It doesn't matter because if you are the aggressor in a conflict, then you can't take out a gun and shoot the person who was your victim. Martin was the victim of Zimmerman who pursued Martin. The actual altercation was just the culmination of Zimmerman's aggression. The entire concept of freedom is that you have a right to act so long as you don't commit aggression against another, and if someone commits aggression against you you have a right to defend yourself. Martin was defending himself against Zimmerman's aggression, and his level of violence in his defense does not to me seem to be out of line.
If you say Zimmerman would have been killed, which is highly doubtful, then that is what he would have brought on himself by his aggressive actions, just like if you hit an intruder in your house and that blow killed him. Zimmerman intruded on Martin.
To say someone who acts as an aggressor in a conflict and then starts to lose the conflict has a right to kill his victim would open the door for all sorts of injustice. By your logic, someone who broke into your house would be able to claim self defense if you confronted him, fought with him, and he killed you when he saw he was losing the fight.
At a minimum Zimmerman should have been found guilty of the lesser charge against him because he provoked the situation in which another died at his hands.
This is my sense of justice, and I am a white person with a farmhouse full of guns, carry in my car, and am a strong believer in freedom.
"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: