—Killing is something to be avoided at all costs.—
Well, we agree on that one. Also, your examples are different than mine. One was war, the other was nature.
I suspect we both agree that Zim should not have confronted Trav, and may have been empowered by the fact that he was carrying. It actually might be a good ad for “open carry”. If Trav had known he had a gun and that he was neighborhood watch, he may not have attacked Zim (assuming that is even what happened. Zim did not pull a gun and did not use it “quickly” from eyewitness reports. The fight went on for quite a while before he finally defended himself the only way he could. Maybe of some of his neighbors had been willing to get involved, Tray would still be alive and Zim would not have needed to do what he did.
I doubt very seriously that Zim ever wanted to shoot anyone and very much regrets putting himself in a situation where he needed to. Again, assuming things happened that way.
BTW, the reason you want to follow him is to be able to point him out once the cops get there.
Quote:Killing is something to be avoided at all costs.
Oh really? At all costs? So a woman should allow herself and her children to be raped rather than shoot the s.o.b.? Or a person should allow an arsonist to burn down that person’s home rather than stopping the crime? Or any of dozens of other acts of great evil should be tolerated if stopping the evil meant killing the perpetrator?
AT ALL COSTS is much too strong a qualifier.
I was taught that a person who is armed is presumed to have an advantage and therefore is under legal obligation not to provoke violence;but that still wouldn’t require one to allow himself to be beaten to death.
Do you know whether the area had signs posted that there was “neighborhood watch”? Wasn’t it reported to be a “gated community”?