I don't think we owe him anything beyond applying the standards of the law. I don't think you were saying we owe him in another sense.
Zim has some negatives - his financial shenanigans were not truthful. He has a history with some negatives as regards violence - but no convictions and cannot be introduced. As far as believing his story - no - we have to evaluate it. Every guilty defendant says he wasn't there, it wasn't his dope and the other guy did it. I sit on a conduct review board and listen to these excuses all the time.
As I said in my big post - if he goes down - it is because of the macro story.
1. No need to intervene and get out of the truck - that sound specious to me.
2. A kid is dead who was minding his own business. The analysis of Martin's actions don't impress me. I see that as trying to excuse Zim for his own stupidity.
- Now if you go to the micro story, there may be reasonable doubt.
Which will the jury pick? Neither verdict is a victory for society. Certainly, anyway it goes down, it wasn't a plus for the gun world.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
|