Actually, from all the available evidence, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, and one of the two started punching. All we know about the actual physical altercation is that Trayvon was winning at one point. Being on top of some scumbag doesn't mean that you started the fight, it means that you are decent at throwing punches.
According to dark, if you can't fight, you are in your RIGHT to kill the person that can fight... SMHQuote by: el ايمان
Doesn't matter who started it. This is why you don't fight people in civil society, even if they hit you first. Because if your winning, like Trayvon was, you can be justifiably be killed in self-defense. Trayvon should of stopped fighting as soon as he was no longer defending himself. But apparently, he CHOOSE to continue it.
You are woefully incorrect. You do not have enough evidence to suggest that Trayvon was "justifiably killed in self-defense".
I know that if I was in a fight, I would beat the other person until they were at least dizzy, so that I had enough time to run away without them following me.
Ever heard of 1-punch homicide? You deciding to get a few extra in, could be the difference between life and death for Zimmerman. Do it at your own risk.
So why even start a confrontation if that is possible? Can we argue that Zimmerman has mental deficiancies then? So anyone that knows how to fight are more inclined to kill someone in a fight, thus allowing those that can't to kill those that CAN first?
People should be allowed to start a confrontation with somebody without the expectation of violence in return. The blames lies with the person who started the physical confrontation, not the verbal one. If Zimmerman wanted to kill the guy, why would he of waited until he was losing in a fight to do so?
So if you expect the violence, in return allowing you to KILL that person... who is at faulth then? I don't know if zimmerman wanted to kill the guy, maybe he was looking for a reason to. That is not the point of contention...
Also, by your logic, the person who is about to be confronted then has the right to prevent to possible attempt of violence by killing that person before he gets killed. When will it stop, ones assumption of defense through killing the other through presumptions?
... am I the only person in this thread dumb enough to actually get involved in fights?
You can't stop. Once you start, you either continue to dominate them or they seize the initiative and attack you, especially when they've got a natural advantage. It is a situation you cannot control.
A video of the incident would be illuminating, but none exists. We do not know who was or wasn't fighting with any precision or why they felt the need to do it. The takehome lesson is don't chase people down when the cops and common sense tell you not to.
The more you complain, the less I care about your problems.
Those extra punches could also be the difference in him being too disoriented to follow me as I run away and him being sober enough to shoot me before I reach my destination.
Why are you getting involved in fights, very undebate like.
Zimmerman is still alive, I think the real lesson is don't ever be the aggressor in a physical altercation.
There has to be a reasonable threat to your life. Being punched repeatedly in the head, is beyond a reasonable threat, unlike the scenario you describe.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks