Re: George Zimmerman Verdict
posted at 7/15/2013 7:55 PM EDT
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
Well, we really don't know how the fight started and the fact that Martin apparently was getting the better of Zimmerman doesn't mean anything unless Martin has no right to self-defense.
What are you talking about here? No witness saw Martin being attacked.
What we do know is that Zimmerman was following Martin for twenty minutes before anything happened. Following someone is a threatening act in itself. I certainly would be creeped out if some guy were following me around for blocks and then got out of his car apparently to confront me. If he got near me, I might punch him too.
Following somebody isn't a threat in a legal sense. Your saying that if somebody followed you and got near you would probably be met by physical violence by you is a criminal perspective.
It's not like Zimmerman was wearing a police uniform. Martin very easily could have thought Zimmerman was approaching him to beat or rob him and may have felt threatened. If Zimmerman could shoot Martin because Zimmerman felt threatened, why couldn't Martin punch Zimmerman if Martin felt threatened?
Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin because he felt threateded. He shot him because Martin was beating the crap out of him!!!
Really, the fact that Zimmerman followed the kid around calling him an assh*le is what disturbs me.
Shyte happens. I don't think we're going to be able to police people "following" or calling other people names very well. It's when words are answered with violence that disturbs me.
Zimmerman clearly formed an unjustified conclusion about Martin, then acted upon it, and eventually killed the kid.
Clearly? There is very little that is clear about this incident. What conclusion did Zimmerman draw? That Martin should be questioned as to what he was doing by a crime watch member?
I don't see him as any kind of role model. I think he's a creep.
I have no opinion on the man because I don't have enough facts to come to one.
And I think the laws should be revised to make (1) playing police illegal and (2) it harder to claim self-defense if you do something provocative like follow someone around for twenty minutes.
I doubt a majority of people would share your feelings that you can just physically attack somebody because they followed you and if the defend themselves from the physical attack they are denied the right of self defense. That perspective in a word is madness.
Citizens who want to "arrest" other people should do so knowing that if they end up killing the person they are trying to arrest they won't have an easy time getting off scot free. It might help prevent misguided vigilantism like we saw with Zimmerman.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman acted as a vigilante. He as far as we know was just watching the guy. There are many such watch groups in high crime areas and they do help a lot. The cops can't do what they do.
I know, everything's too difficult. Much better to just let kids die. Same thing you said about Newtown.
I will say the same thing about anything you propose that stomps on person's rights.
People have the right to defend themselves if they are physically attacked and they have the right to bear arms.
If you want to cry about the loss of innocent life why don't you cry about the murder of innocent children with drones? Oh yeah, that would cast a bad light on your heroes. Can't do that.