Even though I'm not watching/listening to the Zimmerman trial I can't avoid it - it's sort of permeating the atmosphere right now, for several reasons. One attitude in particular makes me curious. Some are saying that even though it appears that Zimmerman was on the bottom and getting pummeled, he should not have drawn and fired, that the situation didn't rise to fear for his life. How do you draw that line? You are laying on the ground getting pounded - are you thinking "Well, he won't kill me. He'll just beat me up and it'll be OK"? Are you having an internal philosophical debate on possibilities and options? Personally, I don't think I'm capable of that. Granted, I've never been beaten up, but I'm willing to bet that there's some shock from the pain and surprise. And some narrowed focus - "Stop stop stop!" And not a little fear. At which point you take an action to make it all stop. In Zimmerman's case it was to fire. What if he hadn't had a gun? What if instead he had the physical ability to turn the tables and slam Martin's head on the sidewalk and Martin died from that? What if he managed to strike him just so, killing him? Would he have been required to have the internal "Is it appropriate to use deadly force?" debate?
And was Martin thinking "I'm just going to pound him some. I'll stop in a bit."? If people think so, which to me seems to be a corollary of Zimmerman knowing his life wasn't threatened, how do they know? If there was a mind reader present, I'm pretty sure they never got put on the stand.
And another thing I'm curious about. How the heck have we gotten to the point where we no longer have to worry about race riots being instigated by these guys:
But we DO have to worry about race riots instigated by these guys:
And how the heck can ANYONE think that this situation is what these guys dreamed of: