Ziggurat claimed (
see post 86 and post 88) it was OK to partake in vigilante justice against terrorists.
No I didn't. As I've pointed out, and as you have failed to understand, defending against an actual ongoing attack is not "vigilante justice", it is merely
defense. The law recognizes this. Common English recognizes this. People who aren't complete morons recognize this. Why can't you?
I pointed out that Zimmerman partook in a terrorist activity when he told his cousin, in the course of raping her, that if she did not comply with his commands she would be punished.
Aside from the fact that this allegation is merely that, not an established fact, your definition of "terrorist" is laughably absurd, so much so that almost every parent ever is a terrorist.
Therefore it was quite odd that he complained that people were calling for vigilante justice in that case.
Not in the least bit, since Zimmerman was not engaged in an ongoing attack.
Apparently Ziggurat only thinks its OK if it is his type of terrorism. That or he will just claim it is OK if the crime involved is murder, but not if it is rape.
Wait, Zimmerman was trying to rape Apperson?
I would be perfectly OK with the use of deadly force to stop someone from raping someone else. I'm not OK with hunting down a rapist (especially merely an alleged one) and murdering them well after the fact. These distinctions are rather simple, yet you keep choosing to ignore them, even after having them pointed out to you.
Had you read the thread, of course, you would have realized the difference.
You read the thread, and you still can't tell the difference.
