>Apparently it is OK for him to assault the other person because he dared to walk near him, right? Breaking his nose, beating his head on the concrete - that's OK. I assume that it's ok because he was black?
>
>God knows who you would be lynching if the colors were reversed (actually, it is obvious).


How do you, or Mike C or John B know who started the attack on whom? Is not possible that Z threw the first punch and then he was bested? Just rhetorical questions, for as I said before it really does not matter as it is just dodging the more important questions, for example why is it that a civilized society needs armed civilians patrolling the streets, shouldn't that be the focus of the discussions?