Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
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.
|
Please explain to me how a man being bashed in the head is supposed to take time to weigh his options carefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
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.
|
You do NOT shoot to wound. You shoot to neutralize the threat. The fastest way to neutralize a threat is to kill it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
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.
|
Again, i really don't see how a rational person could look at this and say, "Well, even though he was being physically assaulted and feared for his life, he should have stopped, waited, thought out his actions, considered them carefully, and then chose the decision that I like the best because I don't feel like Trayvon should have been killed."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
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.
|
Except that a firearm is for killing. That's why they were made. That's why people carry firearms, to kill people trying to kill them. Which is what Zimmerman did. He shot someone who he felt was trying to kill him.