Ok, so explain, then. You said:
What taking of what human life were you taking about here?
Are you talking about his presence in the parking lot?
And the question must be asked…so what?
Duh?
What exactly did he think the outcome would be if he caught the burglars in the action? What exactly to YOU think the outcome would be if he caught the burglars? It’s possible he simply would have called the cops, but I doubt it–especially given his past history, the odds are very high someone would have gotten shot.
To Zimmerman, this risk is irrelevant; all he wants is to be the hero.
What would “someone” have gotten shot with?
It’s perfectly simple. All you have to do is read for comprehension.
It’s like when there’s two Pop-Tarts left, but you’re supposed to share them with your kid brother. So you could have one Pop-Tart each, but then you wouldn’t have any left for tomorrow; so instead you share one Pop-Tart today, and the other one tomorrow. And so in one sense you’ve each had one Pop-Tart, but in another sense you haven’t.
When I said “human life”, it’s like those Pop-Tarts.
I don’t understand that at all.
Nor do I believe that my failure to understand is unusual. I think that if this paragraph were read by twenty randomly selected adult English readers, none of them would understand what human life was taken by reading that paragraph.
In contrast, I think that a majority of those same people would understand what I wrote about the difference between not endorsing and endorsing.
And you think so too.
It’s the difference between the concept of a Pop-Tart, and a specific, individual Pop-Tart.
ETA: I thought we were going for breakfast food analogies in this thread.
I understand the difference between the concept of a pop tart and a specific, individual pop tart.
I do not understand how that distinction shows what human life was taken by George Zimmerman in the gunshop parking lot, or what relationship to the taking of any human life this has.
Here was the post of yours, as a reminder:
Sure, I hear you, its all hypothesizing.
All we know is that Zimmerman followed a black youth around in his pick-up because there had been recent break-ins by black youths. He called 911, 911 asked him not to do anything. He declined got out of his vehicle and there was a confrontation, the black kid ended up on top of him and then George shot and killed the kid.
We know that in Florida (unlike most states) the defendants does not have to prove self defense; the prosecution has to prove the absence of self defense. IOW if you kill someone and you are the only witness, the prosecution is going to have a hard time proving a goddam thing.
I don’t know if you’ve ever been in a firearms self defense course but once an assailant gets within grappling range, its really hard to unholster and fire your gun. Its a lot easier to do if your gun is already out. So if I had to guess, i would guess that Zimmerman already had his gun out or his hand on his gun when he talked with the young black man.
I have certainly been in such classes.
But if Zimmerman already had his gun out, how did he sustain the injuries he did before firing?
Who said that a human life was taken by George Zimmerman in the gunshop parking lot?
I will say this, though, your stamina in maintaining your arguments is very impressive. What with the hair splitting, the exacting definitions of terms, the breakfast food analogies, it’s exhausting for the untrained.
Thank you.
Now, again reminding you of this post of yours:
What, if anything, does the phrase “the taking of another human life,” in your post refer to?
It refers to something of more moral importance than having bananas[sup]*[/sup] on cereal.
- Any fruit, really.
Does the phrase refer to a particular human life taken?
Does it refer to a particular person who took a human life?
It does; George Zimmerman himself. There was a case a couple years ago where he shot an unarmed teenager, also while acting as an unofficial, self-appointed security officer. I believe it demonstrates that Zimmerman has neither the skills nor judgment to be acting in such a capacity, and that he is more likely to escalate a confrontation (perhaps even leading to fatalities) than to resolve one peacefully.
I’m surprised you hadn’t heard about it; it was in all the papers.
That would be context. Banana boy isn’t into context.
He may have been punched before firing. But Martin may have had just as much or more reason to fear for his life (being that he was being followed by a stranger with a gun late at night), and therefore (reasonbly) responded with force, as Zimmerman.
Which is why the law should change such that if you follow someone with a gun in your hand late at night, and there’s a confrontation in which you shoot the guy to death, you should be convicted of a crime on the order of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.
What evidence would have shown that the gun was in Zimmerman’s hand?
In other words, let’s say the Florida legislature adopts your proposed amendment to the law.
At trial, the Florida state’s attorney would have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman had a gun in his hand while following Martin.
What evidence would the state’s attorney present to the jury?
Perfect.
So to review, I said that I didn’t endorse Zimmerman’s acting as an unofficial, self-appointed security officer, even though I said it was neither wrong nor illegal.
An objection was raised by xenophon41, who thought that there was no difference between saying “that behavior is not prohibited” and “that behavior is morally acceptable.”
In response to that claim, I said:
You replied:
Now that we’re clear that the phrase, “taking the life of another human being,” in your post (which I have highlighted in red for emphasis) does in fact refer to Zimmerman, can you explain what relevance to the question of the excluded middle your observation has?