@engineer,
engineer wrote:You have no way of knowing that he isn't a murderer
With all respect, its just
NOT plausible
that Zimmy, while driving, is gonna say:
"
AHA! There 's a total stranger! I will murder him, for no reason, and for no profit,
but first, before I do, I will call the police
so that thay will come and find me with the murdered corpse and smoking gun,
and (depending on how close thay r now) thay might
SEE the actual
killing,
when I do it, but if not
them, then any number of residents hereof, or guests
who happen to be looking this way can see the killing and testify against me."
I respect your right to think that 's plausible, if u wanna, Engineer.
engineer wrote:just as a jury has no way of knowing if he was acting in self defense.
Certainly the information that has come out so far suggests he was
aggressively pursuing a confrontation
R u suggesting that Zimmy had
NO right to speak to him??
Please explain
Y not?????
engineer wrote:but was that enough to arrest him?
It obviously was
NOT, unless u claim
that this was a
contract killing,
that he was being stalked for that reason.
If u claim that there is anything immoral or illegal
about following anyone, then please tell us what it
IS??
engineer wrote:Don't know. I haven't seen all the evidence (nor am I even in the country to read the press reports). A trial will decide, but given the lack of witnesses, Zimmerman's account will stand uncontested. That great if he was a victim and terrible if he is a murderer.
The
IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE for all American citizens to bear in mind
is that if u fall victim to the predatory violence of man or beast,
u need to defend yourself as energetically as possible
to
END the threat as soon as possible,
with
NO CONCERN with the well-being of the violent predator,
i.e., your own government that u nourish with your taxes,
will not go into partnership with the evil one
and avenge him upon u, neither civilly, nor criminally
and that u need not stand in terror of accumulating lawyers' fees
(in defense of either civil or criminal litigation) that can wipe out your life savings,
setting u back financially to where u were in high school, just because a predator picked on
YOU.
engineer wrote:Just out of curiosity, how come you are not arguing that the person killed
should have been armed to protect himself?
I think I already
did that,
but I'd have to re-read the thread to be sure.
Since u bring it up, I 'll do it now:
All American citizens who have the strength to lift a gun
shud arm themselves in self defense.
It is better to
HAVE a gun and not need it
than it is to
NEED a gun and
not have it; that can be
embarrassing.
In some First Amendment cases, the USSC
has negatively commented upon actions of governments
that generate an unConstitutional "chilling effect" upon the citizens' use
of those rights. This
anti-chilling effect principle applies with
at least equal force to defense of your life and other property.
David