I have noticed over the last week or so that a noticeable percentage of the group of the people who disagree with Zimmerman being acquitted…seem to be arguing from a perspective which views physical violence as acceptable or even desirable unless a weapon is involved. I have begun to consistently see variations of this viewpoint in enough places to see it as a body of thought on this subject. Usually, it features the ideas:Remember, Zimmerman was profiled by Travyon as being a "Creepy Ass Cracker" which equal homosexual rapist, sucker punches him, pins him on the ground, started punching him "MMA style", and THEN gets shot.
1) Hitting people is a perfectly reasonable response to a non-physical confrontation, ie someone watching you, or asking you what you’re doing or following you briefly
2) If you do these things, you have “started” a fight and while the other party is within their right to beat you, you are not allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself
I have noticed a consistent anti-gun viewpoint that tends to accompany this thought, but it comes with a bizarre pro-violence attitude that I have not typically noticed with most anti-gun people.
Another Use of Force expert boils down Zimmerman's actions:
When Mr. Martin jumped Mr. Zimmerman and began to beat him, the night could have only ended with one of them dead or crippled and possibly permanently disabled. The gun saved Zimmerman’s life, and that’s why he carried it. It performed the function for which it was designed, and while all of us who carry weapons hope that we never have to put it to such use, if we are ever faced with that situation we have what we need to reverse that “disparity of force.”
No comments:
Post a Comment