Last time he decided to prevent crime he set into motion a chain of events that culminated in a violent assault being committed by someone who had planned only to eat Skittles, thus actually increasing crime. He was then forced to use deadly force to save himself, killing a teenager. He was arrested, publicly demonized, put through the stress of a murder trial and eventually vindicated in a controversial decision that has left some in the community believing to this day that he got away with murder. Given that background, it beggars belief that he would resume his “crime fighting” activities and put himself at risk of going through a similar situation.
I wasn’t on the jury, so the rules of court don’t apply to me.
I think he is a nutcase with a vigilante/righter of wrongs streak in him that puts others in danger. I think people like him are a net menace to society, not a net benefit.
So, no, I don’t want him sitting in a darkened pickup making my neighborhood safer.
Which is why they limit it to reporting creepy behavior by persons of public interest, like Zimmerman and OJ.
I would say that OJ’s behavior subsequent to his criminal acquital went a bit beyond creepy-but-legal. Especially the “legal” part.
Regards,
Shodan
How many of the “he’s not breaking any law” people would be comfortable walking down the dark alley he’s appointed himself to keep safe?
The guy’s a fucking idiot with poor judgment and a gun and a hard on for being a hero. It’s already killed one innocent kid. There. I said it. Make fun of me or whatever.
OJ was creepy a long time between his acquittal and finally snapping. So it’s just a matter of time until Zimmerman goes from being a creepy guy with a gun to being a bad guy with a gun.
I read the thread title and thought it was about the guy from Men’s Warehouse. :smack:
I’m sure most of Zimmerman’s supporters would feel safe. His supporters tend not to be in the demographic that Zimmerman apparently considers to be a threat.
Donations to his legal fund are probably slowing down.
I wouldn’t want him patrolling my neighborhood, and we don’t even have dark alleys.
I said, “Zimmerman broke no law, did nothing wrong, and yet somehow garners from aClockworkMelon a vague insinuation of wrongdoing,” in referring to the present story. That is, in the story linked above, Zimmerman did no wrong, yet AClockworkMelon insinuates otherwise.
I did not mean to imply that Zimmerman has led a blameless life.
Both Martin and Zimmerman were innocent.
But the evidence showed that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life, which means that he was entitled to use deadly force to protect himself.
Here is exclusive footage of our hero earlier that night:
[quote=“AClockworkMelon, post:33, topic:694480”]
Here is exclusive footage of our hero earlier that night:
[/QUOTE]No, it’s not. The link goes to the opening of the “Batman and Robin” movie.
Zimmerman was not guilty, measured against the threshold of ‘reasonable doubt goes to the defendant.’
He killed Trayvon Martin.
Yes, he did. And he did so because Martin put Zimmerman in fear of serious bodily injury. That’s a circumstance under which it’s appropriate to kill.
These two lines are especially egregious as it makes it look, at first blush, like Zimmerman was lying. Zimmerman never claimed he was employed, but was “given permission.” The article makes the second sentence look like a refutation of the first when it is not.
Does this really have to be rehashed again? I know you enjoy arguments for the sake of argument but this is ridiculous. No one is getting their mind changed at this late a date. Anyone you respond to has already heard it. Why bother?
Because, on the SDMB, there’s an echo-chamber quality about the discourse – assertions like the one above are not challenged.