The Zimmerman case here has gotten quite a bit of coverage. So far, all that is being done is jury selection. One of the jurors questioned today firmly believes the media is biased, and avoids Fox. When asked about
the difference between opinion and news, she responded: “The difference
between FOX and CNN.”
She voiced that she thought the case presented a “very, very tough”
concept, regarding the fact that “someone who was unarmed being shot by
someone who is armed.” This has interesting implications for those of us who carry a firearm. If the time comes that you must shoot an unarmed person because you are in fear for your life, your attorney is going to have to explain how a person who is unarmed can present a realistic threat of great bodily harm to you. Many people think that the possession of a firearm is some sort of talisman that will protect you from harm, and see an unarmed person as non-threatening.
Another prospective juror took the position of many antigun forces when he said that he believed “murder’s murder, no matter what. Even if it’s
self-defense. Self-defense doesn’t make it right to kill somebody.” In other words, this man believes that no matter what, you must accept that another person is about to kill you, and there is nothing that you should or could do about it.
"this man believes that no matter what, you must accept that another person is about to kill you, and there is nothing that you should or could do about it. "
ReplyDeleteI have an acquaintance that believes that.... Talking to her about it is like talking to a wall. It is a closely held belief and any counter argument or discussion just creates anger. Her position is that NOTHING is worth the loss of another person's life, even saving her own. (UNLESS, the saving is done by a state authorized only-one carrying a state authorized firearm.) I gave up talking about self-defense to her a while ago.