For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

[lcburgundy]

Not so good now as John Q public can’t wait to off him.
What comes around goes around.

Wow, now there’s a Catholic attitude.

Mr. Zimmerman will have to carry a weapon for self-protection for the rest of his life, most likely, and very legitimately so.

 

[MaryT777]

Of course, that makes him a vigilante, right?

And as far as I know, speeding isn’t even a misdemeanor in most states. Minor traffic infractions does not make one a criminal.

 

[MaryT777]

No a speeding ticket does not make one a vigilante.

Taking the law into you own hands and assaulting a police officer (needing alcohol awareness training; does not everyone know you shouldn’t drink so much you assault police officers?)
or shooting someone because they don’t match your idea of who should be walking in your neighborhood does.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

Wow, now there’s a Catholic attitude.

Mr. Zimmerman will have to carry a weapon for self-protection for the rest of his life, most likely, and very legitimately so.

B: Yes he will, Unfortunately taking the law into your own hands is the mentality of many. He is subject to vigilante justice now like he in my opinion employed.

 

[Suudy]

B: Yes he will, Unfortunately taking the law into your own hands is the mentality of many. He is subject to vigilante justice now like he in my opinion employed.

What law did Zimmerman take into his own hands?

 

[Suudy]

or shooting someone because they don’t match your idea of who should be walking in your neighborhood does.

You think GZ shot TM because TM was not his " idea of who should be walking in your neighborhood"? Really? Are you a mind reader now? You disagree with the jurors–who listened to all the evidence–that GZ shot TM because he was being assaulted by TM?

Mind boggling.

 

[SwizzleStick]

There was a time last year when Martin/Zimmerman was a banned topic. Perhaps it is time for that idea to be revisited, considering all the speculation, made-up scenarios, twisting of events, ignoring evidence and facts, lack of charity, etc. being displayed when the situation is discussed.

 

[TARRAT]

Actually, he didn’t. Martin returned safely to the backyard of his father’s house, where he made a cell call stating such.

During this time, Zimmerman went out to a main street, well away from where Martin was, to record the street address of where their initial encounter too place.

But then Martin left the backyard of his father’s place and went off in the direction of Zimmerman.

They encountered each other again that that is where the shooting too place.

All of that came out in the trial and was supported by evidence.

Here is the map of everyone’s location at various points in time

forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=17707&d=1374100801

If you want to make a point, it is best done using actual facts, not made up ones.

Why would you want to confuse some people with facts. That never works, quite obviously.

 

[MaryT777]

What law did Zimmerman take into his own hands?

What law did TM break before he saw Z had a gun and either
reached for it
or touched it according to Z.

Nothing.
Z needed to wait for the police; as much as he wanted to be he was not, is not, and never will be now a police officer.

Mary.

 

[lcburgundy]

There was a time last year when Martin/Zimmerman was a banned topic. Perhaps it is time for that idea to be revisited, considering all the speculation, made-up scenarios, twisting of events, ignoring evidence and facts, lack of charity, etc. being displayed when the situation is discussed.

I have to agree with this, unfortunately.

 

[MaryT777]

You think GZ shot TM because TM was not his " idea of who should be walking in your neighborhood"? Really? Are you a mind reader now? You disagree with the jurors–who listened to all the evidence–that GZ shot TM because he was being assaulted by TM?

Mind boggling.

Yes, he was profiled as a "suspect’ a “thug” and they had all Gotten away remember?

No I am not a mind reader nor have I proclaimed to be.

Mary.

 

[Suudy]

What law did TM break before he saw Z had a gun and either
reached for it
or touched it according to Z.

How do you know that TM saw GZ had a gun? How do you know that TM saw GZ reach for it? Again, you are speculating.

Nothing.

He assaulted GZ.

Z needed to wait for the police; as much as he wanted to be he was not, is not, and never will be now a police officer.

He did. He was returning to his car when TM assaulted him. So, what law did GZ break?

 

[Robert_Sock]

There was a time last year when Martin/Zimmerman was a banned topic. Perhaps it is time for that idea to be revisited, considering all the speculation, made-up scenarios, twisting of events, ignoring evidence and facts, lack of charity, etc. being displayed when the situation is discussed.

This thread is about vigilantism.

The so called facts that you are inferring is from GZ’s perspective. What’s the other person’s perspective?

 

[MaryT777]

How do you know that TM saw GZ had a gun? How do you know that TM saw GZ reach for it? Again, you are speculating.

He assaulted GZ.

He did. He was returning to his car when TM assaulted him. So, what law did GZ break?

GZ stated TM reached for/touched the gun in his interview with the police.

He did assault GZ to save his life. What’s he supposed to do when he sees the gun.
Z stated he reached in his pocket for the cell phone, may have been a gun in the pocket.

He should never have gotten out of the car; detaining and arresting people is work of the police.
Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

This thread is about vigilantism.

The so called facts that you are inferring is from GZ’s perspective. What’s the other person’s perspective?

At least we know now he’s out speeding around and has a gun. We know he has vigilante tendencies and the police knew enough to have him as a liability on the police force.

 

[Suudy]

Yes, he was profiled as a "suspect’ a “thug” and they had all Gotten away remember?

No I am not a mind reader nor have I proclaimed to be.

Then what did you mean by GZ shooting TM because it was not his “idea of who should be walking in your neighborhood”? How could you know this?

 

[Suudy]

The so called facts that you are inferring is from GZ’s perspective. What’s the other person’s perspective?

I don’t know. And neither do you. So why are you assuming GZ is wrong about what happened when there is no evidence to the contrary?

 

[Suudy]

GZ stated TM reached for/touched the gun in his interview with the police.

How do you know TM saw this?

He did assault GZ to save his life. What’s he supposed to do when he sees the gun.

How do you know TM saw the gun? How do you know TM’s life was threatened?

Z stated he reached in his pocket for the cell phone, may have been a gun in the pocket.

“May have been”? So you don’t know. Yet you continue to assert that TM’s life was threatened?

He should never have gotten out of the car; detaining and arresting people is work of the police.

GZ never attempted to detain nor arrest TM.

 

[MaryT777]

Then what did you mean by GZ shooting TM because it was not his “idea of who should be walking in your neighborhood”? How could you know this?

Because
Tm is dead and GZ criminally profiled him as a thug.
Read the tag lines; Thug control that were posted here.

 

[Suudy]

At least we know now he’s out speeding around and has a gun.

We know he’s been speeding once. So no, we don’t know “he’s out speeding around.” And why should it be a surprise that he has a gun? He had one before…

We know he has vigilante tendencies and the police knew enough to have him as a liability on the police force.

We don’t know he “has vigilante tendencies” because there’s no evidence that he’s ever acted as a vigilante.

Also, it seems that you think the only people that are qualified to carry a CCW are people that are qualified to be on the police force. Or at least if one’s application to join the police force is denied, one should be denied a CCW. Or does this idea only apply to GZ?