Being stalked by a man brandishing a gun does, tho.
How did he have permission from the owner to provide security when the owner knew nothing about him being there, didn’t authorize it, or okay it?
Please quote me saying you said he was hired. I didn’t say you did. You said Zimmerman did nothing wrong which is obviously false in this case and during numerous other events with this guy. Care to retract your statement and apologize for your mischaracterization of my post?
Wow. You should stick to pedantic assholiness; it can at least be interesting in some cases. Slack-jawed idiocy doesn’t become you.
Yes. That certainly does.
The problem of course is that YOU initially advanced the notion of moral correctness by saying he didn’t do anything wrong. If you want to argue it was legal, that is fine, but you say he did nothing wrong. If you now say making such moral claims is problematic, then why did you do that?
Let’s review the dialogue:
Snowboarder’s distinction is correct. You have zero right – legally or “morally” – to attack someone merely for possessing a gun and following you. It’s perfectly legal to possess a gun in Florida; doing so does not invite bystanders to attack you.
Evidence, shmevidence. We all know how it went down.
“Young man… good evening! May I trouble you for a moment of your time?”
“Fuck you, cracka motherfucka!”
“Sorry for the inconvenience. My name is George Zimmerman, and I patrol these streets as a neighborhood watch volunteer…”
“I don’t give a fuck!”
“Yes, well, be that as it may… lately there have been some young ruffians about, engaging in some mischief… please understand, I’m not suggesting that you…”
“Fuck you, BITCH!”
“…personally would do such a thing. You seem like a nice lad, and I assume you must live nearby? I just wanted to urge you to be very careful when walking through the neighborhood at night, alone…”
“Yeah, imma kick yo ass, cracka BITCH!”
“I see that I’ve upset you. That was not my intent, and I’m terribly, terribly sorry.”
“Here it comes, fat-ass cracka motherFUCKA!”
“Please, I don’t want any trouble. I’m obligated to inform you that I’m armed with a concealed weapon for the purposes of self-defense. Believe me, the last thing I would ever want to do is harm you, so please, if we could just take a moment, I’m sure we can come to an understanding…”
I was responding to the vague insinuations in the OP. Since the OP alleged (vaguely) that Zimmerman was in the process of doing something shady or illegal, without saying it directly, I responded.
What, if anything, do you really think prompted Martin’s physical confrontation with Zimmerman? Is it likely that Zimmerman’s actions produced legitimate fear in Martin for his own safety? Is “being followed by a man with a gun” really the most accurate and contextually complete descriptor of the situation Martin found himself in that night?
From your link:
That seems an odd contradiction.
No.
I didn’t say YOU said that I said he was hired. I was quoting the initial link provided in the OP.
I don’t agree that “nothing wrong,” is obviously false in this instance.
Oh, bullshit on several counts.
I don’t think **Bricker **was accusing me of insinuating when I changed ‘innocent’ to ‘not guilty’ in post 35. He used the word insinuation to describe the OP.
Nor is your “simple statement of fact” a simple statement of fact. You’re taking Zimmerman’s version as gospel truth. The state of Florida didn’t agree with it, and prosecuted. The jury probably found there wasn’t enough evidence to disprove his version, but that’s not the same as accepting his version as a simple statement of fact. *Nobody *but Zimmerman testified that Martin attacked him first, or that Martin threatened him, or that Martin repeatedly banged his head into the concrete.
Taking Zimmerman’s uncorroborated testimony as gospel is fucking idiocy. The only fucking thing you can do, though, is not convict because you can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt it didn’t unroll that way.
No matter how much you want to believe it, we don’t know that things happened the way Zimmerman said.
A reasonable person may have feared for his life. I don’t think anybody knows if he really did. A *more *reasonable person than Zimmerman would not have killed Martin.
I think Zimmerman approached Martin and accused him of being a thief.
“Legitimate fear?” Sure. Legitimate fear of serious bodily injury or death, that would justify his using force against Zimmerman? No.
No, but I quoted it; i didn’t craft it.
And let’s just be honest here, we will never really know the answers to those questions, or at least we will never hear the other side of the story. Since he’s dead. Thanks to an overzealous “good guy with a gun”.
Bricker, take off the lawyer suit for just a minute. Even though Zimmerman’s actions may not have led to a conviction, can you acknowledge that his actions are a threat to public safety? In both incidents?
Geez. You are so full of shit it’s almost funny. The OP said nothing beyond “what a swell guy”. YOU started on this path about right and wrong. Even if you thought you were responding to an accusation of wrong doing, the correct respond, given your contention that such determinations are problematic, would be to say that you either don’t THINK he did something wrong, or that such an appraisal is problematic. You instead asserted (incorrectly) that he did not do anything wrong.
Not really. The police couldn’t contact the owner. As far as they know, he wasn’t lying. Clearly the owner’s quote contradicts that.
I don’t know what “threat to public safety” means.
Martin died. That’s clearly, extremely, unsafe. So that would seem to be a no-brainer.
But in this second incident, I’m not really seeing a threat to public safety.
Sorry, but you did craft the specific interpretation of the remark that painted the poster as asserting that simply “being followed by a man with a gun” was sufficient legal justification for self defense.
This was a rank fabrication on your part, as an unbiased reading of Robot Arm’s remark would notice that the second clause of his sentence “…and had good reason to fear for his life” (emphasis added) indicates RA’s interpretation of events is closer to Snowboarder Bo’s description, despite his careless phrasing.
You could easily have asked for such clarification (“Say, Robot Arm, do you really mean to say that Zimmerman’s mere possession of a concealed firearm and his proximity to Martin were sufficient justification for an attempt by Trayvon to beat poor George to death? Heaven forfend!”) But you chose the literal interpretation because RA’s actual meaning got in the way of your high dudgeon. Hence, slack-jawed foolishness emitted from your keyboard.
And I’m full of shit?
“What a swell guy,” in the context of the OP, was not a compliment. It was an insinuation, made even more clear by the link to a scene from a Batman movie.
So the OP’s message was clearly that Zimmerman was doing something wrong. I didn’t create that insinuation. It was there in the OP, by design.
And I continue to do so. What do you contend is wrong, specifically, with what he did?
That’s a remarkable generous re-edit of the statement. “And had good reason to fear for his life,” means, in an unbiased reading, that the consequence of being followed was that he had good reason to fear for his life. Your explanation is untrue, since there wasn’t one shred of evidence ever adduced to show that Zimmerman brandished his gun while following, the hypotehtical Snowboarder suggested.
Why would I possible ask if his clumsy phrasing was meant to suggest the existence of a hypothetical for which no evidence was every adduced?
Of course it wasn’t a compliment, but it doesn’t mean the OP necessarily thinks he did something wrong. It means he thinks he not a swell guy. Even if it did, your affirmative accusation to the contrary is equally problematic by your standards.
Once again, he clearly did lie to the police. He told them he had permission from the owner. He says the owner asked him to be there. The owner clearly and unequivocally denies that. Unless you think the owner is lying which makes far less sense despite the flack he is getting now. Zimmerman lying about this specific thing also fits pretty neatly with his past behavior.
Again, what sane person asks a guy with Zimmerman’s history to watch their store at night, for free? Why would anyone but a crazy asshole like Zimmerman agree to those terms if offered.
You’re not serious.
What about the various Batman links? The OP thinks Zimmerman is merely not a swell guy, and oh, by the way, unrelated to anything else in this post, here’s one of my favorite scenes from Batman?
There are two possibilities that have Zimmerman not lying:
(1) The owner did acquiesce to Zimmernan’s offer to hang out at the store, and is now backtracking due to the poor publicity. (Note, by the way, that the owner says he sent Zimmerman a text message to no longer come around – which shows that he already had Zimmerman’s cell number.)
(2) The manager, Porter, told Zimmerman he was welcome to hang out, and Zimmerman assumed this meant he had the owner’s permission.
In a conflict between Zimmerman and the owner, you immediately assign complete credibility to the owner. Why must I accept that scheme?
I’m picturing that Zimmerman made the offer, and the owner (or his manager) agreed.
Let’s say that tomorrow, Zimmerman produces a text message from the owner that confirms the owner knew Zimmerman was going to be there – in other words, refuting the owner’s current claim.
Would you then agree he didn’t lie to the police? Would you then agree he did nothing wrong in this current incident?