- 10,170
- 1,439
Dude, relax.So you admit that every argument you've made on the past three pages, at least, has been completely irrelevant?
Thanks for that, we appreciate that you recognize your own arguments are shit and boil down to your false assumptions and appeals to fallacy.
I'm saying that if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun that night, it's likely nobody would have died.
Having said that, if Martin attacked first (which seems likely) he took the risk of attacking somebody who may or may not have been carrying a gun. Not Zimmerman's fault.
Zimmerman had every legal right to carry the gun. Not Zimmerman's fault.
With somebody on top of him grabbing for his gun telling him he was going to die, Zimmerman had every right to believe his life was in danger and defend himself. Again, not Zimmerman's fault.
So Zimmerman didn't necessarily do anything wrong, legallyormorally, but the fact that he was carrying a gun is ultimately what led to Martin's death. I guess maybe I should've taken this to the gun thread, but I was getting annoyed about how much everybody assumed the "head against the concrete" thing was a key factor when you could literally remove that entire part of the story and be left with exactly the same result and exactly the same legal culpability. Everybody pictures Martin's hand grabbing Zimmerman's head like a basketball, pulling it up then slamming it down with the full force of his body weight, but nobody saw this happening. It's just as likely (more likely, based on evidence) that Zimmerman had his arms crossed over his head which was already against the sidewalk and Martin's blows gave him a couple of gashes. Yes, that's enough to consider your life in danger, but you're not legally obligated to consider your life in danger, and Zimmerman's version of the story suggests he didn't.