|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
Maybe next time they want to stir up racial tensions to validate their victimhood ideology they will at least begin by picking a guy who is actually white. They've had marginally more success swearing that the GOP hates women.
The kind of mental gymnastics people have gone through to sensationalize this case has been pretty telling as to how far people are willing to twist known information to fit an established narrative. Racist white man (who is hispanic and has plenty of black friends and family oops), racist police and EMTs lying about wounds and correcting witnesses (who didn't actually see the fight, just heard it, the visual witness supports Zimmerman), this low quality video proves he wasn't injured (despite it showed blacks marks on the back of his head. Those were shadows, of course)!
They can still stick to repeating ad nauseam without evidence that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. They still have that, I guess.
As soon as you hear the prosecutor swear they arent prosecuting based on public pressure, you know that is exactly what they are doing.
|
On April 21 2012 08:45 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 08:35 RJGooner wrote:On April 21 2012 08:31 Holytornados wrote:On April 21 2012 08:23 reki- wrote:
Potentially suspicious people. The guy (Trayvon) was just walking there minding his own business. I still think that if there is a person wandering around late at night in a hoodie is suspicious. I would not have pursued this person, but would have perhaps notified the police. Which he did, and then he was told not to follow him. And it wasn't late at night. I agree the pursuit was wrong, but what was he supposed to do after that? Let the guy beat him into the ground? Give him a stalking charge or something, but this whole thing has just grown way out of control.
But you see the premise (for me at least) colors the whole incident. You don't get to follow around people with a gun and then shoot people after you get into a fight and they're a better fighter than you. He shoudn't have been following around people in the first place.
|
On April 21 2012 08:42 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 08:21 RJGooner wrote:On April 21 2012 06:45 valaki wrote:
My point of view (totally based just on my opinion, from what I've seen / read / heard so far) : So this semi-thug young adult (sorry, but he's not the clean A student the media portrayed him to be) was at a neighborhood when this other guy (with some shady things in his past too) who's duty was to watch the said neighborhood approached him because it was night time and this guy wore a hoodie, and not to mention, he was over 6ft tall, so people need to cut this "child" crap. To be perfectly honest, he would've been suspicious to me too, and not because he was black. But it seem's like Zimmerman was overly cautious and wasn't only followed the guy, but called the police too.
Okay from here, I've read several different scenarios, but in the end Zimmerman got to the ground and got injured moderately, some say, because Trayvon picked a fight with him because he was following him. He (Z) was clearly losing because in the recordings he called for help.
Now the question is, could he have felt, that his life is in danger? Maybe. Maybe he overreacted badly. That's the court's job to decide.
In my opinion even if he goes to jail, it shouldn't be more than 1-2 years. But the whole case has nothing to do with race, but some people would actually kill each other because of this...scary. 28-year neighborhood watchman follows around people armed with a gun. Gets "we don't need you to follow him" by a police dispatcher and then continues to do so. I don't know who instigated first, but all we know now is that Trayvon is dead. The whole premise of the situation is ridiculous. Neighborhood watchmen should NOT be following people around armed with guns. I hate it when people who say "well you would have fired your gun in that situation too" no I wouldn't be following around suspicious people with a gun in the first place. Why should he have not had a gun? All that accomplishes is to make Zimmerman defenseless. Is that what would make everything better for you? If Zimmerman were dead instead of Trayvon? If anything this is a lesson about the importance of allowing citizens to carry pistols in case they are attacked by unpredictable thugs. Without a firearm for self defense Zimmerman could be dead or have permanent brain damage.
Don't put words in my mouth. What would have been best is if Zimmerman hadn't followed around someone he found suspicious (against what he'd been told by a police dispatcher) and then shot that person because he got into a fight with them. What should have happened is Zimmerman calls the police, lets THEM do their job and check out Trayvon. They check him out and everyone goes on their way.
I'm not opposed to people owning guns. I am not opposed to neighborhood watchmen owning guns. The key word though here is SELF-DEFENSE. Stalking people who you consider suspicious and then shooting them if they get in a fight with you does not equate to self-defense for me.
|
On April 21 2012 08:42 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 08:21 RJGooner wrote:On April 21 2012 06:45 valaki wrote:
My point of view (totally based just on my opinion, from what I've seen / read / heard so far) : So this semi-thug young adult (sorry, but he's not the clean A student the media portrayed him to be) was at a neighborhood when this other guy (with some shady things in his past too) who's duty was to watch the said neighborhood approached him because it was night time and this guy wore a hoodie, and not to mention, he was over 6ft tall, so people need to cut this "child" crap. To be perfectly honest, he would've been suspicious to me too, and not because he was black. But it seem's like Zimmerman was overly cautious and wasn't only followed the guy, but called the police too.
Okay from here, I've read several different scenarios, but in the end Zimmerman got to the ground and got injured moderately, some say, because Trayvon picked a fight with him because he was following him. He (Z) was clearly losing because in the recordings he called for help.
Now the question is, could he have felt, that his life is in danger? Maybe. Maybe he overreacted badly. That's the court's job to decide.
In my opinion even if he goes to jail, it shouldn't be more than 1-2 years. But the whole case has nothing to do with race, but some people would actually kill each other because of this...scary. 28-year neighborhood watchman follows around people armed with a gun. Gets "we don't need you to follow him" by a police dispatcher and then continues to do so. I don't know who instigated first, but all we know now is that Trayvon is dead. The whole premise of the situation is ridiculous. Neighborhood watchmen should NOT be following people around armed with guns. I hate it when people who say "well you would have fired your gun in that situation too" no I wouldn't be following around suspicious people with a gun in the first place. Why should he have not had a gun? All that accomplishes is to make Zimmerman defenseless. Is that what would make everything better for you? If Zimmerman were dead instead of Trayvon? If anything this is a lesson about the importance of allowing citizens to carry pistols in case they are attacked by unpredictable thugs. Without a firearm for self defense Zimmerman could be dead or have permanent brain damage.
Yes, this post and this case sums up perfectly why gun control can do a lot of good, and reaffirms why I don't like Zimmerman regardless of guilt.
Zimmerman today apologized to Trayvon's family saying, "I did not know if he was armed."
Those are Zimmerman's words. "I did no't know if he was armed." He said it like it was an excuse. What a weird, and revealing statement by Zimmerman. After all, who was armed, and who did shoot and kill somebody? What possible motive did Trayvon have for assaulting Zimmerman, who thus felt the need to defend himself with his gun?
"I did not know if he was armed." Think about that statement. Think about that mentality, that you would ask that question as if it's likely that strangers you meet are carrying lethal weapons. This event is all about the mentality of assuming strangers are a threat. This case is what happens when we arm ourselves and make stupid assumptions.
Why would you ever assume someone is carrying a gun for no reason? Why do we want that? Only one person was carrying a gun, and it was Zimmerman. The other person died. What a stupid thing, to think that was an ideal resolution, as your post seems to suggest --- there wasn't a problem that needed resolving in the first place! Zimmerman wasn't calling in a crime! Trayvon wasn't doing anything illegal that day, remember? If this case makes you think we need more people carrying guns, you should get a CT scan, pronto.
Even Zimmerman isn't denying that Trayvon died needlessly. He apologized, and I think his words revealed a little of that dumb hero-wannabe mentality that got Trayvon killed.
|
On April 21 2012 18:03 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 08:42 Zaqwe wrote:On April 21 2012 08:21 RJGooner wrote:On April 21 2012 06:45 valaki wrote:
My point of view (totally based just on my opinion, from what I've seen / read / heard so far) : So this semi-thug young adult (sorry, but he's not the clean A student the media portrayed him to be) was at a neighborhood when this other guy (with some shady things in his past too) who's duty was to watch the said neighborhood approached him because it was night time and this guy wore a hoodie, and not to mention, he was over 6ft tall, so people need to cut this "child" crap. To be perfectly honest, he would've been suspicious to me too, and not because he was black. But it seem's like Zimmerman was overly cautious and wasn't only followed the guy, but called the police too.
Okay from here, I've read several different scenarios, but in the end Zimmerman got to the ground and got injured moderately, some say, because Trayvon picked a fight with him because he was following him. He (Z) was clearly losing because in the recordings he called for help.
Now the question is, could he have felt, that his life is in danger? Maybe. Maybe he overreacted badly. That's the court's job to decide.
In my opinion even if he goes to jail, it shouldn't be more than 1-2 years. But the whole case has nothing to do with race, but some people would actually kill each other because of this...scary. 28-year neighborhood watchman follows around people armed with a gun. Gets "we don't need you to follow him" by a police dispatcher and then continues to do so. I don't know who instigated first, but all we know now is that Trayvon is dead. The whole premise of the situation is ridiculous. Neighborhood watchmen should NOT be following people around armed with guns. I hate it when people who say "well you would have fired your gun in that situation too" no I wouldn't be following around suspicious people with a gun in the first place. Why should he have not had a gun? All that accomplishes is to make Zimmerman defenseless. Is that what would make everything better for you? If Zimmerman were dead instead of Trayvon? If anything this is a lesson about the importance of allowing citizens to carry pistols in case they are attacked by unpredictable thugs. Without a firearm for self defense Zimmerman could be dead or have permanent brain damage. Don't put words in my mouth. What would have been best is if Zimmerman hadn't followed around someone he found suspicious (against what he'd been told by a police dispatcher) and then shot that person because he got into a fight with them. What should have happened is Zimmerman calls the police, lets THEM do their job and check out Trayvon. They check him out and everyone goes on their way. I'm not opposed to people owning guns. I am not opposed to neighborhood watchmen owning guns. The key word though here is SELF-DEFENSE. Stalking people who you consider suspicious and then shooting them if they get in a fight with you does not equate to self-defense for me.
What would have been best would be Trayvon Martin not attacking Zimmerman while he was on they way back to his car. At least that's what it looks like to me.
|
On April 21 2012 18:03 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 08:42 Zaqwe wrote:On April 21 2012 08:21 RJGooner wrote:On April 21 2012 06:45 valaki wrote:
My point of view (totally based just on my opinion, from what I've seen / read / heard so far) : So this semi-thug young adult (sorry, but he's not the clean A student the media portrayed him to be) was at a neighborhood when this other guy (with some shady things in his past too) who's duty was to watch the said neighborhood approached him because it was night time and this guy wore a hoodie, and not to mention, he was over 6ft tall, so people need to cut this "child" crap. To be perfectly honest, he would've been suspicious to me too, and not because he was black. But it seem's like Zimmerman was overly cautious and wasn't only followed the guy, but called the police too.
Okay from here, I've read several different scenarios, but in the end Zimmerman got to the ground and got injured moderately, some say, because Trayvon picked a fight with him because he was following him. He (Z) was clearly losing because in the recordings he called for help.
Now the question is, could he have felt, that his life is in danger? Maybe. Maybe he overreacted badly. That's the court's job to decide.
In my opinion even if he goes to jail, it shouldn't be more than 1-2 years. But the whole case has nothing to do with race, but some people would actually kill each other because of this...scary. 28-year neighborhood watchman follows around people armed with a gun. Gets "we don't need you to follow him" by a police dispatcher and then continues to do so. I don't know who instigated first, but all we know now is that Trayvon is dead. The whole premise of the situation is ridiculous. Neighborhood watchmen should NOT be following people around armed with guns. I hate it when people who say "well you would have fired your gun in that situation too" no I wouldn't be following around suspicious people with a gun in the first place. Why should he have not had a gun? All that accomplishes is to make Zimmerman defenseless. Is that what would make everything better for you? If Zimmerman were dead instead of Trayvon? If anything this is a lesson about the importance of allowing citizens to carry pistols in case they are attacked by unpredictable thugs. Without a firearm for self defense Zimmerman could be dead or have permanent brain damage. Don't put words in my mouth. What would have been best is if Zimmerman hadn't followed around someone he found suspicious (against what he'd been told by a police dispatcher) and then shot that person because he got into a fight with them. What should have happened is Zimmerman calls the police, lets THEM do their job and check out Trayvon. They check him out and everyone goes on their way. I'm not opposed to people owning guns. I am not opposed to neighborhood watchmen owning guns. The key word though here is SELF-DEFENSE. Stalking people who you consider suspicious and then shooting them if they get in a fight with you does not equate to self-defense for me.
Why?
You've been making the same assertion for 3 posts and not said one word as to why you think that way.
|
On April 21 2012 17:57 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 08:45 1Eris1 wrote:On April 21 2012 08:35 RJGooner wrote:On April 21 2012 08:31 Holytornados wrote:On April 21 2012 08:23 reki- wrote:
Potentially suspicious people. The guy (Trayvon) was just walking there minding his own business. I still think that if there is a person wandering around late at night in a hoodie is suspicious. I would not have pursued this person, but would have perhaps notified the police. Which he did, and then he was told not to follow him. And it wasn't late at night. I agree the pursuit was wrong, but what was he supposed to do after that? Let the guy beat him into the ground? Give him a stalking charge or something, but this whole thing has just grown way out of control. But you see the premise (for me at least) colors the whole incident. You don't get to follow around people with a gun and then shoot people after you get into a fight and they're a better fighter than you. He shoudn't have been following around people in the first place.
Actually, what you do not get to do is attack someone just because he is following you. Literally, that is how the law works. No amount of following someone will ever give them legal justification for attacking you.
|
On April 21 2012 22:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 18:03 RJGooner wrote:On April 21 2012 08:42 Zaqwe wrote:On April 21 2012 08:21 RJGooner wrote:On April 21 2012 06:45 valaki wrote:
My point of view (totally based just on my opinion, from what I've seen / read / heard so far) : So this semi-thug young adult (sorry, but he's not the clean A student the media portrayed him to be) was at a neighborhood when this other guy (with some shady things in his past too) who's duty was to watch the said neighborhood approached him because it was night time and this guy wore a hoodie, and not to mention, he was over 6ft tall, so people need to cut this "child" crap. To be perfectly honest, he would've been suspicious to me too, and not because he was black. But it seem's like Zimmerman was overly cautious and wasn't only followed the guy, but called the police too.
Okay from here, I've read several different scenarios, but in the end Zimmerman got to the ground and got injured moderately, some say, because Trayvon picked a fight with him because he was following him. He (Z) was clearly losing because in the recordings he called for help.
Now the question is, could he have felt, that his life is in danger? Maybe. Maybe he overreacted badly. That's the court's job to decide.
In my opinion even if he goes to jail, it shouldn't be more than 1-2 years. But the whole case has nothing to do with race, but some people would actually kill each other because of this...scary. 28-year neighborhood watchman follows around people armed with a gun. Gets "we don't need you to follow him" by a police dispatcher and then continues to do so. I don't know who instigated first, but all we know now is that Trayvon is dead. The whole premise of the situation is ridiculous. Neighborhood watchmen should NOT be following people around armed with guns. I hate it when people who say "well you would have fired your gun in that situation too" no I wouldn't be following around suspicious people with a gun in the first place. Why should he have not had a gun? All that accomplishes is to make Zimmerman defenseless. Is that what would make everything better for you? If Zimmerman were dead instead of Trayvon? If anything this is a lesson about the importance of allowing citizens to carry pistols in case they are attacked by unpredictable thugs. Without a firearm for self defense Zimmerman could be dead or have permanent brain damage. Don't put words in my mouth. What would have been best is if Zimmerman hadn't followed around someone he found suspicious (against what he'd been told by a police dispatcher) and then shot that person because he got into a fight with them. What should have happened is Zimmerman calls the police, lets THEM do their job and check out Trayvon. They check him out and everyone goes on their way. I'm not opposed to people owning guns. I am not opposed to neighborhood watchmen owning guns. The key word though here is SELF-DEFENSE. Stalking people who you consider suspicious and then shooting them if they get in a fight with you does not equate to self-defense for me. Why? You've been making the same assertion for 3 posts and not said one word as to why you think that way.
You think people who aren't police should be following around people armed with guns who they arbitrarily consider "suspicious"? Really?
|
On April 21 2012 23:00 Tehs Tehklz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 17:57 RJGooner wrote:On April 21 2012 08:45 1Eris1 wrote:On April 21 2012 08:35 RJGooner wrote:On April 21 2012 08:31 Holytornados wrote:On April 21 2012 08:23 reki- wrote:
Potentially suspicious people. The guy (Trayvon) was just walking there minding his own business. I still think that if there is a person wandering around late at night in a hoodie is suspicious. I would not have pursued this person, but would have perhaps notified the police. Which he did, and then he was told not to follow him. And it wasn't late at night. I agree the pursuit was wrong, but what was he supposed to do after that? Let the guy beat him into the ground? Give him a stalking charge or something, but this whole thing has just grown way out of control. But you see the premise (for me at least) colors the whole incident. You don't get to follow around people with a gun and then shoot people after you get into a fight and they're a better fighter than you. He shoudn't have been following around people in the first place. Actually, what you do not get to do is attack someone just because he is following you. Literally, that is how the law works. No amount of following someone will ever give them legal justification for attacking you.
We don't know who actually initiated the confrontation. I could EASILY make the same claim that Martin felt threatened for his life because this neighborhood watch guy is following him around and that Zimmerman is the aggressor.
|
You think people who aren't police should be following around people armed with guns who they arbitrarily consider "suspicious"? Really?
Yes, quite frankly. I wish more citizens would step up and start patrolling their neighborhoods. Community involvement is the key to stopping crime. Tens of thousands of people participate in neighborhood watches around the country every single day and it very very rarely results in violence, armed or otherwise.
We don't know who actually initiated the confrontation. I could EASILY make the same claim that Martin felt threatened for his life because this neighborhood watch guy is following him around and that Zimmerman is the aggressor.
Except that initiating a non-physical confrontation isn't an excuse to be physically attacked, so Zimmerman can be as aggressive as he wants and as long as it isn't physical there's no justification for Martin attacking him. You can EASILY make any number of claims, all of them equally as nonsensical.
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 22 2012 00:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You think people who aren't police should be following around people armed with guns who they arbitrarily consider "suspicious"? Really? Yes, quite frankly. I wish more citizens would step up and start patrolling their neighborhoods. Community involvement is the key to stopping crime.Tens of thousands of people participate in neighborhood watches around the country every single day and it very very rarely results in violence, armed or otherwise.
Because community watch is told to not confront suspected criminals. As a non-police officer, he shouldn't be trying to do their work because situations exactly like this happen.
|
Because community watch is told to not confront suspected criminals. As a non-police officer, he shouldn't be trying to do their work because situations exactly like this happen.
Only some neighborhood watch organizations have that opinion and it is a perfectly respectable opinion. As is the opposite opinion.
The idea that the responsibility for protecting our neighborhoods rests only on the police and the duty of citizens is only to call for help and then do nothing is one of the great contributors to the breakdown of the community feeling and action that is necessary for a healthy neighborhood. People have no stake in their neighbors, instead of a community you have a collection of people living in proximity with little or no connection to each other. Makes crime a whole lot easier.
|
On April 22 2012 00:10 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 00:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:You think people who aren't police should be following around people armed with guns who they arbitrarily consider "suspicious"? Really? Yes, quite frankly. I wish more citizens would step up and start patrolling their neighborhoods. Community involvement is the key to stopping crime.Tens of thousands of people participate in neighborhood watches around the country every single day and it very very rarely results in violence, armed or otherwise. Because community watch is told to not confront suspected criminals. As a non-police officer, he shouldn't be trying to do their work because situations exactly like this happen.
Police shoot people all the time.
There's no reason to believe the outcome would be different had Trayvon attacked a police officer instead.
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 22 2012 00:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Because community watch is told to not confront suspected criminals. As a non-police officer, he shouldn't be trying to do their work because situations exactly like this happen. Only some neighborhood watch organizations have that opinion and it is a perfectly respectable opinion. As is the opposite opinion. The idea that the responsibility for protecting our neighborhoods rests only on the police and the duty of citizens is only to call for help and then do nothing is one of the great contributors to the breakdown of the community feeling and action that is necessary for a healthy neighborhood. People have no stake in their neighbors, instead of a community you have a collection of people living in proximity with little or no connection to each other. Makes crime a whole lot easier.
Well, I disagree that untrained civilians trying to stop criminals is a good way to protect peoples when lives are not in direct danger. That's a point I don't think either of us will change our minds on.
|
On April 22 2012 00:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +We don't know who actually initiated the confrontation. I could EASILY make the same claim that Martin felt threatened for his life because this neighborhood watch guy is following him around and that Zimmerman is the aggressor. Except that initiating a non-physical confrontation isn't an excuse to be physically attacked, so Zimmerman can be as aggressive as he wants and as long as it isn't physical there's no justification for Martin attacking him. You can EASILY make any number of claims, all of them equally as nonsensical.
Yeah. A person can follow you, insult you, swear at you, and you know what it is called if you attack them? Vigilantism. If someone is harassing you, you call the police. You do not attack them.
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 22 2012 00:19 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 00:10 Myles wrote:On April 22 2012 00:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:You think people who aren't police should be following around people armed with guns who they arbitrarily consider "suspicious"? Really? Yes, quite frankly. I wish more citizens would step up and start patrolling their neighborhoods. Community involvement is the key to stopping crime.Tens of thousands of people participate in neighborhood watches around the country every single day and it very very rarely results in violence, armed or otherwise. Because community watch is told to not confront suspected criminals. As a non-police officer, he shouldn't be trying to do their work because situations exactly like this happen. Police shoot people all the time. There's no reason to believe the outcome would be different had Trayvon attacked a police officer instead.
If a police officer had approached Trayvon there would have been very little chance he felt threated the same way he does when an unknown person is following him.
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 22 2012 00:22 Tehs Tehklz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 00:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:We don't know who actually initiated the confrontation. I could EASILY make the same claim that Martin felt threatened for his life because this neighborhood watch guy is following him around and that Zimmerman is the aggressor. Except that initiating a non-physical confrontation isn't an excuse to be physically attacked, so Zimmerman can be as aggressive as he wants and as long as it isn't physical there's no justification for Martin attacking him. You can EASILY make any number of claims, all of them equally as nonsensical. Yeah. A person can follow you, insult you, swear at you, and you know what it is called if you attack them? Vigilantism. If someone is harassing you, you call the police. You do not attack them.
Actually, the one of the points of the stand your ground law is that you don't have to wait to be attacked if you feel you're under immediate threat. Being followed at night by an unknown person can certainly qualify as feeling under threat.
|
On April 22 2012 00:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You think people who aren't police should be following around people armed with guns who they arbitrarily consider "suspicious"? Really? Yes, quite frankly. I wish more citizens would step up and start patrolling their neighborhoods. Community involvement is the key to stopping crime. Tens of thousands of people participate in neighborhood watches around the country every single day and it very very rarely results in violence, armed or otherwise. Show nested quote +We don't know who actually initiated the confrontation. I could EASILY make the same claim that Martin felt threatened for his life because this neighborhood watch guy is following him around and that Zimmerman is the aggressor. Except that initiating a non-physical confrontation isn't an excuse to be physically attacked, so Zimmerman can be as aggressive as he wants and as long as it isn't physical there's no justification for Martin attacking him. You can EASILY make any number of claims, all of them equally as nonsensical.
I recognize the need for neighborhood watch, however, to take that and extend it to say that neighborhood watch should be free to follow around anyone they consider suspicious (especially when they're armed) is a stretch at best. It is the job of a neighborhood watch to report things to police. It is NOT their job to follow around people. If Zimmerman had done the right thing and just reported it to police and let THEM handle it, then this incident never would have happened.
I would call following around someone in a threatening manner initiating a confrontation. Martin may very well have felt threatened enough to initiate a physical confrontation. However, we don't know what happened in this case and we have conflicting stories of the events, so it's hard to actually know what happened.
|
On April 22 2012 00:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You think people who aren't police should be following around people armed with guns who they arbitrarily consider "suspicious"? Really? Yes, quite frankly. I wish more citizens would step up and start patrolling their neighborhoods. Community involvement is the key to stopping crime. Tens of thousands of people participate in neighborhood watches around the country every single day and it very very rarely results in violence, armed or otherwise. Show nested quote +We don't know who actually initiated the confrontation. I could EASILY make the same claim that Martin felt threatened for his life because this neighborhood watch guy is following him around and that Zimmerman is the aggressor. Except that initiating a non-physical confrontation isn't an excuse to be physically attacked, so Zimmerman can be as aggressive as he wants and as long as it isn't physical there's no justification for Martin attacking him. You can EASILY make any number of claims, all of them equally as nonsensical.
The end result of someone playing vigilante to keep his gated neighborhood safe is that an innocent person died. His actions made the neighborhood less safe. Why would you be all for more patrols like this? It didn't work, the results were the exact opposite of what was allegedly the original goal: making a community safer.
And you think more would-be vigilantes should arm themselves and roam the streets? Why?
|
On April 22 2012 00:57 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 00:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:You think people who aren't police should be following around people armed with guns who they arbitrarily consider "suspicious"? Really? Yes, quite frankly. I wish more citizens would step up and start patrolling their neighborhoods. Community involvement is the key to stopping crime. Tens of thousands of people participate in neighborhood watches around the country every single day and it very very rarely results in violence, armed or otherwise. We don't know who actually initiated the confrontation. I could EASILY make the same claim that Martin felt threatened for his life because this neighborhood watch guy is following him around and that Zimmerman is the aggressor. Except that initiating a non-physical confrontation isn't an excuse to be physically attacked, so Zimmerman can be as aggressive as he wants and as long as it isn't physical there's no justification for Martin attacking him. You can EASILY make any number of claims, all of them equally as nonsensical. The end result of someone playing vigilante to keep his gated neighborhood safe is that an innocent person died. His actions made the neighborhood less safe. Why would you be all for more patrols like this? It didn't work, the results were the exact opposite of what was allegedly the original goal: making a community safer. And you think more would-be vigilantes should arm themselves and roam the streets? Why?
It was Trayvon attacking someone and pummeling them in the head while they were on the ground screaming for help that made the neighborhood less safe.
But don't worry, Zimmerman has eliminated the threat and the neighborhood is safe once again.
And Trayvon was not innocent. He comitted battery or attempted murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
