Reply With Quote
you think he's stupid now, huh?
What was his cause?
you think he's stupid now, huh?
Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to be where he was doing what he was doing.
Sometimes, when you do stay in your car, bad things happen and you're not there to stop them.
Hindsight is 20/20. If I knew that by leaving my car an unarmed youth was going to get shot and killed, I'd stay in my car. To bad we can't know those bad things are going to happen in advance. There are infinite permutations of cir stances that might lead someone to make the same decision now, regardless of what happened in Florida.
yep, he did a stupid thing. stupid, armed and looking for trouble.
killer combination.
Why are you talking about rights? I never said it was not against his rights. Its within my rights to go to the worst neighborhood in town with a t shirt that is full of racist crap. But guess what, its STUPID.
What Zimmerman did was stupid. THATS why you stay in the car.
Since when is "stupidity" considered a viable defense? What?
And while I'm sure he's sorry, his "regret" shouldn't count for anything either.
You're suggesting Martin was dangerous and Zimmerman should have cowered until police arrived? Is that it?
How do you equate Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to follow a su ious person -- in his own gated community -- with, well, I'm not real sure with what you were trying to equate it.
Seems a little racist, to me, to suggest the worst neighborhoods would be the place to encounter trouble over displaying "racist crap."
What Zimmerman did is done every day, in communities across the country, without similar outcomes.
What happened was unfortunate. It was also rare and not because people stayed in their cars.
Because, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
There is no reason to believe Zimmerman could know his attempt to keep a su ious person in sight until police arrived would end the way this did. The vast majority of the time, it doesn't. The vast majority of the time, the su ious person gets away -- just as Zimmerman had feared happened in this case.
The next most frequent outcome is the su ious person and the person following them meet and discover there is no reason for alarm. They either leave with a hand shake and a new understanding over the misunderstanding or the person that was viewed as su ious gets pissed and hurls a few insults as they part ways.
Another outcome is, the police arrive and are able to talk to the su ious person and either satisfy themselves there is no cause for alarm or otherwise conclude the incident (arrest or advise the person to leave the property under threat of arrest for trespassing, etc...)
In rare incidents is anyone killed...or even assaulted.
Who says it does?
hey yoni, why didn't penniless george stay at home with his wife in his daddy's house?
did he need to protect the community from someone that lives in the community?
It's funny 'cause a teenager died.
The outcome of an event does not determine whether it was a good decision or not when analyzing risk. I don't expect guys like Zimmerman to undertake sound risk analysis when there is an opportunity to live out their cop fantasies, though.
I have no horse in this race. What concerns me is the vigilante laws or lack thereof for the state of Florida. If you want to play beat cop, you should not be able to carry a gun unless you are explicitly licensed to do so.
A law like that would cut through all this bull .
How good is the integrity of the reporter making the story?you are so ing stupid.
he finally told his own lawyer that he had it........and that he'd already spent 54K........in 2 months.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-25-2012 at 04:09 AM.
Zimmerman and his lawyer made the statements. Zimmerman said he had to move his family and his lawyer said Zimmerman had not disclosed the money he had received at the time of the hearing.
It's straight from the horses mouth.
Will vigilante laws cut it here? Lets suppose that Zimmerman is telling the truth and that he was not scouting his neighborhood but on his way to the store. In the process, he sees a young male in a hoodie looking into the window of a neighbor's house. A neighbor who had just previously had two teenage males break into her house, while she was at home, just a few months earlier. The male sees Zimmerman and appears to bolt, Zimmerman is returning to his car when the male confronts and severly beats up Zimmerman causing him to fear for his life, leading him to draw his gun and fire. (I realize that these are not the exact facts but for purposes of my question below, lets just pretend)
Would a vigilante law serve to convict him? Would a similar law than discourage people from helping out a neighbor, friend or family member in dire need of assistance in a similar situation?
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a law that's going to cover all bases and be fair for every one in every single situation. I do believe that people should be able to use deadly force to defend themselves. But there needs to be some kind of check in place to prevent or lessen situations where the armed party can initiate events that lead to unnecessary killing. In situations without witnesses, it seems to leave a pretty big loophole for someone to target and kill someone else.
A vigilante law would have made him carrying a firearm while patrolling his neighborhood illegal. At that point he probably doesn't even follow the kid but if he still did as he even claims as he did, it would be cut and dry.
Equating that to mowing your lawn and seeing your neighbor get the crap beat out of he is fun but i do not see how it pertains. I am sure that there are all manner of problems with their gun ordinances. I am only talking about the one that is missing in this case.
Zimmerman decided to play cop, gun and all, and we know what the result is if not exactly how it got to that point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
