BamaD
Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD Thank you for trying to encourage civility. Sorry misdirected this post it was suppossed to be directed to LadyPact But anyway, I think you are trying to get it through my thick head that you are not claiming that Martin had no right to defend himself. We disagree on details, maybe. No I am tring to get it through to you that both were convenced that they were only defending themselves. Pardon me for being 'old school' here, but back in the day an attacker did not have the 'right' of self defense. Back in the day, when I finally figured out that running wasn't going to do me any good (I was too slow), I brought the situation to the fore when being pursued (fun neighborhood, that was). Martin might or might not have undertaken the same recourse. We don't know exactly what transpired other than that it was clearly Zimmerman who caused the confrontation, regardless of who made the first move or spoke the first word (once Zimmerman had closed and confined the situation to being within striking distance), and that the person who was being pursued in that instance is now dead. Even IF we wish to assume that Martin initiated a response to someone whom any normal person would consider as intending harm by his actions, as Zimmerman was, I would have been shot at least ten times, and thousands of kids defending themselves would be shot on a daily basis by such 'standards' of "attackers' right of self defense" being proposed here. Wrong again Zimmerman had the police on the way to do the confrontating he was observing so they both had the right to defend themselves. Keep in mind that they each had half the story if they had all the info we have it would never have happened.
|