Summations Only

Because I honestly believe that Martin was murdered.If this is not murder, what is? Zimmerman picked out his unarmed victim, stalked him, terrified him, and shot him, when Martin had never laid a finger on Zimmerman nor even done anything to mildly inconvenience him; and moreover Zimmerman shot him at a time when, as we know, Zimmerman must necessarily have been pointing a gun at Martin (since he shot him with it) whereas Martin was holding nothing more threatening than a can of iced tea. Has there ever been any code of morality except the Florida "Stand Your Ground Law" under which this is not considered murder? Is it in the Old Testament or the New? Is it in the Koran, the Twelve Tables, the Pillar of Hammurabi, the immutable laws of the Medes and the Persians? Show it to me, or admit that this is murder as that term has been understood by four millennia of civilization.

I look forward to seeing some defense attorney try that one on. "Clearly my client has not committed murder. Indeed, his victim, whom he shot five times in the chest, was not murdered by anyone, and so there is no case to try. Because you have not yet found anyone guilty of murder, least of all my client."Either Zimmerman murdered Martin or he didn't. In law the determination of that question is up to a jury, should he ever come to trial. But in fact, Zimmerman murdered Martin, and unless you deny the facts as I have set them forth, it would be more honest of you to say so.---Say, we never tried Hitler for genocide, did we? 'Cos he shot himself, thus avoiding the Nuremberg trials. So apparently he didn't commit crimes against humanity and he never will. Knowing that will be a big relief to the Jews, who supposed that the Holocaust actually happened. Will you tell them or shall I?The facts are facts, whether or not a court has yet recognized them.

The phone call Zimmerman made to the police; the phone call that Martin made to his girlfriend; the fact that Zimmerman did not allege that Martin assaulted him; the articles found by the police on the body; the fact that Zimmerman admitted to shooting Martin.The facts are pretty much undisputed. What is under dispute, and this boggles the mind, is whether Zimmerman should be held even a teensy bit culpable for the course of action that he chose to pursue.

I've presented all the important facts. If you say that this was not murder, then please accept my invitation, delve back through the past four thousand years of moral philosophy, and find a sense in which it isn't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That's good news. Thanks for pointing it out, it still isn't top of my list when I google; nor on the first page, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth ... possibly because it only came out 48 minutes ago.I note that unless the story is missing some details, he still hasn't been charged by the police (something which is not necessary to empanel a grand jury).Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes it is.This is pathetic.Suppose the courts decided that lynching was OK. Would it still be murder to kill a black man? Not in law, but in fact and in conscience would it be murder for a bunch of Klansmen to take a man who had committed no crime but being the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time, douse him in gasoline, and burn him alive?Good grief, by your criteria we couldn't say that Cain murdered Abel, since there were no courts to say that he did. Hitler didn't murder any Jews, since he escaped Nuremberg. Fred West didn't murder anyone, since despite his confession and all the bones in his back yard, he killed himself before trial. No-one whosoever murdered Nicole Simpson. It's not just that OJ didn't murder her --- despite all the stab wounds and the fact that she was dead, no-one murdered her because no-one has been convicted.This is lunacy, jar, this is moral and epistemological lunacy.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Try harder.

No, NoNukes did. What CS quoted would appear to be the Castle Law.