Philosophy Now Forum

John K wrote:Brilliant. Are you a high school or college student?

will be starting my associate degree in agriculture in september

Kayla wrote: i think that...

It takes more than that in a court of law, yes? "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein

Kayla wrote:
will be starting my associate degree in agriculture in september

Disagree or no, good luck in your work toward your degree.

Like most of what's foisted up by 'news' conduits: this whole thing was/is a mole hill inflated into a mountain.

Some folks inflate 'cause -- being idiots and having no proper sense of proportion -- anything and everything is a friggin' crisis.

Some folks -- mercenary to the core -- inflate 'cause it's good for biznizz.

Some folks inflate because they recognize the mole hill can be made to serve their agenda (which usually centers on acquiring more power, political).

As for the players (Martin, Zimmerman, etc.): *shrug*

If this is an example of applying the Fla. law of 'Stand Your Ground', then it appears that the 'Ground' being defended is always 'white'.

thedoc wrote:If this is an example of applying the Fla. law of 'Stand Your Ground', then it appears that the 'Ground' being defended is always 'white'.

Do you care you cite any examples?

Trayvon was a big dude who was a known criminal and drug user. He was likely scoping out places to rob in the neighborhood. He attacked Zimmerman, giving him a concussion and raining punches down on him MMA style (which he had taken up). Zimmerman confronted the guy. Where's the leap to Trayvon can attack him? No matter. I don't care if Zimmerman called him a n*****. Once you put someone's life in jeopardy like that, you forfeit your own right to life. This was a self-defense case and it was clear as day Trayvon was guilty and Zimmerman was innocent.

Not every interaction between people of different races is a racial confrontation. You have to prove racism. Nobody did that. You're simply assuming it because you know you have no argument for it. This wasn't a stand your ground case either. It was a self-defense case and the right decision was reached.

One less thug on the streets.

fiveredapples wrote:Trayvon was a big dude who was a known criminal and drug user. He was likely scoping out places to rob in the neighborhood. He attacked Zimmerman, giving him a concussion and raining punches down on him MMA style (which he had taken up). Zimmerman confronted the guy. Where's the leap to Trayvon can attack him? No matter. I don't care if Zimmerman called him a n*****. Once you put someone's life in jeopardy like that, you forfeit your own right to life. This was a self-defense case and it was clear as day Trayvon was guilty and Zimmerman was innocent.

Not every interaction between people of different races is a racial confrontation. You have to prove racism. Nobody did that. You're simply assuming it because you know you have no argument for it. This wasn't a stand your ground case either. It was a self-defense case and the right decision was reached.

One less thug on the streets.

I followed the case pretty closely, and don't recall anything about Trayvon being a criminal and drug user. There was evidence he sometimes smoked marijuana, but so what? Trayvon was walking home from a convenience store and confronted by Zimmerman. If Zimmerman had asked anybody else what he was doing in the neighborhood, a lot of people would have suggested that Zimmerman go fuck himself. In this case a fight was started by one of the two parties, and a jury returned the verdict that Trayvon was shot in self-defense. Regardless, Zimmerman was not an innocent party in this event.

fiveredapples wrote:Trayvon was a big dude who was a known criminal and drug user. He was likely scoping out places to rob in the neighborhood.

lol Troll's gotta troll

mickthinks wrote:

fiveredapples wrote:Trayvon was a big dude who was a known criminal and drug user. He was likely scoping out places to rob in the neighborhood.

lol Troll's gotta troll

What's your evidence for that statement?

"This was a self-defense case..."

Yes, it was. Pity Zimmerman put himself in the position to have to self-defend (which, to my mind, negates 'self-defense' as a 'defense').

If Martin had been breakin' into Zimmerman's home, that woulda been one thing...as it was: Zimmerman noted an unknown person meandering around the neighborhood at godawful o'clock in the morning, in the rain, and took it upon himself to play 'cop'.

If Zimmerman had simply called the cops, reported the suspicious behavior and then stayed in his home (with his gun at the ready), Martin (who may or may not have been arrested) would be alive and Zimmerman would be livin' his daily grind.

Instead, Zimmerman had to play 'cop', had to pursue, had to ignore the directions of the 911 operator, and ended up creating the situation of Martin kicking his ass and Zimmerman self-defending against the ass-kicking.

Now, I get Zimmerman's angst (crime in his neighborhood is up, he wants to protect what's his), but I get Martin's aggressiveness too (I have chronic insomnia and sometimes take walks at godawful o'clock to clear my head...some body starts following me, I'm likely to take an aggressive stance).

*shrug*

henry quirk wrote:"This was a self-defense case..."

Yes, it was. Pity Zimmerman put himself in the position to have to self-defend (which, to my mind, negates 'self-defense' as a 'defense').

If Martin had been breakin' into Zimmerman's home, that woulda been one thing...as it was: Zimmerman noted an unknown person meandering around the neighborhood at godawful o'clock in the morning, in the rain, and took it upon himself to play 'cop'.

If Zimmerman had simply called the cops, reported the suspicious behavior and then stayed in his home (with his gun at the ready), Martin (who may or may not have been arrested) would be alive and Zimmerman would be livin' his daily grind.

Instead, Zimmerman had to play 'cop', had to pursue, had to ignore the directions of the 911 operator, and ended up creating the situation of Martin kicking his ass and Zimmerman self-defending against the ass-kicking.

Now, I get Zimmerman's angst (crime in his neighborhood is up, he wants to protect what's his), but I get Martin's aggressiveness too (I have chronic insomnia and sometimes take walks at godawful o'clock to clear my head...some body starts following me, I'm likely to take an aggressive stance).

*shrug*

You apparently don't know much about the case. It was a police dispatcher, not 911, that advised Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon. Nobody except Zimmerman actually knows what happened except that Zimmerman wound up with cuts or abrasions on his head. Zimmerman was cleared of murder or manslaughter charges, but was convicted of bad judgment in the eyes of the jurors by their after-trial comments.

.

"It was a police dispatcher"

Noted. And this negates my assessment 'how'?

henry quirk wrote:"It was a police dispatcher"

Noted. And this negates my assessment 'how'?

You are wrong in suggesting that somebody is entitled to take an aggressive stance when followed. Unless you are attacked, your only proper response if you think the other person is breaking some law is to contact the police, not physically take matters into your own hands.