For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert_Sock said:
I admit that I hate guns, but I still believe that GZ was guilty of manslaughter due to his being negligent for a CCW personnel. With the CCW comes added responsibility and the need for prudent judgments, neither of which GZ exercised.
Click to expand...
Observing a suspicious man looking in windows seems prudent. Bashing one’s head into cement not so much.
 
Robert_Sock said:
All hearsay from GZ’s perspective.
Click to expand...
Credible hearsay considering:

Robery’s were taking place in that community.
TM was in possession of stolen goods

Plus substantiated fact from the forensic pathologist and witnesses that TM was hitting GZ head against the concrete.

But facts like that don’t matter, its all about the guns.
 
lcburgundy said:
Well of course he wouldn’t term his own argument that way. But his reasoning doesn’t stray far from “She shouldn’t have been wearing that in that part of town around those people.” GZ was legally allowed to be where he was and carrying a pistol in a legal manner. Bob doesn’t think he should have been afforded the latter part. I get that. That’s fine, but it’s an ideological position that is inconsistent with the law.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree and find that an unfair characterization of his position in my opinion. The analogy doesn’t remotely work.
 
ronaldmiller said:
Credible hearsay considering:

Robery’s were taking place in that community.
TM was in possession of stolen goods

Plus substantiated fact from the forensic pathologist and witnesses that TM was hitting GZ head against the concrete.

But facts like that don’t matter, its all about the guns.
Click to expand...
I have no problems with guns but we need to be careful whose hands they end up in.
GZ was the wrong persons as we can now plainly see.
 
SamH said:
Agreed. If only TM had not tried to take what wasn’t his.
Click to expand...
Can you imagine the distorted logic at play here? A big thug-like character attacks you. You fight for your life. The attacker dies. Then the one who defends is the problem? No way. The attacker is morally responsible for losing his life and that is clear Catholic teaching.
 
fix said:
All true according to the evidence. Your position is fantasy and ideology.
Click to expand...
Surely TM had a perspective, and we simply do not know TM’s perspective because he’s dead.

Did you ever hear of a psychological construct called perspective taking? What’s the other person’s perspective?

Again, your position is based entirely on hearsay. What evidence do you have to back yourself up?
 
lcburgundy said:
Well of course he wouldn’t term his own argument that way. But his reasoning doesn’t stray far from “She shouldn’t have been wearing that in that part of town around those people.” GZ was legally allowed to be where he was and carrying a pistol in a legal manner. Bob doesn’t think he should have been afforded the latter part. I get that. That’s fine, but it’s an ideological position that is inconsistent with the law.
Click to expand...
It does appear that way doesn’t it? However, I think he just has a differing opinion on who the victim is in that case. He who has the gun, is automatically wrong, regardless of the circumstances.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Surely TM had a perspective, and we simply do not know TM’s perspective because he’s dead.
Click to expand...
What perspective allows you to beat a man;'s head against cement as he screams and cries for help?
Did you ever hear of a psychological construct called perspective taking? What’s the other person’s perspective?
Click to expand...
How does that matter when one is beating a man to death?
Again, your position is based entirely on hearsay. What evidence do you have to back yourself up?
Click to expand...
What evidence? All the evidence points to TM attacking GZ and smashing his head in. What evidence do you have that allows for attempting to murder a man?
 
fix said:
What perspective allows you to beat a man;'s head against cement as he screams and cries for help?

How does that matter when one is beating a man to death?

What evidence? All the evidence points to TM attacking GZ and smashing his head in. What evidence do you have that allows for attempting to murder a man?
Click to expand...
Again, my perspective is that GZ is guilty of manslaughter due to his being negligent for someone with a CCW permit. Someone with a CCW needs to have added responsibility and and prudent judgment. Therefore, GZ ought to have never racially profiled TM and certainly should not have stalked him. This evidence points to GZ being a vigilante.

TM could have easily have been the victim and never have bashed GZ’s head until after he saw GZ go for his gun. Why on earth would TM beat somebody’s head into the ground, and thereby risk life in prison, unless he felt his life was in danger?

Again, all your evidence is hearsay, from GZ’s perspective.

Now can we get back to my original post. We’re really getting off track here.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Again, my perspective is that GZ is guilty of manslaughter due to his being negligent for someone with a CCW permit. Someone with a CCW needs to have added responsibility and and prudent judgment. Therefore, GZ ought to have never racially profiled TM and certainly should not have stalked him. This evidence points to GZ being a vigilante.

TM could have easily have been the victim and never have bashed GZ’s head until after he saw GZ go for his gun. Why on earth would TM beat somebody’s head into the ground, and thereby risk life in prison, unless he felt his life was in danger?

Again, all your evidence is hearsay, from GZ’s perspective.

Now can we get back to my original post. We’re really getting off track here.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that really just a long way to say you blame the victim?

As for why TM did it, that was the second time that week he has attacked someone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top