I wasn’t referring to the night that Zimmerman called the police about Martin.
I was talking about the other calls he made over the course of several years about suspicious people – or, more accurately, people whom he believed to be suspicious.
I’m sure if Zimmie had seen Martin “gangsta-shuffling” down the street with his AR-15 slung over his back - in an obvious open carry demonstration fully within the law, of course - he wouldn’t even have called 911 in the first place. Waste of resources is what it would have been.
No, I don’t think that’s true. I’m probably more familiar with the Zimmerman case than any other criminal case in the world, except those I actually worked on.
You said, “The police can decide whether my honest report warrants a response. If they respond, it means my report was justified.”
In the years leading up to the night Zimmerman shot Martin, Zimmerman called the police about many other individuals he believed to be suspicious. And, as i said, I suspect he felt just like you do: The police can decide whether my honest report warrants a response. If they respond, it means my report was justified.
On the contrary, he would have certainly called the police.
And even more certainly not been justified.
Which is the point I’m making.
Zimmerman believed, as Fear Itself does, that the police could decide whether his honest report warrants a response, and if they respond, it meant the report was justified.
The difference. of course, is that Zimmerman’s paranoia was rightly regarded as paranoia.
Hardly the same playing field when it comes to paranoia. I’d say one should be afforded a little more concern when seeing someone stroll into a Walmart with an AR-15 than they should when seeing someone toting Skittles down a sidewalk.
OK, that’s a fair point.
Of course, as I understand Fear itself’s plan, he is prepared to make that phone call for a holstered pistol as well as a back-slung AR-15.
(N.B. – Fear Itself’s name is ironic in this discussion’s context.)
The perception of Zimmerman’s paranoia was not based on his placing calls to law enforcement; rather, it was his description of every black teenager in a hoodie as someone who “doesn’t belong there”. I attach no such judgements of motives or intent to my reports. I would simply say, “There’s a man with a gun in the Target store.” If pressed for details, I would answer honestly, but I have no responsibility as a citizen to establish probable cause before making a call. That is the duty of law enforcement.
You don’t have a responsibility to establish probable cause before calling 911 - I agree. I think knowningly making a non-emergency call to 911 is something that should be avoided. In my state, it’s an infraction with multiple occurences (more than two) possibly rising to the level of a citation and escalating from there.
It’s up to you whether knowing what you know about your state laws and about this topic in general, to decide if seeing a holstered firearm constitutes an emergency. I am positive that there is plausable deniability to assert you truly believed that such an occurence would in fact be an emergency. Everyone has to live with their own actions.
That guns are still lethal weapons. The facts don’t give a damn what either of us thinks.
I agree that guns are dangerous objects and should be treated as such. But it’s false to say thatn they serve no purpose other than to be dangerous. They provide positive utility to a great number of folks and for those individuals the inherent danger is outweighed by that very same positive utility.
This sentiment that a gun’s only purpose is to be dangerous, or that they are only useful for killing (espoused by others), is indicative of the myopic view held by many gun control advocates. Any choice made should be done only after considering the costs and benefits of that choice. It’s a sloppy juvenile analysis if only one side of that equation is considered.
But they provide that positive utility, where it exists, by being dangerous.
Really, is there any argument about that?
I don’t know if this is semantics really. The positive utility is had by virtue of the firearm being able to project force. That in itself possesses an element of danger, both to the user, and to the err, recipient. No real argument there.
The main quibble I would have is your earlier statement that they serve no other purpose than to be dangerous. That is not their purpose. Being dangerous is a byproduct of their existence, but not the intended purpose.
Since Batman doesn’t need to fire grappling hooks across the street that often, what intended purpose are you thinking of, other than punching holes in living things at range? If that’s the purpose you’re thinking of, in what way is that not dangerous?
That’s not quite what I was saying. Firearms are dangerous - yes. Their sole purpose is not to be dangerous, however. Their purpose may be for sport, hunting, collecting, self-defense, etc. In each of these, they remain dangerous objects, but being dangerous is not their purpose.
A kitchen knife is also dangerous. It’s purpose is generall to cut things. No one would say a kitchen knife’s sole purpose is to be dangerous. I think it would be a stretch to say that any of the purposes of a kitchen knife (cut food, smash garlic, etc) include simply being dangerous. It’s a by product of the nature of the object.
What’s wrong with being dangerous? Do I have an obligation to society to be sufficiently weak and helpless so as to not be considered a threat?
I agree, 100 percent. It’s not civic duty, it’s having an axe to grind, and attempting to use the police in order to cause trouble where there isn’t any - not much different from pulling false fire alarms really.
I think you’re a pussy.
He had quite a record of doing that. Lots of perps waiking while black, driving while black, shopping while black, etc. And according to the records and reports, EVERY fight/altercation/shooting was self defense. Even the fight WITH THE POLICE. Fvcker should have been locked up long ago.
Boy, talk about a semantic quibble! The dangerousness of guns is just a byproduct of their existence!
Good then! We can make changes to guns to remove all the potential danger from their use, but they’ll still exist, and everyone will be happy. Because their dangerousness is just a byproduct, and not an essential property of guns.
Well, I’m glad we finally settled this debate. Buahahahahahahaha!!
If he were violently anti-smoking, then that’s a great analogy – he pulls a fire alarm because he truthfully “saw smoke.” He just doesn’t mention, unless asked specifically, that the smoke came from a cigarette being smoked by someone in a legal position to do so… and in his mind, getting the fire department to expend the resources to embarrass the smoker is a great tradeoff.
Sucks to be the guy whose house burns down the day the fire department is responding to the “see smoke,” claim, but you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, amiright?