Odds that Luigi gets off?

[Spider-Dan]

You don't think Luigi was justified in killing the CEO, so you don't "approve."
But you do think Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin, which is why I said you "approve" of his death.

And that's the difference here: it's not that you merely "understand" Zimmerman's decision (like you might "understand" Luigi's), it's that you agree with and support Zimmerman's claim that it was reasonable self-defense and not criminal homicide.  To say that's somehow not "approval" is splitting hairs.

[Sibster]

To say that Zimmerman's killing of Martin was justified is to approve of it.  

There are people who disagree with what the law says, but unfortunately the law is the law.   This statement is pure horseshit.   Based on what I've seen, a lot of what you write on here is as well.

[Spider-Dan]

There are people who disagree with what the law says, but unfortunately the law is the law.

If you disagree with the law, then say that.  I have yet to meet a single Zimmerman defender who has argued that the relevant laws themselves are immoral and should be changed.

And even if that is the case: to say that Zimmerman's actions were lawful evil is definitely not "approving" of them.
But that's not what y'all are doing.

[Sibster]

If you disagree with the law, then say that.  I have yet to meet a single Zimmerman defender who has argued that the relevant laws themselves are immoral and should be changed.

And even if that is the case: to say that Zimmerman's actions were lawful evil is definitely not "approving" of them.
But that's not what y'all are doing.

OK, here's what I think actually happened that night:

-Martin was going to the store to get some Skittles.   Like any teen, he was screwing around on the way there.

-Zimmerman saw Martin and like the racist POS he is known to be, started following him.  Even after he called 911 and was advised not to.

-At some point, Martin confronted Zimmerman and asked why he was following him in an aggressive manner

-A physical altercation ensued from there.  At some point, Martin got the upper hand on Zimmerman and out came the gun.


Again, I think Zimmerman is a scumbag.   He was a known racist and was abusive to his now ex-wife.   If he was losing the fight, he should've taken his beating like a man rather than pull out a gun.

But the question that remains unanswered is, who threw the first punch?

[Spider-Dan]

Those questions are all about determining why one does or does not think Zimmerman was justified, which is a different discussion.  My point is that if you think he was justified in using deadly force - in other words, if he obeyed the applicable laws and those laws are just - then you approve of his actions.

You can argue that Zimmerman committed a crime and got away with it (as many people say about OJ and Casey Anthony).
You can argue that Zimmerman followed the law, but the law is unjust (as many say about the slain CEO).
But if you aren't making either of those arguments, you are condoning/endorsing/approving his actions.

[Sibster]

Those questions are all about determining why one does or does not think Zimmerman was justified, which is a different discussion.  My point is that if you think he was justified in using deadly force - in other words, if he obeyed the applicable laws and those laws are just - then you approve of his actions.

You can argue that Zimmerman committed a crime and got away with it (as many people say about OJ and Casey Anthony).
You can argue that Zimmerman followed the law, but the law is unjust (as many say about the slain CEO).
But if you aren't making either of those arguments, you are condoning/endorsing/approving his actions.

Well, here's the thing.   Who threw the first punch?  If it was Zimmerman, he committed a crime.  If it was Martin, then Zimmerman was indeed following the law.   If it was the latter, the law was unjust.   A grown man has no business following a 15 year old boy around like that, let alone getting into a physical altercation.  Plus it's well known that Zimmerman is a POS who liked to start trouble.  Not to mention that I don't agree with the "stand your ground" law.  If you're attacked with fists, you need to respond with fists, not a gun.

Unfortunately, they can't prove who threw the first punch as the incident occurred with no witnesses.