[dirtboy]

This column is notable for two aspects - first, that he fails to condemn the over-the-top rhetoric by many of those taking Martin's side.

And second, this close illustrates the gap between left and right here:

And we are all left with an uncomfortable question: Even if Martin dabbled in drugs, carried himself like a gangsta and wore tattoos, did Zimmerman have the legal right to kill him that night?

Uncomfortable? What, that someone could, if circumstances warrant, have the legal and moral justification to kill another person trying to kill them?

We do not know yet if Zimmerman truly had that legal and moral justification. But liberals have a fundamental issue with the concept of self-defense in the first place.

[wbill]

Even if Martin dabbled in drugs, carried himself like a gangsta and wore tattoos, did Zimmerman have the legal right to kill him that night

Strawman argument.

He wasn't killed for that, he was killed because he was pounding on Zimmerman with his fists.

Now.....the legit argument may have been "Did Zimmerman have the right to suspect that this black kid was up to mischief in the neighborhood because of his tattoos, appearance, etc".

I'd answer "Well, yeah. When I see a gangbanger cruising around my average suburban whitebread neighborhood, I generally assume that he's not there to sell girl scout cookies." BUT ... others would, and could legitimately disagree with me.