Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
He still killed a kid G.


And yet he did not violate any law in doing so. People need to realize that there is a difference between what they find immoral and what is illegal. You might find him follwing Martin to be immoral, but he did not violate any law in doing so. You might not like the idea that he had a gun; but not only is it not illegal, Zimmerman had a right to carry it. You may think that Zimmerman initiated the conflict, but there is no evidence that definitively proves such. The case has been decided by people who were, quite frankly, in a better position to make the decision due to their protection from the TV talking heads and access to the evidence, testimony, and the defendant himself.


I only became aware of this matter watching the news with the verdict.

We were talking about it at home, trying to fathom what had happened from the very limited information which I'm able to find on mainstream news. On the face of it, a black kid got shot by a white guy, who was let off by a jury of his peers. Not a good look.

So, from what I've read on this thread in conjunction with other stuff, did it play out like this?

1. Killer saw victim and followed him, suspecting vistim was participating in a crime.
2. Killer rings 911.
3. Victim assaulted killer by hitting him repeatedly in the head.
4. Killer responded by shooting victim dead.

In most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, that would be manslaughter, with a spent conviction or suspended sentence. My very limited reading of Florida's "stand your ground" laws (first time I'd heard of this was today) suggests you have a right to shoot at an aggressor if in danger. If that's correct, then this verdict must be correct.

If that's all correct, its very very sad that a young man was killed, but it is also sad that a man felt he had to shoot someone dead to protect himself from possible mortal danger.

Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com