Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber
Pointing up brings you directly to centre mass when someone is ontop of you, however. The last thing you think about is your targets well being when you're trying to arguably prevent your own death. Real life isn't a movie where you "disable" your target. A firearm is for killing, you draw it in a situation when it's your life or theirs. I just don't think Zimmerman's ability to simply "wound" Trayvon is relevant because he shouldn't have, whether it was a justifiable homicide or not.
|
I am quite aware of the difference between real life and the movies, thank you very much - I have achieved at least that much in the quarter-century I have been alive. My point is - and I suspect it is one we will have to agree to disagree on - that shooting Martin in the chest was not the only option available to Zimmerman. Even taking the centre mass argument, he could have aimed for either shoulder (still part of the centre mass) or the lower abdomen, all within the range of pointing up. That he aimed for the chest could be a factor in whether the intent to kill existed (and therefore murder would be the relevant charge) or not (and therefore manslaughter would be the relevant charge). So there is some relevance in it, I would argue.
Also, I feel your "A firearm is for killing" remark is perhaps an unwise statement to make, given that would infer intent on the part of any shooter and thus making any killing qualify as murder, intentional or otherwise. The danger of sweeping statements in action.