You edited, I understand now.
I don’t own a gun, never have. Again, try actually reading my posts.
He was a stupid paranoid racist violent fucktard (but, evidently, a role model for a certain class of person, who should aspire to someday only being as stupid paranoid racist and violent as Zimmerman), but calling the police was the least stupid thing he did all day. If the stupid fucker had just let the police handle it no one would have died. He should have called the fucking police, since he was so fucking scared, and stayed in his fucking car, like he was told.
But no, he had his sweet sweet gun, a violent history, and the IQ of my shoe, and we all know how that turned out.
Who needs a gun when we have heroes like Zimmerman to keep us all safe by shooting the occasional black kid.
Yeah, the innocent kid who was shot to death wasn’t in any way a victim. Right.
Yeah, the trespassing. By being on a public street. In the neighborhood where he was staying with his father. That was probably illegal. Sure, that makes sense. Let’s shoot him.
Yeah, our laws say that if you terrorize a kid into swinging at you then you can kill him. Even if he doesn’t deserve it (*your *words). And you don’t have any sort of problem with that at all. And I’m wrong for saying that people who think this way lack moral character. Right.
Maybe–and I’m just throwing this out there–maybe there should be some sort of moral culpability residing with the person who kills a kid who doesn’t deserve it, even if that person gets away with it under a loophole in the law? No, forgive me, that’s crazy talk. If we let our nation be guided by morals who knows where the fuck we’d end up.
The only one of those that’s even arguably true is stupid. He’s demonstrably not racist, demonstrably wasn’t paranoid - if he had been he’d not have got out of the car, and demonstrably not violent - notice that the only marks from the fight were on Martin’s fist, and Zimmerman’s head.
Oh, and he wasn’t told he should stay in his car. Try listening again. Not that anyone would have had authority to do that, even if they’d wanted to.
Why are you making all of this nonsense up about Zimmerman, and ignoring the fact that Martin hit and beat him?
What innocent kid? The only person in this case that I’m aware of being shot was the guy who was beating someone up.
He was not on a public street, so again you know fuck all about that case. But that’s not the trespassing I was on about, I’m on about the “mail thing” Deedee refers to.
No, they don’t. They say if someone attacks you, and puts you in fear of death or serious injury, you can defend yourself with lethal force.
Correct on every point.
It’s not a loophole in the law, it’s the point of the law. To allow people to defend themselves, with lethal force if necessary, against people who punch them without provocation*, then continue to beat them. If your nation were guided by morals, you wouldn’t have people beating up strangers.
*To make it very clear, again, there is no such thing as provocation that would allow someone to attack anyone in the way Martin attacked Zimmerman, judging by his injuries. If there were any evidence he was acting in self defence, one could claim it was simply an overreaction, but there is no such evidence.
Yeah, plenty of non-paranoid people carry loaded guns around with them everywhere they go. Perfectly normal. And of course he’s not racist. I mean he was only profiling a black youth based on his race; that’s not racist at all. Some of his best friends were black. And he’s clearly not violent. I mean, he’s only ever killed one kid. Trivial! And there was that time he attacked that police officer. But who hasn’t attacked the occasional police officer? And there’s the gun thing, but lots of perfectly normal people carry guns around with them all the time. Just in case they have to kill someone (but not in a violent way!)
Yeah, no one can tell hero Zimmerman what to do. Yeehaw!
Yeah, and who created the situation that resulted in the kid swinging at him? Who followed the kid down the street? Who frightened the kid into running away? Who took his loaded gun and shot a kid to death with it? Obviously the person who did those things bears no moral culpability at all.
Yeah, evil Martin was skipping down the street just looking for someone to beat on. If Zimmerman hadn’t shown up he would have beaten on someone else, I’m sure. Unless maybe Zimmerman did something to make the kid think he should fight for his life? No, let’s not consider that. Would require thought. Might lead to questions. Might lead to change of mind. Dangerous, all those things.
Go ahead and prove the elements of trespass to me, if you could. We need him to have been given notice that his presence was not permitted. Did that happen? If not, then I guess our victim hadn’t committed any crimes at all at the point Zimmerman called the police. Gosh, that’s awkward.
And the point of the miscegenation laws is? And the point of the anti-sodomy laws is? Can a thing not be both legal and immoral? Or are we guided solely by legalities? Prior to the stand-your-ground laws passing, would Zimmerman’s actions been moral?
How can you say that the kid didn’t deserve to be killed, but that Zimmerman has no moral culpability? How can you get that first part but not that second part?
Well, yeah, plenty of people in America do carry loaded guns. I mean, it would be pretty fucking stupid to carry an unloaded one. So, we have not racist, didn’t start the violence, and did nothing wrong by calling the police or carrying the gun, or by defending himself from an unprovoked attack.
At some point, you’ll be saying what he did do wrong.
That’s not exactly what I said now, is it?
“The kid” created that situation. He followed “the kid” a short way, then stopped. “The kid” was so frightened that, instead of going home, he came back to start a fight. It was that last action that necessitated Zimmerman defending himself, and fortunately he had a weapon with which to do so.
I guarantee you that, had Zimmerman been unarmed, or unable to reach his weapon before Martin crippled or killed him, you would not be referring to him as “the kid”, you’d be (if you’d even heard of the story) wondering why no-one was stopping thugs like him wandering around beating people up.
I’ll ask again, and I hope you’ll bother to answer this time. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that Martin went out of his way to attack Zimmerman when judging the morality, or legality, of both their actions?
Show the evidence that Zimmerman did any such thing.
No, not at all awkward. Why would it be? Don’t forget, it was a private community of which Martin was not resident. Zimmerman was entirely justified in his suspicions. That’s ignoring the fact that Martin went onto private property that he was not invited to, not just the shared property he was.
Defending oneself is inherently moral.
Most people who die don’t deserve to. It doesn’t imply that there’s some moral culpability there.
In this case, we can best decide the morality from Zimmerman’s intentions. The best inference from the evidence is that he shot Martin in an attempt to end his attack, and he had both the moral and legal right to use lethal force to end that attack.
This never would have happened if Martin had minded his own business. He went out of his way to confront Zimmerman and we know from either version of the exchange he didn’t give Zimmerman any chance to explain before he launched on him. This is in contrast to Zimmerman who does not get out of his car when Martin walks up to it and stops chasing him when asked by the Dispatcher. Zimmerman’s demeanor is calm, Martin’s is not. Even during the physical attack Zimmerman attempts to get away from Martin. The distance from the start of the event to the end shows this.
Zimmerman acted in the capacity of a neighborhood watch. He did so rationally and without any aggressive behavior. There is no indication from the conversation between the two that he threatened Martin or posed a threat to Martin. Whether he stayed in his car or not in immaterial. A vehicle poses no level of security for either party.
Yes, cite the need for Martin to go out of his way to confront Zimmerman and then cite any threats made or implied by Zimmerman in that conversation.
Why would there be a need to prove to you the elements of trespass. Zimmerman saw someone on property he knew was not his. It was suspicious looking and he called the police. I’ve done this a number of times in my own neighborhood. I’ve stopped 3 robberies and nailed 2 burglars all because I saw people trespassing.
Martin attacked someone and then went on to beat him with no end in sight and no sign of help for the victim. He literally went out of his way to do this. There is nobody else to answer for his behavior but himself.
This isn’t a function of what Martin “deserved”. It’s a function of Martin’s criminal actions that triggered a response of self defense. He created the situation that killed him.
Apparently Zimmerman didn’t follow Trayon very far with his vehicle. If he did, it would likely be before the phone call, since it appears unlikely from the phone call. Why someone would panic due to a person parked by the side of the road, talking on the phone, unless they were thinking of doing something questionable, is hard to figure, and Trayvon approached the vehicle to find out Zimmerman was on the phone. Trayvon apparently didn’t show any fear until after he saw Zimmerman on the phone. What else could he be scared of but being reported to the authorities? If he was scared, instead of approaching the vehicle, Trayvon could have just gone between a gap in the townhouses, taken off running, and there’s no way he would have been caught. Nor could he have been caught afterward, considering obese Zimmerman’s physical limitations, and a head start. You can hear Zimmerman pounding his flashlight on a post after the dispatcher suggested Z not follow. It couldn’t have been chambering a gun, since that ejects a bullet, and the gun would have been empty, and not just one shot fired. The dispatcher never told Z to go back to his vehicle, if you don’t believe it, listen to the dispatcher call. All he does is suggest that Z not follow the suspect.
I’m a bit concerned about these two posts from you lately, unprofessional and unlike the Bricker we’re used to:
So is this in, or out of context? Because we want to be clear as to not avoid any “baseless” responses.
You’ll need to detail for us what it means to mind your own business. I believe the general concensus would have been for him then to ‘mind his own business’ and keep on driving, never calling the police or making any report.
Reference my story about Janeen Myers who in that hypothetical alternate scenario, Trayvon killed. This is hopefully self explanatory as to why it would have been a good thing that Trayvon was seen by Zimmerman.
Did you mean rather to say that Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck, reported Martin and then continued to stay in his truck but try to find a sign from that very same truck.
Sounds a bit difficult to do?
AfaIct, it’s actually a piece of cake to read a street sign from inside a vehicle. I suspect that tens of millions of people read street signs from inside vehicles every day.
It’s as if street signs were specifically designed to be visually accessible by people inside vehicles.
So, please explain about what makes it difficult to find a street sign when you’re inside a vehicle.
Of course. I get slammed by the pro-Martin people for my racist views regarding Zimmerman’s lack of criminal guilt and slammed as unprofessional by the pro-Zimmerman folks for my belief in his moral culpability. Some topics, I just can’t win.
That’s a fair question. In this case, mind his own business is perhaps not the best term, because it covers a wide range of potential responses. I specifically meant that Zimmerman should have stayed on the phone to police from inside his truck. He thus fulfills the duty of a zealous neighborhood watch participant and allows the police to sort out what, if any, nefarious conduct was in play by Martin. It’s worth pointing out, in fact, that this is consistent with Neighborhood Watch guidelines, while a more personal involvement with apprehension is not. This has zero bearing on Zimmerman’s criminal guilt, of course, but I think it’s relevant to his moral culpability.
:dubious: c’mon big guy, you can take a little debate.
It’s pretty pointless to sit in a car waiting to tell the police you don’t have a clue where the person went. As I’ve stated before, I’ve called the police a number of times on suspicious activity. When I was able to maintain visual contact of the person there was an arrest. When I lost sight of them they got away. IMO Zimmerman acted reasonably in the situation because he stopped pursuit when asked. He was never on the heals of Martin but it appears he saw the logic of not getting too close. This doesn’t stop him from looking for him but at that point he stayed in the upper quadrant of the complex waiting for the police to arrive.
Are there any visible signs from where Zimmerman was parked inside the complex?
No one is slamming you per se, rather showing disappointment in your change of tone. Look on the bright side - this only came up because we’re so used to your being calm and effective.
That’s a fair question. In this case, mind his own business is perhaps not the best term, because it covers a wide range of potential responses. I specifically meant that Zimmerman should have stayed on the phone to police from inside his truck. He thus fulfills the duty of a zealous neighborhood watch participant and allows the police to sort out what, if any, nefarious conduct was in play by Martin. It’s worth pointing out, in fact, that this is consistent with Neighborhood Watch guidelines, while a more personal involvement with apprehension is not. This has zero bearing on Zimmerman’s criminal guilt, of course, but I think it’s relevant to his moral culpability.
[/QUOTE]
Eep,…
…let’s try again.
Is “zealous” simply a personality trait, or is he “zealous” in that he is actually interested in fulfilling his duty?
Use of the adjective in this scenario gives a clear representation of your belief regarding his culpability.
Two questions :
- Although he follows watch guidelines, does his furthering actions coincide as well, or are we saying he exercised creative interpretation?
- Do the guidelines discuss or deal with morality specifically?
For the record, I am not pro-Zimmerman; I am pro-justice…
Are there streets signs where there are no intersections?
When was the last time you were driving and wanted to find a street sign, so you exited your vehicle in the middle of a block instead for driving to the intersection?