Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou
I really don't get how you can't see that there's a difference between "at a disadvantage" and "losing the fistfight." No real dog in the fight here, but it seems very plausible to me that this fat out of shape dude was getting his ass kicked by a fit 17-year-old.
|
Where are you getting the fat out of shape from? Sure he was a big guy, but the pictures dont' depict him as Ralphie May or anything. He was able to chase down the kid multiple times. Not to mention he has been able to put up a fight against others in the past, so he's not some invalid. And for "getting his ass kicked", he didn't require medical attention that night.
And lets assume that Martin did defend himself and it got physical. Isn't that what we teach kids to do when they are being chased? Especially at night by someone much larger. What do you want your kids to do if they are cornered by a stranger who has been stalking them? He tried to get away initially and Zimmerman continued to stalk him. If he had to make a fight or flight response and chose fight, how can you blame him? Every school has cops come in and tell kids to kick, scream, and do whatever they can to avoid whatever the dubious adult is looking to accomplish. How the hell would you react if you're walking home from the store at night and some guy twice your size who you don't know is chasing you around?
This case isn't difficult. The kid was unarmed and doing nothing wrong. It's an overzelous wannabe cop who did something stupid and should pay the price like any other murderer does. Ultimately it's not a big deal to the world since kids get shot all the time and we rarely give a shit. I guess I'm fascinated by the psychological elements of this one. You rarely see people jumping through so many hoops to concoct elaborate hypotheticals to defend a shooter (outside of lawyers). Makes you wonder what makes this case different from those.