Philosophy Now Forum

marjoramblues wrote:Can someone clarify the role that Zimmerman had in respect to safe-guarding this gated community?
I got the impression that he was 'elected' in some kind of 'Neighbourhood Watch' capacity?
Is there any screening involved - regulations or requirements re correct procedure - training linked to the police dept. ?

No screening or qualifications are necessary to form a neighborhood watch group. Neighbors just get together and informally establish an ongoing watch program.

Even if I concede your point, Bob (and I don't), Zimmerman still crafted the situation in which he had to self-defend.

As you say: "...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."

I'd say Zimmerman 'took matters into his own hands' even when advised by the dispatcher to stop.

.

henry quirk wrote:Even if I concede your point, Bob (and I don't), Zimmerman still crafted the situation in which he had to self-defend.

As you say: "...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."

I'd say Zimmerman 'took matters into his own hands' even when advised by the dispatcher to stop.

Just because the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon, Zimmerman was within his legal rights to follow him anyway. We don't know, however, who accosted whom.

"Zimmerman was within his legal rights to follow him anyway."

I may be wrong, but Zimmerman has a 'legal right' to eat Drano, yes?

My point: having the 'right' doesn't obligate one to exercise it, nor does having the 'right' make the exercise of the 'right' particularly 'smart' or 'wise'.

Seems to me: Zimmerman was full of piss and vinegar and not much common sense.

If he'd had a lick of sense, then he'd have done as you suggested up-thread (if [he thought some one was] breaking some law, [the proper response was] to contact the police, not physically take matters into [his] own hands.).

henry quirk wrote:"Zimmerman was within his legal rights to follow him anyway."

I may be wrong, but Zimmerman has a 'legal right' to eat Drano, yes?

My point: having the 'right' doesn't obligate one to exercise it, nor does having the 'right' make the exercise of the 'right' particularly 'smart' or 'wise'.

Seems to me: Zimmerman was full of piss and vinegar and not much common sense.

If he'd had a lick of sense, then he'd have done as you suggested up-thread (if [he thought some one was] breaking some law, [the proper response was] to contact the police, not physically take matters into [his] own hands.).

All I'm saying is that Zimmerman had a perfectly legal right to follow Trayvon. If Trayvon had a problem with that, he should have called the police instead of engaging Zimmerman in a fight. And that, my friend, is why Trayvon is dead and Zimmerman is a free man.

Trayvon didn't do anything. Zimmerman used racial stereotyping to lead himself to taking another mans life. When he called the cops, they told him don't worry, leave. He didn't follow through with what they said, and now another sons life is taken. One racial sterotyping.... not gonna rant bout it. but on the real, TRayvon didn't do anything that deserves to be ended with getting shot

Maybe you missed the part where that thug was landing punches on Zimmerman MMA style, bashing his head against the ground? Trayvon is dead. The world is a better place.

And this is no longer an ethical debate. This isn't philosophy. It's some street-smart morons posting their opinions in support of a known thug and thief who was beating on an old man. Surprise, you got shot, dumbarse.

Maybe you missed the part where that thug was landing punches on Zimmerman MMA style

Hmmm ... "Thug" is a good word for those who are too quick to hit out with their fists. We also need a word for those who are too quick to pull a gun and shoot people with it, because "thug" is too complimentary for people like Zimmerman.

btw, welcome back, dapples! We've missed you.

Let's see...Trayvon had a criminal past and was a known bully among his schoolmates. That's pretty much the definition of a thug. Plus, he was beating Zimmerman, likely, to his death or, at least, unconscious. He had to be stopped. He was committing a crime. That's what nobody wants to talk about: he was in the middle of committing a crime, beating Zimmerman like that -- and he put Zimmerman in a highly threatening situation. This is why Zimmerman walked, by the way, because despite media spin and PC bullshit they couldn't convict him of self-defense.

Zimmerman pulled a gun while on his back, taking punches. That's not "too quick"; it's practically the opposite of too quick. But, hey, when the facts and common sense speak against you, use cutesy language and hope you can fool some imbeciles. I don't know, maybe you actually believe the nonsense you spew.

Some arguments you can't win because your opponent is superior at argumentation. Some arguments you can't win because you're on the wrong side of the argument. If you were skilled at this thought thing, you might have a chance with a different topic, but here, against me, you have no chance. You will only display your amateur sophistry and I will point out every single embarrassing flaw. Honestly, I don't even know why some of you try. It should be obvious to most of you that I'm about a million times more sophisticated at this philosophy and thinking thing. And, then, you handicap yourselves with false opinions. And people wonder why I get bored by all this so quickly. Okay, nobody wonders, but I do get bored by this quickly.

So you trust Zimmerman's story? I don't, nor do I see any reason to believe a word of it. You hold up Martin's criminal past as evidence he deserved to be shot, while ignoring Zimmerman's known habit of telling lies.

.












..............................................









.