will continue inserting himself into places where he has every right to be and doing things that are completely legal until he is a participant in another shooting death. It only remains to be seen whether it is his own.
Maybe he’ll run into a good guy with a gun.
This has got to be the most asinine thing I’ve ever seen you post.
I’m not sure why you’d say that. There are three assertions, each easily supported by the evidence:
Yes, he did. I think it’s beyond cavil that Zimmerman ended Martin’s life.
And he did so because Martin put Zimmerman in fear of serious bodily injury. The evidence at trial clearly supported this finding.
That leaves the last:
- That’s a circumstance under which it’s appropriate to kill.* Our society has pretty clearly spoken on the issue. A person is allowed to use deadly force to protect himself from serious bodily injury.
I’m thinking maybe, just maybe, had Zimmerman stayed in his car like he was told, Martin wouldn’t have had to die that day.
Sorry, I think I posted the wrong link earlier:
He did nothing wrong last year although there is no question he killed that kid.
He wasn’t employed at the apartment complex he was pretending to defend when he killed that kid last year either.
Well played, sir.
Yes, that’s true. But that doesn’t make anything about my earlier statement asinine. Zimmerman had every legal right to leave his vehicle. Martin did not have the legal right to throw the first punch.
Relevance?
Neither of which is relevant to the question of right and wrong.
I know Zimmerman’s legal team is obligated to remind everyone that he didn’t break any laws, but that wasn’t what I intended for this thread to be about.
Anyway - I have it on good authority that when the cops spoke with him he was playing this on a loop on his truck stereo:
Why not? Martin was being followed by a man with a gun, and had good reason to fear for his life. If Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin, why wasn’t Martin legally justified in punching Zimmerman?
The obvious answer is that they were both legally justified to kill one another. Never bring a bag of Skittles to a gunfight.
He wasn’t.
So by being legally right, that makes him morally right by default? You seem to be conflating the two.
Trayvon Martin didn’t bring a bag of Skittles to a gunfight, silly. He was bringing those home to mix with his Arizona tea and codeine syrup. He brought his fists to an armed man’s face and unwittingly joined a gun fight.
How do you know that? Martin was never put on trial for throwing the first punch.
Isn’t that a contradiction? How can Martin be innocent if he was putting Zimmerman’s life in danger by slamming his head against the concrete sidewalk? You can’t simmer the Zimmer. You can’t flim flam the Zim Zam.