Who wins for maximum return on effort, Epstein with his bearded look for suicidal depression or Zimmerman with his injuries for killing another person as self defense?
And by the way, aside from other things about Zimmerman's case, why should the injuries of Zimmerman be seen as justifying a self defense claim but the fear of a teenager who finds himself suddenly being approached by an adult and the teenager reacts by running away then gets chased by that adult should not be? If the answer is that that fear could have also supplied justification for a self defense claim then what if the killing had happened the other way around? Should we not care about that and just rule in favor of the survivor like a jungle?
No comments:
Post a Comment