Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jerryz" data-source="post: 3278400" data-attributes="member: 108531">Ok putting aside the alleged criminal records (on both parties) do you agree that that Zimmerman took it upon himself (despite being told not to by the police) to stalk Martin.He had absolutely no reason to follow this guy, he was not in danger and could have simply left it in the hands of the police.But he didnt, he actively followed martin (stalked would be the right word in this case, as it was stalked I think we can agree?)And then shot him.So to keep things simple, Martin was stalked by a person he didn&#039;t know (both in a car and on foot) and then shot. And yet some claim Zimmerman is the &#039;good guy&#039;.How can this possibly be right?If I was stalked by somebody like that, I would be well within my right to attack them in self defence (somthing zimmerman cannot claim the same right too)We dont know who instigated the fight, but even if Martin did, he would have been well within his right to do so, dont you think? (If Zimmerman was being stalked in the same way, and roles were reversed and he shot Martin for stalking him thinking him a mugger) It seems to me everything is wrong in this case, a person was being chased/followed by a stranger, the stranger kills them and the stranger gets off scott free. How is this right?(I really want to understand how this can possibly be right).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jerryz, post: 3278400, member: 108531"] Ok putting aside the alleged criminal records (on both parties) do you agree that that Zimmerman took it upon himself (despite being told not to by the police) to stalk Martin. He had absolutely no reason to follow this guy, he was not in danger and could have simply left it in the hands of the police. But he didnt, he actively followed martin (stalked would be the right word in this case, as it was stalked I think we can agree?) And then shot him. So to keep things simple, Martin was stalked by a person he didn't know (both in a car and on foot) and then shot. And yet some claim Zimmerman is the 'good guy'. How can this possibly be right? If I was stalked by somebody like that, I would be well within my right to attack them in self defence (somthing zimmerman cannot claim the same right too) We dont know who instigated the fight, but even if Martin did, he would have been well within his right to do so, dont you think? (If Zimmerman was being stalked in the same way, and roles were reversed and he shot Martin for stalking him thinking him a mugger) It seems to me everything is wrong in this case, a person was being chased/followed by a stranger, the stranger kills them and the stranger gets off scott free. How is this right? (I really want to understand how this can possibly be right). [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…