Worth watching as a demonstration of the impenetrability of the “Zimmerman is a murderer” narrative. Morgan’s point is simple: Why on earth would we trust a guy with a gun who stalked an unarmed teenager, “decided to engage him in the street,” and then shot him dead while claiming self-defense? Good question. Why would we trust a guy like that? His guest patiently responds — more than once, because evidently it’s necessary — that that’s not what happened according to both Florida police and a Florida jury. Zimmerman was entitled to shoot because he was getting his head beat against the sidewalk. (Zimmerman also claims it was Martin who “engaged” him, not vice versa.) Presumably Morgan thinks he should have laid there, swallowed his worries that his skull would be cracked, and hoped for the best.
I’m curious to know what he thinks should be done in the aftermath of a situation like this, where a gun owner’s been acquitted of wrongdoing. Should that guy not get his gun rights back, a la someone who’s actually been convicted of a felony? Does the fact that he and his family are facing hundreds of death threats affect the calculus? If we can’t trust him to wield a weapon responsibly because he’s killed before, notwithstanding his vindication in court, presumably we should also deny U.S. troops the right to own a gun upon returning home from war. Many of them have also killed in self-defense, fully legally, and yet we can’t really know the circumstances in which they did so any more than we can really know what happened between Martin and Zimmerman. If the legality of a killing is no reason to grant the shooter the benefit of the doubt in terms of gun ownership, why distinguish between the two?
No, no, just kidding. I realize Morgan would happily ban most guns for everyone, troops very much included. Exit question: How does Piers propose that Zimmerman protect himself from the many, many, many people who’d like to kill him?