05-24-2013, 11:32 AM
(05-24-2013, 10:53 AM)Jimbone Wrote: But taking the step of concluding that because Zimmerman followed Martin, whatever happened after that was all fair game isn't how the system works. Concluding that Martin had every right to beat Zimmerman to a bloody pulp just because he was stalked is lunacy. The law doesn't work that way... you don't have that right.
If you are being followed around your neighborhood, do you have the right to attack and beat the person following you? Of course you don't. But there seems to be an argument here that somehow that is a reasonable reaction if that occurs.
First of all he wasn't beat to a bloody pulp. He had a broken nose and some scratches on the back of his head, typical of a fist fight.
First you say that it doesn't matter if George was the aggressor and started the fight as long as he feared for his life. Now you're saying that you don't have the right to attack some crazy person chasing you if you fear for your life. So which one is it?