I'm going to quote something I read on Gawker:
"If you want to get into a technical argument that it's only murder if it's "unlawful," and that if this trial by jury fails to produce a conviction, then the killing is not unlawful and therefore is not murder—well, presumably you also would argue that O.J. Simpson did not murder his wife. But why are you trying to make the argument at all? Why do you want to believe that an armed man shooting and killing an unarmed 17-year-old boy is lawful? What makes you think this way?"
http://gawker.com/will-george-zimmerman-get-away-with-murder-757850043
BTW, what about the right to due process of law which was denied to Trayvon Martin? Didn't he have rights?
Of course, we need to see more of the absurdities of "get away with murder"laws come to light and then there will be a revolt against your "Pro-gun" silliness.
Seriously, an unarmed person goes to the store and buys something. He is then accosted on the street by an armed person who kills him. Then, the person who kills him claims self-defence.
Isn't that obviously a ridiculous proposition?
One cannot exceed the reasonable amount of force necessary to stop the threat without becoming the aggressor. That is how self-defence is supposed to work under the rule of law.
Debate Magazine
