For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MaryT777 said:
They might if their life is threatened. GZ attacked a police officer and was let off on
a plea deal for an “alcohol awareness” program. He had a run in with domestic violence
that led to a restraining order.

Why focus just on the victim?
Click to expand...
Zimmerman was a victim.
 
MaryT777 said:
Zimmerman is alive to tell the tale though.
Click to expand...
Yes he is. It isn’t as though we have no clue. Circumstantial evidence although not conclusive can pretty well tell you what occurred.

My chicken was missing. There were feathers all over the yard and raccoon tracks. Yes something else might have gotten my chicken but the likelihood is that raccoon did.
The circumstantial evidence is that TM confronted Z. The circumstantial evidence is that TM broke Z’s nose and had him on the ground punching him and injuring the back of his head.

I asked this question a long time ago. It was never answered. Once Z was on the ground, besides what he did do, what should he have done. He had already called the police and knew they were on their way. You can say he should have stayed in his car but he didn’t. Once, however, he was on the ground what should he have done to protect himself fron the “innocent kid” ?
 
Robert_Sock said:
I simply asked a question, which you carefully avoided. GZ sure seemed to be a gunslinging vigilante to me.
Click to expand...
I live not to far from the GZ-TM incident and yes we have a gated community.
I would like to know what proof do you have that leads you to believe that he (GZ) was “a gunslinging vigilante,” or are you stereotyping people?
 
MaryT777 said:
I never disputed GZ was called a “cracker”

I disputed his girlfriend never stated anything about “homosexual” rape.
I never disputed Z’s nose was broken.

There is a side of the story we’re missing and that is TM’s side because he is dead.
What happened between TM and GZ In those minutes before his death are speculation on both sides.
Mary.
Click to expand...
youtube.com/watch?v=loEROU1XA5E
 
sabrefan said:
I live not to far from the GZ-TM incident and yes we have a gated community.
I would like to know what proof do you have that leads you to believe that he (GZ) was “a gunslinging vigilante,” or are you stereotyping people?
Click to expand...
GZ incorrectly profiled TM as a criminal when in fact he was just walking home. GZ followed TM when he ought to not have. An innocent 17 year old boy is dead because GZ insisted on following TM after the dispatcher told him not to. GZ was carrying a concealed weapon on NW when he ought to not have been.
 
Robert_Sock said:
GZ incorrectly profiled TM as a criminal when in fact he was just walking home. GZ followed TM when he ought to not have. An innocent 17 year old boy is dead because GZ insisted on following TM after the dispatcher told him not to.
Click to expand...
You mean GZ who helped the black homeless man through the injustice of the PD? For argument sake that we can’t read minds thus the poor traumatized jury judged. We should further victimize Martin and Zimmerman when we already have a shaky PD? I fail to see the established “good vigilance” of the police. Racist profiling by entire police depts. is not a far fetched reality. The Martin family stated in the beginning they had no faith in the PD.

Zimmerman certainly has a need for self defense now, sad reality.
 
Robert_Sock said:
PERSPECTIVE TAKING: What’s the other person’s perspective?
Click to expand...
Fact, the goal of police vigilance isn’t established.

Fact, GZ was born interracial, in a interracial household, by parents of different race, and interracial interaction is well established. No reason to believe racism played a role. Contrary.

Fact, Zimmerman was found innocent by jury.

Fact, GZ continues to be hunted and was found innocent.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Fact, the goal of police vigilance isn’t established.

Fact, GZ was born interracial, in a interracial household, by parents of different race, and interracial interaction is well established. No reason to believe racism played a role. Contrary.

Fact, Zimmerman was found innocent by jury.

Fact, GZ continues to be hunted and was found innocent.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with PERSPECTIVE TAKING? What was the perspective of the other person?
 
Robert_Sock said:
What does that have to do with PERSPECTIVE TAKING? What was the perspective of the other person?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

When did this thread become about what you think about George Zimmerman? Your thoughts are well known throughout. In fact repetitive. :confused:

And btw why are you yelling?

What’s your perspective on “For police, the goal is vigilance” since that is the OP, and the vigilante aspect repetitively discussed, circular in fact. Mine is above on the Fla PD which is related to your perspective talking.
 
GaryTaylor said:
:rolleyes:

When did this thread become about what you think about George Zimmerman? Your thoughts are well known throughout. In fact repetitive. :confused:

And btw why are you yelling?

What’s your perspective on “For police, the goal is vigilance” since that is the OP, and the vigilante aspect repetitively discussed, circular in fact. Mine is above on the Fla PD which is related to your perspective talking.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean to yell, but used caps as an emphasis.

I thought we already worked through what my perspective is on the PD being vigilant. Can you please be more specific?
 
GaryTaylor said:
You mean GZ who helped the black homeless man through the injustice of the PD? For argument sake that we can’t read minds thus the poor traumatized jury judged. We should further victimize Martin and Zimmerman when we already have a shaky PD? I fail to see the established “good vigilance” of the police. Racist profiling by entire police depts. is not a far fetched reality. The Martin family stated in the beginning they had no faith in the PD.

Zimmerman certainly has a need for self defense now, sad reality.
Click to expand...
Again, not all policemen are vigilant. Why do insist on over-generalizing? The topic has to do with the police being vigilant in respect to their condemning vigilantism.
 
adrift said:
Yes he is. It isn’t as though we have no clue. Circumstantial evidence although not conclusive can pretty well tell you what occurred.

My chicken was missing. There were feathers all over the yard and raccoon tracks. Yes something else might have gotten my chicken but the likelihood is that raccoon did.
The circumstantial evidence is that TM confronted Z. The circumstantial evidence is that TM broke Z’s nose and had him on the ground punching him and injuring the back of his head.

I asked this question a long time ago. It was never answered. Once Z was on the ground, besides what he did do, what should he have done. He had already called the police and knew they were on their way. You can say he should have stayed in his car but he didn’t. Once, however, he was on the ground what should he have done to protect himself fron the “innocent kid” ?
Click to expand...
I agree circumstantial evidence is not conclusive. Telling what “pretty well” occurred is not really good enough with a man dead in my opinion but it’s all the jury had.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Again, not all policemen are vigilant. Why do insist on over-generalizing? The topic has to do with the police being vigilant in respect to their condemning vigilantism.
Click to expand...
The police are the example, and the rightful ones responsible to protect and serve. Not ignore with 46 calls and brush under the carpet the assault of a homeless black man who was abused by a cops son. The fact all police aren’t vigilante doesn’t follow that entire police depts. are not responsible for being so.
 
adrift said:
Yes he is. It isn’t as though we have no clue. Circumstantial evidence although not conclusive can pretty well tell you what occurred.

My chicken was missing. There were feathers all over the yard and raccoon tracks. Yes something else might have gotten my chicken but the likelihood is that raccoon did.
The circumstantial evidence is that TM confronted Z. The circumstantial evidence is that TM broke Z’s nose and had him on the ground punching him and injuring the back of his head.

I asked this question a long time ago. It was never answered. Once Z was on the ground, besides what he did do, what should he have done. He had already called the police and knew they were on their way. You can say he should have stayed in his car but he didn’t. Once, however, he was on the ground what should he have done to protect himself fron the “innocent kid” ?
Click to expand...
TM may very well have confronted GZ to ask why he was following him. Perspective taking, please.
 
Robert_Sock said:
TM may very well have confronted GZ to ask why he was following him. Perspective taking, please.
Click to expand...
Which leads back to you persecuting a man by your own opinion of him. Perspective talking. The same you desire others to do in regards to all others, you refuse to do with him.

I’ll leave you to your witch hunt.

Peace
 
GaryTaylor said:
Which leads back to you persecuting a man by your own opinion of him. Perspective talking. The same you desire others to do in regards to all others, you refuse to do with him.

I’ll leave you to your witch hunt.

Peace
Click to expand...
My point is that TM’s perspective is sorely missing in your discussion of things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top