Final answer:
The question regarding Kino's self-defense is reflective of broader discussions about law, morality, and societal norms, particularly in cases involving race and self-defense. Legal justifications for self-defense can be complicated by societal biases and media portrayal, leading to a convoluted understanding of justice and moral actions in these scenarios.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of why it does not matter that Kino killed a man in self-defense touches upon complex societal issues involving the intersection of law, morality, and societal norms. In certain legal systems and social contexts, self-defense is considered a legitimate justification for killing another person if it is necessary to protect oneself from harm or death.
However, the legal justifications can become entangled with societal perceptions of the individuals involved, which may be influenced by factors like race and media representation. In cases involving the shooting of unarmed Black men, such as Trayvon Martin's death and subsequent trial of George Zimmerman, the discussion often extends to include issues of racial bias.
racial profiling, and self-defense laws like 'Stand Your Ground.' The complexities arise when societal fears, biases, and racial profiling challenge the perceptions of self-defense and justice. The mention of revenge and retaliation suggests a cycle of violence that may be perpetuated by these societal issues, further complicating the idea of justice based on individual motives and actions.