Zimmerman’s account of their conversation before the fight was backed up by the testimony of Rachel Jeantel.
Cite.
No accusations of thievery or of anything else, no threats, no indication that Zimmerman was brandishing a weapon.
Regards,
Shodan
Seek help.
If you don’t believe that there’s a moral component to his decision to continue acting as a vigilante, especially given his history, then i guess that your earlier observation might actually be right: in this case, at least, we don’t seem to share a moral framework.
Right. He wouldn’t have known about the gun unless Zimmerman showed it to him, either through poor concealment or through brandishment. It’s a supposition whether he did or did not. What isn’t supposition is that Martin felt (quite correctly) that Zimmerman was specifically following him, and was concerned enough about that to question it.
What exactly would constitute justification for self defense when one is being followed by a stranger is partially what the side argument is about, and is why Martin’s hypothesized awareness of Zimmerman’s weapon is important. But I haven’t seen anyone argue in any of the Zim threads that being followed by someone is justification -legal, moral or otherwise- for an attempted beat down.
“If you hang around barbershops, sooner or later you will get a haircut.”
I’m going to print this, have it framed, and add it to my collection of quintessential single posts by SDMB members. I’ve never seen anything capture Brickerness quite so perfectly. Bravo.
That’s the nutshell argument. Zimmerman nor his supporters seem to hold him morally culpable for the confrontation which culminated in his killing an unarmed teen who was committing no crime prior to their meeting. Therefore, there can be nothing wrong with Zimmerman’s continued armed vigilance. No reassessment of his modes, motives and methods needed, thanks very much, the jury declined to convict after all. If the shooter is blameless, his actions must be as well.
Must be painful to be so fearful, yet glorious to have such righteous certainty.
Joy only reminds the fearful of how much they are about to lose.
I dare say sir, that this is exactly the problem with your statement. You argue that a “vague assertion of wrongdoing” was an incorrect response to this story. Regrettably, you have been trained, and have lived, too much in the world of the law. Being legal or illegal does not equal being right or wrong.
It is not illegal for me to laugh at a co-worker who is trying to lose weight when he stands on the scales and gained a half a pound. Just because it is legal, does not make it right.
It is not illegal for me to call my son stupid for 16 years of their life. Just because it is legal, does not make it right.
It is not illegal for George Zimmerman to stake out a place which has been robbed, without the consent of the owner, ready to confront another person whom he thinks is going to commit crime.
It is not illegal (apparently, based on the decision in his trial) for him to confront a person who approaches this business and whom he thinks is up to no good.
It is not illegal for his actions to then spurn a situation where he thinks he is faced with deadly force and has to result to deadly force himself.
But, given his experience in killing a young man who was not up to criminal activity prior to his intervention previously, one would think a reasonable person would refrain from being a vigilante.
From this story, it is evident he has not learned from this.
Thus, it is not illegal, but implying he is “wrong” is perfectly acceptable and a reasonable response.
Life is not all about your law books. In fact, some of the greatest wrongs in history were perpetrated by people acting by the law.
Unless we have solid reason to believe Martin knew Zimmerman was armed, I don’t think the hypothesis has any place in the discussion. FWIW, I consider Zimmerman a skeevy character and I have no interest in defending him, as such. In a discussion such as this, though, once we allow hypotheticals the next stop will be crazytown.
Do any hypotheses have a “place in the discussion”, and what are the criteria? Just curious, not that I accept your authority to make such a proclamation (nor do I assert my own authority to do so). The hypothesis is under discussion because I’ve objected to **Bricker’**s overly literal interpretation of another poster’s remark. It’s part and parcel to the idea that George Zimmerman’s belligerent approach to crime-fighting is more likely to *produce *crime than it is to deter it, which is the moral and the pragmatic objection Bricker continues to elide with his fine legal distinctions.
So the question is a sidetrack but not, I think, a thread hijack. (If a mod declares it so, I’ll desist.)
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Bingo.
This makes no sense. Even setting aside the fact that your comment was an assertion, not a hypothesis, or that you made this assertion on the basis of an “insinuation” in the OP. There is also the issue that you later asserted that any appraisals of right and wrong are problematic.
It would be a lie if I said the VP emailed me instead of saying my boss did on my VP’s behalf. Besides, there is no evidence anyone asked him to do that anyway. In fact, there is speculation among the principles involved that he took it upon himself.
Pretty much.
The incredulity is that someone would ask a man who killed a person to possibly assert himself into a similar situation with no expectation of payment for his work. Especially when that person is in a political charged situation where this association could hurt him. The incredulity was not that someone would do what Zimmerman did; it’s that someone in the owner’s position would ask him to do it knowing the consequences, then lie about it after the fact. Zimmerman, imo, was motivated to do that because he is a nutcase.
Because, at best, he is insinuating himself into a similar situation to the one that almost sent him to jail. It would be like being okay with Michael Jackson have kids sleepover his house, or Bill Clinton having private meetings with his female interns. Again, being as charitable as possible, why would anyone put themselves in that situation?
Yup. Can’t help himself.
And you don’t share a moral framework with the OP, yet you tried to make a moral argument that the guy had done nothing wrong.
You seem to be trying to get the OP to share your moral framework when he clearly doesn’t. He sees what Zimmerman did as wrong, you don’t. Yet your position in this thread is that your moral framework is correct and the OP’s is incorrect.
You claim to know that it never works out to make such arguments. Why are you making them?
I hope it’s not my initial interpretation, that you did it to be an asshole.
Because Zimmerman isn’t very smart.
And because he’s dim, intelligence-wise, he doesn’t connect the dots. He did nothing wrong, he thinks, and that’s that.
So what? He did too.
Yes. My moral framework is the correct one; his is flawed.
Why am I the only one prohibited from making that claim?
Several reasons. It seems to me that if I announce my moral judgement is correct, it illustrates the problem with anyone else doing the same thing.
And, of course, why should I be the only one that is not permitted to announce what things are morally right? I get this criticism all the time: “Oh, Bricker, there you go again with your ‘legal’ claims. We are talking about what’s MORAL!”
Ok. Me too. And I get to decide what’s moral.
What’s that? You don’t accept my authority to decide what’s moral?
Ah. But I must accept yours, eh?
But apparently, you’re agreeing with teh stupid.
And even though you think George Zimmerman’s conclusions are a product of his poor intelligence, you are pronouncing his moral correctness. Moreover, you’re making sure to declare your agreement with that dimly derived moral sensibility as some sort of “gotcha-ya” towards we sanctimonious liberals who’re incessantly muddying clear legal issues with questions of morality.
I guess I can’t say it any better than Forrest Gump’s mama… Stupid is as stupid does.
A facet of this board that continues to amaze me, no matter how much I see it, is the belief that any support directed towards an individual implies wholehearted endorsement of that individual.
“George Bush was an arsonist!”
“Well, wait. He may have had faults, but I don’t think arson was among…”
“I guess you approve of lying to start wars?”
Read back through everything I’ve said, and find the post in which I said that I agreed with Zimmerman’s action. Go ahead: I’ll wait.
Well, you’re on the money with respect to sanctimony and liberals, no question there.
But grasshopper, when you learn that there is a difference between “pronouncing his moral correctness,” and denying his moral incorrectness, we can chat again.