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:
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.
Click to expand...
First, how do you know GZ “racially profiled TM”? There was no evidence that GZ paid special attention to TM because of his race.

Second, what makes you think GZ was stalking TM? Following is not stalking.

Since neither of these are true, your conclusion that GZ was a vigilante does not follow.
 
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...
So if TM had been white it would have been OK? After all there could have been assertion of racial profiling
 
Suudy said:
First, how do you know GZ “racially profiled TM”? There was no evidence that GZ paid special attention to TM because of his race.

Second, what makes you think GZ was stalking TM? Following is not stalking.

Since neither of these are true, your conclusion that GZ was a vigilante does not follow.
Click to expand...
I should probably have said ‘probably.’
 
Robert_Sock said:
No, it would not have been OK even if TM was white.
Click to expand...
But you claim it is manslaughter because Zimmerman Racially profiled Martin In fact you mention racial profiling in nearly every post Yet now you tell us Martins race doesn’t matter?
 
estesbob said:
But you claim it is manslaughter because Zimmerman Racially profiled Martin In fact you mention racial profiling in nearly every post Yet now you tell us Martins race doesn’t matter?
Click to expand...
Again, I should probably have said ‘probably.’ And yes, I believe GZ probably engaged in racial profiling The fact is that TM was black, not white. All I meant was that had the same thing happened to a white ‘suspect,’ I would still feel that GZ would still be sufficiently negligent and guilty of manslaughter.
 
Trayvon Martin was a good kid if you ignore his attitude, disciplinary record, and attempt to kill Zimmerman who was suspicious of him.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Again, I should probably have said ‘probably.’ And yes, I believe GZ probably engaged in racial profiling The fact is that TM was black, not white. All I meant was that had the same thing happened to a white ‘suspect,’ I would still feel that GZ would still be sufficiently negligent and guilty of manslaughter.
Click to expand...
So Martins race is irrelevant too the discussion?
 
Robert_Sock said:
Profiling then. GZ wantonly profiled TM as a criminal, and was therefore negligent.
Click to expand...
Actually he followed the guidlines of the Neighborhood watch manual. It said in part that you should report someone you didn’t recognize. That is what he did, he reported a suspicious person as defined in the manual.
 
april32010 said:
Trayvon Martin was a good kid if you ignore his attitude, disciplinary record, and attempt to kill Zimmerman who was suspicious of him.
Click to expand...
You also have to ignore the fact that he was found to have stolen goods.

Oh, and his drug use.

Ignore all of that, and Zimmerman wrongly profiled Martin.

Of course if you take all of that into account, you can see that Zimmerman was right on the money.
 
maryjk said:
You also have to ignore the fact that he was found to have stolen goods.

Oh, and his drug use.

Ignore all of that, and Zimmerman wrongly profiled Martin.

Of course if you take all of that into account, you can see that Zimmerman was right on the money.
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget, George Zimmerman was rejected for police service, he wasn’t a police officer, charged for hitting a woman, charged with violence towards a police officer, had to register in an alcohol program, a coworker described him as a racist, reports were that he lost his temper working security at a party and fired.

If you take all that into account, one can see he wasn’t a responsible gun owner.

Talking about killing someone who was doing NO wrong as Zimmerman being right on the money is repugnant. So you have to make excuses for it.
 
BroomWagon said:
Let’s not forget, George Zimmerman was rejected for police service, he wasn’t a police officer, charged for hitting a woman, charged with violence towards a police officer, had to register in an alcohol program, a coworker described him as a racist, reports were that he lost his temper working security at a party and fired.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman’s application was rejected due to bad credit. He never claimed to be a police officer. Charged with “hitting a woman?” Do you mean assault? Or is this part of the restraining order that he and his girlfriend got on each other? He was not found guilty of “violence towards a police officer.” And as you should already know, being charged with something doesn’t mean you are guilty. He didn’t have to register in an alcohol program, he chose to attend a program. In return, the charges were dropped.

“A coworker described him as a racist?” Really, you are going to go with that? I am waiting for someone to go back to his First Grade class to find out he pull a classmate’s pigtail. Then they will call him a serial abuser. :rolleyes:
If you take all that into account, one can see he wasn’t a responsible gun owner.
Click to expand...
If you take into account the fact that he didn’t use his weapon until his life was in danger, than he is the definition of a responsible gun owner.
Talking about killing someone who was doing NO wrong as Zimmerman being right on the money is repugnant. So you have to make excuses for it.
Click to expand...
But we have no idea that Martin was doing “NO wrong.”

Zimmerman described him as suspicious. Based on Martin’s past, it wouldn’t be out of the question that Martin was casing the area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top