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:
My point is that TM’s perspective is sorely missing in your discussion of things.
Click to expand...
No its clear, he will continue to also be victimized by opposing views and for no good reason just like the other being victimized.
 
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. GZ was carrying a concealed weapon on NW when he ought to not have been.
Click to expand...
Why did Zimmerman shoot Martin?
 
estesbob said:
Why did Zimmerman shoot Martin?
Click to expand...
We do not know. Why did TM confront GZ? We do not know. Again, it comes down to one-sided perspective taking that presumes that GZ is innocent.

I’m saying that GZ is guilty of manslaughter due to his gross negligences. Where’s your evidence to the contrary? This case should never have been tried as 2nd degree murder, but manslaughter.
 
Robert_Sock said:
My point is that TM’s perspective is sorely missing in your discussion of things.
Click to expand...
No it is not. It’s that you don’t agree with what is presented as TM’s perspective. He acted like a thug and got shot like thugs do, and that conflicts with your personal perspective.
 
Robert_Sock said:
What does that have to do with PERSPECTIVE TAKING? What was the perspective of the other person?
Click to expand...
We don’t have it. You would take your PURELY speculative series of events over the perspective of the only survivor?
 
Robert_Sock said:
…I’m saying that GZ is guilty of manslaughter due to his gross negligences. Where’s your evidence to the contrary?..
Click to expand...
Because a jury of his peers (who actually sat in the court room and saw ALL evidence presented) found him not guitly of manslaughter?

(and if you didn’t know, the jury was instructed they could consider the lesser charge of manslaughter)

🤷
 
MaryT777 said:
How did Edwards get in this conversation?
SamH;11052136:
Testimony from the dead.

MaryT777;11052210 said:
?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

One poster keeps insisting on perspective taking and somehow thinks that is actually possible by speculating on possibilities and creating scenarios. However, the only way to get the perspective of Martin is to consult a psychic, perhaps the psychic John Edward. The mention of Edward led to the mention of John Edwards (with an S on the end,) a different person entirely, the politician and lawyer, perhaps resulting in confusion for some. Of course, the suggestions and conversation are all in fun and an attempt to inject a bit of humor since we cannot at all know the perspective of Martin and cannot take seriously any suggestion that someone knows the unknowable.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Pure fiction.
Click to expand...
Perspective taking, right?

With your “pure fiction” comment are you beginning to come around to see what has oft been repeated, that perspective taking is pure fiction? Perspective taking of the dead is pure fiction. It cannot be anything else. Facts and evidence are relevant. Perspective taking is story telling.
 
SwizzleStick said:
One poster keeps insisting on perspective taking and somehow thinks that is actually possible by speculating on possibilities and creating scenarios. However, the only way to get the perspective of Martin is to consult a psychic, perhaps the psychic John Edward. The mention of Edward led to the mention of John Edwards (with an S on the end,) a different person entirely, the politician and lawyer, perhaps resulting in confusion for some. Of course, the suggestions and conversation are all in fun and an attempt to inject a bit of humor since we cannot at all know the perspective of Martin and cannot take seriously any suggestion that someone knows the unknowable.
Click to expand...
Actually John Edwards (with an “s”) gave a summation in a case claiming to take the perspective of an unborn child that died in the womb.
In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.
Click to expand...
Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: ''She said at 3, ‘I’m fine.’ She said at 4, ‘I’m having a little trouble, but I’m doing O.K.’ Five, she said, ‘I’m having problems.’ At 5:30, she said, ‘I need out.’ ‘’
Click to expand...
But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of science and passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90 more minutes to perform a breech delivery, rather than immediately performing a Caesarean section, Mr. Edwards said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl’s brain.
Click to expand...
‘‘She speaks to you through me,’’ the lawyer went on in his closing argument. ‘‘And I have to tell you right now – I didn’t plan to talk about this – right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She’s inside me, and she’s talking to you.’’
Click to expand...
nytimes.com/2004/01/31/us/2004-campaign-north-carolina-senator-trial-work-edwards-left-trademark.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Click to expand...
Hillary Clinton claimed to have a similar experiance channeling the dead Eleanor Roosevelt .
 
SamH said:
Only then?
Click to expand...
Only if he is shot and dies.

Then we will talk endlessly about how the woman is a vigilante. And how since the rapist is dead, we don’t know his perspective and how since he is dead we won’t ever know his side of the story. :rolleyes:
 
SamH said:
Actually John Edwards (with an “s”) gave a summation in a case claiming to take the perspective of an unborn child that died in the womb.

Hillary Clinton claimed to have a similar experiance channeling the dead Eleanor Roosevelt .
Click to expand...
Okay. I did not know that. Thanks for the info!
 
SwizzleStick said:
Okay. I did not know that. Thanks for the info!
Click to expand...
Weird isn’t it.

To think that guy was close to being vice president. Remember the media making a huge sympathy issue about him sticking with his terminally ill wife? That turned out a bit different too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top