“We might want to examine those kinds of laws” in the aftermath of this tragedy, the president said, asking us “to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk, and do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?”
This either shows total lack of any understanding of the law, or our president is intentionally trying to inflame and mislead the “low information voter” to promote his radical agenda.
The bottom line;
-Zimmerman did not break the law. Following Martin was not illegal. Shooting Martin was in justifiable self defense as proven in court.
-What Martin did though, WAS illegal in attacking Zimmerman. Martin broke the law. One more time; Martin...Broke...The...Law...
-And what the President suggests:- that if Martin was older, I assume certified to carry a gun, and armed, he would feel threatened and shoot Zimmerman????? Again, that would be breaking the law.
So either our president either is an idiot, or he is suggesting that we have to assume Martin has a pass in breaking the law, and that should trump the law abiding in any conflict? That is definitely an idiotic statement, but it was also probably intentional and meant to mislead.
Martin broke the law.
If Martin didn’t break the law, Martin would be alive.
Arming Martin in the president’s scenario only gives the law breaker a better chance at killing the guy who wasn’t breaking the law, but Martin is still breaking the law and even in the presidents scenario if Martin didn’t break the law Martin, and everyone else would be alive.
THIS happens all the time. No one ('cept the dead dudes immediate family) gets very upset over it.