Zimmerman, Texas, n'at

Came across this comment over at Althouse earlier today:

I'm still trying to wrap my little brain around the idea that Zimmerman, who had the gun, had absolutely no choice but to fatally shoot Martin.

You know... there was a case in Texas recently where an unarmed man beat another man to death.

(UPDATE: Just in case you were thinking that was a freak occurrence, here's another story about an off-duty SWAT member beating a man into a coma.)

Beating someone is physical violence.  According to Zimmerman, Martin was repeatedly bouncing his head off of the pavement.  If that's true, then there was a good chance that the ultimate result would be serious injury or death for Zimmerman.

In situations like that, "injury or death" of the other person is the goal of the attacker.

On the other hand, the goal of the defender is to avoid their own injury or death.

Put those two bits of info together, and "shoot the violent idiot assaulting me with the pavement" probably sounds like a good idea.  Executing on that idea before your skull cracks and you black out or head off on a one-way trip into the Great Beyond probably sounds like a really good idea.

"Choice" doesn't really enter into it, unless you're saying that Zimmerman should have chosen to let Martin beat him unconscious and possibly kill him.

Seriously.  There is no legal or moral situation where you can reasonably say "Yeah.  You've got to let him beat you to death.  Sorry, dude."  Unless you're somehow intellectually stunted enough that you've made the mental connection that "gun ownership" == "deserves to die".

Not that anyone on the left would ever admit to thinking that way.