In your very first post in this thread:
“Zimmerman broke no law, did nothing wrong”
I look forward to Bricker’s dictionary cite on “wrong”.
Or “nothing.”
Or “did”.
You guys really need to learn to stay out of the Bricker vortex. Between his lawyering everything and his incredibly lame attempts at “gotcha”, he’s clearly a douchebag without much to add to the conversation.
He knows Zimmerman is a dangerous asshole, but can’t resist defending him because, hey, conservative moral values.
Please read the two posts above carefully.
Carefully.
Ok?
Now, let’s hear why you believe “broke no law,” or “did nothing wrong,” is the same as “I agree with.”
Here’s a hint: do you imagine I would say (about you) that in posting your ideas here, you did something wrong? Or that you did something illegal?
But do you imagine I would say I agree with you?
Does liberalism kill brain cells, or does the lack of functioning brain cells lead you inexorably towards liberalism?
He was not convicted. That does not mean that he did nothing wrong; perhaps he did, perhaps he didn’t. Surely, given your background, you know this.
Maybe so, but seems like with your vastly superior intellect, all you’ve managed is more elaborate and complex forms of wrong.
The context of that remark was Zimmerman’s recent parking lot actions, not his earlier adventures.
The second rule of Thesaurus Club: there’s inappropriate, undesirable, improper, ill-advised, unnecessary, reckless, foolish, dangerous and deadly, and then there’s wrong.
My accounting prof marked a bank reconciliation form I did on a test wrong.
I told him he didn’t have the moral standing to pronounce my actions on the form wrong. Inaccurate, perhaps, but there’s no way he could say the numbers I put down were immoral.
Everyone can read the thread, Mr. Attorney. You’re on record as saying Zimmerman’s actions were and are legal, and that there is no moral component to those actions. That is logically a legal and moral endorsement of that individual’s actions. (I won’t comment on whether the endorsement is “wholehearted” because I don’t want to imply -within the board definition of this sort of thing- that you’re presenting a bad faith argument, but I will say that an endorsement “of that individual” is beside the point when you’re endorsing their actions.)
Explain that fine distinction for me, Oh Sensai. While I deposit this little pebble in your delicate porcelain tea cup.
I personally think that Zimmerman got away with murder(though I do think the jury made the correct decision) but I think when Bricker said that Zimmerman “did nothing wrong” he meant Zimmerman did nothing “legally wrong”.
Did Zimmerman racially profile Martin? Yes, that’s not against the law.
Was Zimmerman so utterly paranoid that he felt the need to strap a gun to his hip to go shopping at Target? Yes, but since he had a permit that’s not against the law.
Did Zimmerman get out of his car and follow Martin after being told “we don’t need you to do that”? Yes, but that’s not against the law.
Did Zimmerman shoot and kill Martin? Yes, but the prosecution couldn’t disprove Zimmerman’s claim that he acted in self-defense.
Not to put too fine a point on it*, but the difference between “that behavior is not prohibited” and “that behavior is morally acceptable” is nil. Every (and I mean EVERY) parent knows this.
*Here’s the “too fine” point: defenders of George Zimmerman are a rancid mix of racists, morons and a tiny percentage of earnest, scholarly but very very dimwitted libertarians. (Which is fucking redundant.) You can quote me on that.
ETA: I think the jury made the correct decision under Florida law. And I have a big fucking problem with that.
Why not?
We’re talking legality. I’m loathe to speak for Bricker, but I suspect he’d strongly feel that a man who cheated on his wife was morally wrong but not guilty of any legal crime.
I don’t know his position on the first or second Anthony Weiner sexting scandal, but I could easily imagine him saying in response to people calling for Weiner’s resignation “why, the man didn’t break any laws. He did nothing wrong” while still finding Weiner’s behavior morally questionable.
We don’t know who threw the first punch. We know that Martin and Zimmerman had a verbal confrontation which quickly escalated to a physical confrontation and that Martin apparently was getting the better of him before Zimmerman shit him, but we don’t know who was the one who escalated it. Zimmerman obviously claims it was Martin who escalated the situation, but regardless of the truth of the matter that’s what anyone on trial for murder is going to say.
On another note, I earlier mispoke.
I should have said I think Zimmerman got away with manslaughter not murder.
The fact is, “we” ain’t talking legality. Only Bricker is. And we’re not discussing what’s appropriate for a public servant, because Zimmerman isn’t one.
Zimmerman’s earlier adventures provide context for his recent parking lot actions.
Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Ever heard of it? Know what it means?
You seem to imagine that an action can only be moral or immoral. And if I declare something is legal, and not immoral, then I must be endorsing it.
Let’s talk about the fact that you put sliced bananas on your cereal. It’s not illegal. It’s not immoral.
Do I endorse it? No. I don’t care one way or the other what the fuck you put on your cereal, or even if you eat cereal.
Any person of even limited intelligence can understand that point when cereal is involved. No one would believe that because I said sliced bananas on cereal are not illegal and have no moral component, I was endorsing them. But because George Zimmerman is involved, your mind, infected by liberal groupthink, loses any ability to understand simple fucking English.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Parenting a four year old, perhaps. By the time a kid reaches, say, ten, he should be capable of comprehending the sliced banana conundrum that baffles liberal you.
What’s wrong with looking out for a neighbor/friend’s business to make sure nobody breaks in? It’s not illegal and certainly not immoral.
That being said with Zimmerman’s history, its probably a good idea that he stays away from possible confrontation like this and I would tell him he’s an idiot for doing so.
I don’t see how saying it’s not illegal or immoral as an endorsement of his actions.