Depends what you mean by wrong.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen raised shrieks from the left and some muffled applause from the right with what everyone tells me was an exceptionally audacious and hard-hitting column. Was it, though?
“I don’t like what George Zimmerman did,” Cohen starts off. Why not? What Zimmerman did was defend himself against a violent criminal (taking assault and battery to be violent crimes, which I believe is the common understanding) who had attacked him [as the jury decided on evidence]. What about that don’t you like, Mr. Cohen?
In the next paragraph: “What Zimmerman did was wrong.” Why was it wrong? The police initially, and the court system eventually, determined that Zimmerman performed an act of justifiable homicide. That might be regrettable, but it’s not wrong in any system of values known to me.
If he was justified, it wasn’t wrong.
I paid special notice to this item, having heard a preacher say it (what happened, vaguely considered) was wrong, by which he meant (or had to mean, in the context) morally wrong, even if, as he told me later, he did not think the jury was wrong, by which he meant mistaken.
Blithe Spirit 
Reblogged this on Not for Attribution.
LikeLike
It seems to be the standard P.C. opening statement for both conservatives and liberals. Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Trayvon was a thug and reacted violently to Zimmerman and thought he had nothing to worry about in doing a “beat down.” He was deadly wrong. We are minus one thug and any offspring he might have created, all of whom would be tying up our tax money in benefits, police, courts, prison, etc. I don’t have a moment’s sorrow for the outcome. Not even for his parents who should have done a better job of raising him.
Poor Zimmerman will be haunted by this event all of his life, if he is allowed to have a life.
LikeLike