We have now reachEd the point where the right wing is peddling furiously to portray TRayvon not only as a criminal but also as the aggressor in the encounter with zimmerman, which led to him being shot.
This is the biggest crock and a false argument, one that is so obvious that I have trouble understanding how anyone can make the point with a straight face.
So I ask one question: can someone "stand their ground" only if they have a gun in their hand? Are they not allowed to defend themselves with a knife, or a fist, if they feel threatend? And, give that wingers seem not to recognize this argument, isnt it obvious that this whole thing for them is about having guns, using guns, etc, and not about self-defense?
No matter what, zimmman is a criminal. See why below the squiggle.
Let's be clear about one thing: Zimmerman was the aggressor, no matter what. He pulled a gun on someone walking outside their house. Zimmerman thought Trayvon was a criminal because he was young, black, dressed in a hoodie, etc.
But Trayvon was not allowed to think Zimmerman was the aggressor because the man had a loaded weapon pointed at him?
Think of the scenario. Some guy is stalking you. You try to get away. Suddenly, he appears behind you, loaded weapon pointed at you. Who is the aggressor? Would you think that the gunman is there just to have a debate about why you are standing outside of your own home? Or is he a criminal intent on hurting you?
In that scenario, if Trayvon had a gun and shot first, under the stand your ground doctrine, he would be in the right (assuming of course the "law does not apply to black people defending themselves" rule is not in effect) Someone pulled a gun on him, he defended himself.
Now, I will put myself in. That scenario, I am a cop. I was walking around unarmed and someone came up to me like Zimmerman did, i would first try to defuse the situation, willing to turn over whatever the perp was trying to take. But if I became convinced that this guy didn't want to rob me, and if he seems unreasonable (as we can already tell that Zimmerman was) I would rapidly move sideways, pull the gun with arm under my arm, kick the guy in he balls and then knee him in the face while then twisting his wrist. If I had to break a bone, I would.
So who is the aggressor there? Me, who is defending myself, or the guy with the gun, who is threatening me?
Hint: it's the guy with the gun.
Zimmerman was the aggressor. He pulld a gun. Trayvon, no matter what happened, had the right to defend himself. If that results in Trayvon getting shot, Zimmerman is still the aggressor.
When you pull a gun on an innocent person, and they fight back, they are doing more than standing their ground; they are defending themselves. And, you scumbag NRA guys who have been responsible for moe cops getting shot than any other group in the country, people are allowed to defend themselves even if they aren't carrying one of your precious guns.
Zmmerman attackd without provocation by drawing a gun. The consequencs were predictable. If i was running the case, I would arrest him now on manslaughter charges for engaging in actions that a reasonable person could determine might result in death. And then, with more nvestigation, I might hope that the da would push it up to murder 2.
Ether way, Zimmerman should be in jail, right now. He was the aggressor.