Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
Nothing wrong with that. But what, if any, effect would that have had on this trial? Assuming we take Zimmerman's account of the story as closer to reality as there's a lack of evidence to contradict it. What type of standard should he have been held to?
Sure it would have been nice if Zimmerman was better at defending himself, but an ambush attack sucker punch that knocks you down from a 6'0'' person is going to cause problems for even those highly skilled in self-defense. And the ground-and-pound is hard to get out of for even the best fighters in the world.
Higher standards, more restrictions, I'm all for it. I'm really not a gun advocate, but given Zimmerman's account (which, yes, of course can't be taken as gospel truth) it's almost a good thing he had a gun on him.
|
I'm not sure what impact it would have had on this trial, it certainly would have changed it but I don't know that it changes the ultimate result. At the very least it would have put a greater onus on Zimmerman to show that his fear was reasonable, not on the prosecution to show that it was unreasonable.
Ultimately it's really not about changing the outcome of this trial, it's about a policy that asks people who decide to carry loaded weapons to take on a greater level of responsibility. Heck, I'd also be for something that allowed a person who was highly trained to be given greater deference due to their training. Like I said before, my biggest goal is something that causes guns to be treated much more seriously than they are now.