"Doesn't Trayvon Martin actually have the right to kill George Zimmerman if George Zimmerman is stalking him and the police have told him not to stalk him?"
This question was actually asked Tuesday on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight by schlockumentary filmmaker Michael Moore during a discussion about gun laws in the wake of the shootings in Aurora, Colorado (video follows with transcript and commentary):
PIERS MORGAN, HOST: On this point, a clear example of the kind of thing you’re talking about is the Trayvon Martin case where George Zimmerman, if he hadn't been carrying a gun, indisputably Trayvon Martin would still be alive.
Indisputably? How does Morgan know that?
Assuming Zimmerman didn't have a gun, he still might have encountered Martin leading to the deadly altercation.
Not according to the all-knowing Morgan:
MORGAN: It was the fact he had a gun. Whichever side of the argument you believe, and we don’t know all of the facts. It may or may not come out in the court case. But the bottom line is if the gun hadn't physically been on Zimmerman, then Trayvon Martin couldn’t have been shot. George Zimmerman was perfectly, legally entitled to carry this firearm around. That firearm led to Trayvon Martin being shot.
"That firearm led to Trayvon Martin being shot."
Really? The firearm led to Martin being shot and NOT actions that Martin might have taken to provoke the shooting? Isn't that yet to be determined in a court of law?
Also missing in Morgan's "reasoning" was maybe Zimmerman would have been dead if he didn't have a gun.
For some reason that's never a concern of liberal media members:
We don't know Zimmerman broke any laws. This was his neighborhood where he lived.
It has yet to be determined in a court of law exactly what route he took after he was told by police to stop his pursuit.
Moreover, assuming Zimmerman did indeed continue following Martin, you don't have the right to kill someone all because they're following you.
If that were the case, Moore who constantly stalks people in his schlockumentaries would have been legally shot years ago.
But I digress:
MORGAN: There is an irony there. It's George Zimmerman using Florida’s stand your ground defense when in fact as you say you could equally argue that Trayvon Martin may well have been doing the same thing. He might have been defending himself against somebody who he saw was armed...
MOORE: Which he has the right to do.
MORGAN: …in the darkness, and he didn't know what this guy was up to. I mean, we don't know the facts, important to say, but, you know, it is ironic. You had the guy with the gun…
MOORE: It doesn’t matter because George Zimmerman kind of claimed that as a defense. “He was trying to kill me.” Yes, he might have been trying to hurt you because you were stalking him. You were breaking the law.
So Moore and Morgan in their zeal to convict Zimmerman actually believe it's against the law to follow someone and that the person being pursued can kill his pursuer.
If you rubbed their heads together, you wouldn't even be able to start a fire.
