Quote:
Originally Posted by batman911
GZ did not break any law by carrying a weapon or asking TM what he was doing in the neighborhood. The law was first broken when TM assaulted GZ. Unfortunately, that was the mistake that cost him his life. You have no right to assault someone even if they are following or annoying you. TM's parents did not do their job. It is apparent from evidence not allowed that TM took joy in previous "ground and pound" incidents and appeared to be a way of life for him. I wonder how you would feel if the person getting pounded was one of your friends or relatives. All of this happened in seconds and I'm sure anyone on the receiving end of TM beating would have done the same if they are honest with themselves. If you were the one getting the beating would you have been afraid for you life if it was your head being slammed on the concrete?
|
Speculate forever about who broke the law first. The OP asked if the system worked. My opinion is that there is a flaw in the system which allows a person to deliberately confront another person without any compulsion or duty to do so; do so while in possession of a loaded firearm; and then walk away with absolutely no responsibility for the result. I believe that while a person is in possession of a lethal weapon, they have a responsibility not to voluntarily enter into potential confrontations. Think of it as not a lot different from the responsibility to lock up firearms in a private home where children are residing.