The law sounds every bit a can of worms.
What do you expect from Zimmerman’s apologists? Sincerity?
The man is a dangerous, trigger-happy vigilante. Period. Anybody can see that. Given that, defending him is, by nature, done without sincerity and/or in bad faith.
Poisoning the well.
Yes, he should have let Martin beat him dead to appease his apologists who don’t think a minute long beating that breaks Zimmerman’s nose and smashes his head into concrete a big deal.
This doesn’t have anything to do with Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman carried a gun and killed an unarmed man who was intending no crime.
If you want more Zimmermans on the street, you’re begging the question. If you think Zimmerman’s behavior is desirable in citizens…you must like the idea of living in a war zone.
I really do think the support of Zimmerman is largely built on the assumption that black people are out terrorizing all law-abiding citizens.
I’m here to let you know that poor whites are every BIT as dangerous as poor blacks/Vietnamese/Russians/etc.
I grew up in a very underprivileged part of Appalachia. The worst people I knew growing up were the white trash boys. They have murdered and raped waay more people than the black guys I grew up with, and I knew lots of black people growing up.
And that’s just that.
Yeah, I thought someone would say this.
I could say a great deal worse about Zimmerman and his supporters than “poisoning the well”.
I might poison a discussion. Do I shoot people? Do I advocate and support the shooting of unarmed black boys?
Where I come from beating the crap out of someone is a crime and the person being assaulted is allowed to defend himself. If it’s different where you live please provide a cite.
So far, Zimmerman did nothing wrong except watch out for his neighbors who had been robbed and assaulted over the last year. Martin committed assault. I would prefer people who watch out for their neighbors to people who assault strangers. If new information shows that Zimmerman did something wrong they you will find little support for him.
Nobody is supporting Zimmerman beyond his legal right not to be assaulted.
That has no relevance to this thread but feel free to start a thread on the subject.
This is what I’m talking about. Magiver’s post is an excellent example of what I’m saying. How can I even address those things seriously? Zimmerman killed a boy. Zimmerman had a history of violence. He carried a gun. His opponent was unarmed.
Why would you want people like Zimmerman on the street? I mean people exactly like him, with his personality and tendency to carry a gun.
I would love to get an answer to that question. I mean, I wear a hoodie sometimes. So does my wife. If someone was coming after me, AT NIGHT, after clearly following me in a car, I’m either going to
-
run away
-
beat some ass.
Yes, it takes a bit of a hothead to choose the second option. That’s not entirely outside the realm of normalcy for a teenage boy, though.
It’s a scary situation, because it’s at night, and the fight-or-flight response is very, VERY natural.
You just don’t chase people down at night, and expect them not to either FIGHT, or RUN. That’s common sense. Trayvon tried to run. Zimmerman kept chasing with his car, and finally on foot. AT some point, pretty much EVERYBODY goes from FLIGHT to FIGHT. That’s not hard to understand, nor is it a secret.
This isn’t about whether Zimmerman was right or wrong. This is about whether people like him are safe to allow on the streets.
Are any of you seriously saying you’d prefer to encourage armed citizens to randomly chase people down at night?
By the way, if you are, please don’t expect me to respond to you. We’re too far apart on this issue to ever agree.
I don’t know. Maybe you do. But whether you do or don’t is a “Red Herring” with respect to this discussion.
And there’s a bit of Appeal to Consequences. just to leaven the fallacy mix.
You must be reading another message board, one where people are saying, “I prefer to encourage armed citizens to randomly chase people down at night,”
No one, except you, has said that.
So when you create an argument and then attribute it to your opponents, that’s called the Strawman Fallacy.
You have an impressive command of the logical fallacies.
Oooh, ooh, I’m so excited about your links! I’m so excited that I’m almost going to think about clicking on them.
Not really.
Seriously, why would you even trot that stuff out? Who hasn’t seen all those techniques used before? Who hasn’t seen them listed somewhere online before? Did you really think I was so new to discussion boards?
I’d accuse you of side-stepping, but I’m pretty close to 100% sure that you’re just passing time.
That’s not my style. I give a discussion its due, but I eventually walk away if I can’t change minds. I’m not just using discussion boards as an idle pastime.
Are you accusing Bricker of an “appeal to logic” fallacy? Because I don’t think it is one, but sometimes people point out flaws in my thinking, so maybe I just haven’t heard of it yet.
Otherwise I’d like to know what the reasoning flaw is in his recent posts talking about how your inflammatory rhetoric has little to no weight in the reasoned world of debate. Since you’re no stranger and all, you know.
Things like why poisoning the well shouldn’t apply to what you said when I consider the weight (snicker) of your argument.
It’s even more mysterious to me, if you are as familiar with the logical fallacies as you claim, why you are employing them so broadly.
I’m trotting them out because they are an easier method of highlighting the flaws in your arguments than retyping explanations for each flaw myself.
Your post demanded to know why anyone wanted Zimmerman “on the street .” But so far as I can discern, no one said any such thing. That’s a strawman argument. Why in the world shouldn’t I point that out? This is the Great Debates forum of this message board, after all.
Because Zimmerman had a right to be on the street, had a right to have his kind of personality, and had a right to carry a gun. Just like Martin had a right to be on the street, even with his history of theft, drug use, and general acting out at school.
People have the right to be on the street, unless and until they have been convicted of a crime. Neither Zimmerman nor Martin had been convicted of a crime, therefore both have the right to be on the street. And I would everyone to be able to exercise their rights.
I hope that answers your question.
It might be normal, for a certain kind of teenage boy, but it is still not legal.
No, you are incorrect - it is entirely about whether Zimmerman was right or wrong.
If you are suggesting locking people up proactively, even when they are in the right, because you don’t like their personalities, I think you may run into a bit of resistance among those of us concerned with civil liberty and the like. You may also consider how well-liked your own personality is before making the suggestion. IYSWIM.
I think this was covered earlier in the thread. Whoever was the first to initiate violence or the threat of violence is in the wrong here. If it was Zimmerman, he should go to prison. If it was Martin, then Zimmerman should not go to prison, even if you don’t like his personality.
Obviously not all the evidence is in place. If some witness surfaces saying he saw Zimmerman approach Martin with gun blazing, or some text message surfaces where Zimmerman says “I finally got to shoot a nigger”, that will make a difference. To date, we haven’t seen such evidence.
See how it works? “Innocent until proven guilty” and all that.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, in fairness to **al27052 **, it’s possible his question goes beyond the question of rights.
That is, the Westboro Baptist crowd undeniably has the right to protest military funerals, but I nonetheless don’t want them doing so.
In other words, perhaps al27052 is open to hearing about the distinction between these two statements:
(a) I want Zimmerman on the streets because I wholeheartedly approve of his actions, motives, mode of dress, and stylish shaved scalp.
(b) I want Zimmerman on the street in the sense that I want anyone not acting in a criminal manner to have the right to walk down the street unmolested by the police.
Run away is a great idea if you’re scared. Martin didn’t do this. He was literally a few houses away from his. He had a phone in his hand and he could have called the police himself who would have explained the situation.
Beating someone who asked a simple question is a crime. Beating someone continuously is a vicious attack. Defending yourself from a vicious attack is both lawful and sensible.
It’s evident from your emotional rhetoric is that you refuse to acknowledge that Martin did anything wrong in his vicious attack. And that’s what it was, vicious. All Zimmerman did was ask a question. The question was fairly explanatory in it’s nature. A simple response would have kept the dialogue going and it would have straightened itself out by it’s own accord. The police were less than 2 minues away. At the very worst he could have shoulder butted Zimmerman and run. This is what a non-violent person would have done to escape when his house was in sight.
What you’ve done is make this out to be a racial attack against Martin. There is no evidence at this time that Zimmerman attacked Martin let alone attack him for the color of his skin. This in purely in your head which in itself is racist profiling. Your supposition is no different than someone suggesting that Martin continued his attack in unabated rage because he hated white people. That fact that you can’t see your prejudice is amazing.
Yeah, all Zimmerman did, when he got out of his car with his gun to make sure another one of those fucking punks and/or assholes, didn’t get away again, was to … golly, just ask a simple question. Probably politely too, huh?
Talk about emotional rhetoric.
“Beating someone who asked a simple question is a crime.” You know what else is a crime? Trying to apprehend someone who is minding his own business.
Maybe. maybe not. What, specifically, does “apprehend” mean?
About the same that “asked a simple question” means at this point. Who knows? … I mean, besides Magiver.
So you don’t know what it means, but you know it’s a crime?
Regards,
Shodan