Plus there are plenty of people out there who actually wait for something to happen so that they can use their guns. It encourages unnecessary violence. If Zimmerman really was being attacked, if he'd used a taser or mace, it would've done the trick just fine. And that's generally the case.
*By rapey, I mean he was sitting closer and closer to me on the bench as I scooted away, grabbing my hand and arm, putting his hand in my hair, and after I told him I would NOT give him a kiss, he grabbed me and kissed me on the cheek and didn't let me go for what felt like a full minute, but was probably like 15 seconds. All of this happening at a bus stop at night with literally nobody around. And he wasn't waiting for the bus, either.
the problem is, and I think it is an important element, that Zimmerman is the one who noticed Martin and followed him.
While Martin did strictly nothing but walking "looking like he was up to no good because he was walking calmly in spite of the rain".
That is the real problem here, I think.
And as I said in my first post, that decision seems very legal to me, unfortunately. Does any of you has a website where it is actually possible to read it ? All I find are newpaper articles...
lol. I always just assumed that "insane" and "MOTO" were the same language. But since you asked. (And for the record, I do type how I speak; it's your job to learn the language properly~)Quote:
Ok...insane to MOTO translation. In other words, write it how you speak.
I find it telling that a concerning majority of those who defend Zimmerman's actions as "legal and therefore morally correct" are also the same people who normally get very upset at the idea of the government doing certain things (such as food stamps, welfare, etc.), even though those things are certainly legal (and therefore, by the same logic, also perfectly moral and correct). I've seen you argue against those programs on this very board in the recent past. My question is, which is it? Is the government always right, to the extent that the judicial system's rule is equivalent to morality? Or are there times when unethical things happen even though the system does its job?
In case that was too complicated for you; as I've said before, what is legal is not the same thing as what is ethical. George Zimmerman was not guilty of the criminal charges filed against him; that doesn't mean he wasn't a titanic asshole for instigating a chase that resulted in him killing a kid that would have otherwise posed no harm to himself or anyone else.
Seconleeeee, don't try to compare the political game of buying fucking votes through the wholesale distribution of taxpayer dollars with someone who defended himself in an attack. Comparing pickles and peanuts. It is true that everything that is legal may or may not be morally or ethically correct. I get it. I have said before, GZ did nothing wrong. Unfortunate that someone died, but he did nothing wrong based on the evidence. Which is 100% of what we have to go on. Anything else...anything else, is pure bullshit. The state of Fla, and the retard in charge SA Corey, who by all accounts is an unmitigated idiot, could prove nothing. ZERO. It wasn't even close to a conviction. There was literally no basis for a trial. And....she is in deep shit.
"Buying votes" by giving people what they need, what will help them. I remember when we used to call that "giving a shit about your constituents." lol.
And once again, you're wrong. He did nothing *illegal* based on the evidence. What he did *wrong* was to pursue an innocent kid, after being told not to, and with no reasonable cause to suspect him of a crime (if "looking suspicious" is a crime, then there needs to be a strict legal definition of what "looking suspicious" entails, or else anyone can just claim that they "got a feeling," or "god told them it was suspicious," or what-have-you, and we could literally just fabricate definitions out of thin air to suit our purposes). If he hadn't done that, then "self-defense" wouldn't have been necessary in the first place and this would've been a moot discussion.
I don't know much about the finer details of the prosecution, but from what little I've read, the prosecution was definitely lacking. That said, I think the real enemy in this case is the stand your ground law, which is the only reason he got off the way he did. In any other state, he would've at LEAST gotten manslaughter.
TM looked suspicious. Crimes were being committed in the area. That's why GZ was patrolling. Like a lot of young black males, they want to look all cool, gangster and hard. Not my fault he looked like a gangster. He didn't have to fight with GZ, but he did now didn't he. Plus, he was no little angel. Skittles and all not withstanding, I eat skittles and I'm an asshole. So I just proved Skittles are no reason to presume automatic innosence to any situation.
This is one of the best debates I've seen in ages. Good work MOTO and Static, and nice job keeping it fairly respectful of each other. I'm impressed.
And setting aside (for the moment) the issue of what constitutes "suspicious": looking suspicious is not a crime. So even if Trayvon DID look suspicious, that's simply not grounds (legal or ethical) to stalk him and instigate armed conflict. Let's get that much cleared up: if not for stand your ground, Zim could very easily have been convicted (at LEAST of manslaughter) on this basis alone.
As for "he didn't have to fight Zimmerman." So what are you supposed to do when you are being stalked by a stranger who is potentially armed? This is a serious question; I keep hearing what Trayvon did wrong, but I never hear what he should have done. If he tried to run, he "looked suspicious," because "why would he run if he wasn't guilty?" If he stayed to fight, "well he started it." It seems like people will judge him harshly no matter what he does, while simultaneously absolving Zim of any (moral) guilt no matter what he could or should have done differently.