Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesenkomaha
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I don't think it is right that in my HYPOTHETICAL example that Z HYPOTHETICALLY grabbed M. Again, no one knows the facts and we are just theorycrafting here. In this example they were both wrong. IF Z did grab M though, does that justify beating the guy up? If someone grabs your arm and asks you a question do you turn around, jump on them and pound their head into the concrete? You're smarter than that man.
They both fucked up, and they both paid the price for making very poor decisions. M is dead because he attacked the guy and Z's life is ruined because he pursued M and probably should have let him go in the first place. There are no winners here.
|
i don't share your opinion about what happened. i believe trayvon likely initiated physical violence, which is why i'm at least somewhat sympathetic to zimmerman as opposed to outraged that he escaped justice.
in your hypothetical, only zimmerman did something wrong. trayvon absolutely would have been justified by the law in beating the shit out of zimmerman. trayvon's a 17-year old. he was followed by a grown man. if, upon encountering the man, he attempted to escape and the man grabbed him in order to prevent that escape, trayvon had every right to defend himself using appropriate -- ie: not deadly -- force. if, as zimmerman claims, martin saw his gun, trayvon could even make a case for lethal force, given that his attacker had a gun and he feared for his life.
zimmerman didn't have some kind of special authority as a watchman. he's allowed to follow because anyone is allowed to follow. but if he follows and grabs a 17-year old, he's committing a crime. you're not allowed to walk around grabbing minors at night as they try to get away from you.