For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fix said:
TM was the vigilante. He was on top of a man beating him. All opposing view is nothing more than ideology. A tough youth with a criminal background beating a manā€™s head in is indefensible.
Click to expand...
For me personally, I donā€™t feel the need to speculate on Martinā€™s motive for beating Zimmerman, why he circled back to attack him, etc. whatever the reason, the young man is dead. The man who killed him was found not guilty of manslaughter or murder. Tragedy for all involved, as Iā€™m sure the taking of another life, even in self defense, can weigh on a manā€™s heart. Having people revile you despite your innocence certainly doesnā€™t help. I pray for both of them.
 
GaryTaylor said:
How many perspectives are there on the PD involvement related to facts? Who made race an issue in this case? Not the court, the only aspect is federal civil rights, promoted by civil rights leaders. And for no good reason as I see.

DOJ has no strong case. The case specifically avoided race, no intent was found, thus racial intent could not be proven, Thatā€™s a fact.

FBI-no evidence of racist.

Man is innocent thatā€™s a fact, he is being victimized. hunted and targeted.

Where is the good vigilance.

Whereā€™s the conscience, whereā€™s the love?

We are past pointing fingers, we are at the man hunt part with no good vigilance.
Click to expand...
šŸ‘
 
rlg94086 said:
For me personally, I donā€™t feel the need to speculate on Martinā€™s motive for beating Zimmerman, why he circled back to attack him, etc. whatever the reason, the young man is dead. The man who killed him was found not guilty of manslaughter or murder. Tragedy for all involved, as Iā€™m sure the taking of another life, even in self defense, can weigh on a manā€™s heart. Having people revile you despite your innocence certainly doesnā€™t help. I pray for both of them.
Click to expand...
I am applying the other posterā€™s logic here. My point is her argument applies to TM more than it applies to GZ. Of course the entire episode is tragic, but we should not lose site of the fact an innocent man could have been killed.
 
Perspective taking: What was the other personā€™s perspective?

We simply do not know who the guilty party was.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Perspective taking: What was the other personā€™s perspective?

We simply do not know who the guilty party was.
Click to expand...
We actually do know that one person is not guilty. The other is, unfortunately, dead. It is possible he was also not guilty, but that we canā€™t know for certain.

What value is there in further speculation?
 
rlg94086 said:
We actually do know that one person is not guilty. The other is, unfortunately, dead. It is possible he was also not guilty, but that we canā€™t know for certain.

What value is there in further speculation?
Click to expand...
We really do not know that GZ is not guilty. All we know is that the jury did not find him guilty based on the evidence presented to them.

The value is justice; knowing that the perspective of TM is sorely missing and thus we cannot reach any conclusion.
 
Robert_Sock said:
We really do not know that GZ is not guilty. All we know is that the jury did not find him guilty based on the evidence presented to them.
Click to expand...
Right. Jury trials are how we determine whether someone is guilty, so that is how we do know he is not guilty.
Robert_Sock said:
The value is justice; knowing that the perspective of TM is sorely missing and thus we cannot reach any conclusion.
Click to expand...
Hmmā€¦seeking justice outside of our judicial system is vigilantism. Deciding that someone is guilty in absence of evidence is uncharitable and unjust. That would be a Catholic perspective, speaking of perspectives. šŸ™‚
 
Robert_Sock said:
We really do not know that GZ is not guilty. All we know is that the jury did not find him guilty based on the evidence presented to them.

The value is justice; knowing that the perspective of TM is sorely missing and thus we cannot reach any conclusion.
Click to expand...
This most certainly is true.
 
rlg94086 said:
Right. Jury trials are how we determine whether someone is guilty, so that is how we do know he is not guilty.

Hmmā€¦seeking justice outside of our judicial system is vigilantism. Deciding that someone is guilty in absence of evidence is uncharitable and unjust. That would be a Catholic perspective, speaking of perspectives. šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
This is spot on. šŸ‘šŸ‘

And, considering the discussion thus far, it is also wryly amusing and rather ironic. šŸ˜ƒ
 
MaryT777 said:
Because he saw the gun as Zimmerman stated to the police he reached for it/touched it
He must have seen It then.

Following someone because you donā€™t like the looks of them or what they are doing is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst as we can see. GZ had prior stalking behavior though so whatā€™s new. Past behavior is indicative of future behavior. At least he just assaulted the police officer and didnā€™t shoot him.
Click to expand...
Evidence of this? I have asked before because I cannot find it. The evidence is that TM never touched the gun. At what point are you claiming the Z said he saw the gun? Where is the evidence that he pulled the gun before TM started hitting him? As I have pointed out to you before the ā€œstalkingā€ of his girlfriend was only her statement without proof that she made on a show. She did not make it in court. They both had mutual restraining orders something that is overlooked in trying to make GZ a bad man.
 
MaryT777 said:
No of course the other things didnā€™t happen during the event of Zimmerman profiling,
following, and detaining TM without even telling him he was simply neighborhood watch.
I just noted your concerned citizen statement and hardly think concerned citizens assault police officers while drinking or stalk and assault a girlfriend.

No, GZ was not observing, he was following and stalking around a young kid who was walking home with candy and an iced tea.

We just canā€™t shoot everyone who we think is a thief, everyone who is kicked out of school, or we think exhibits criminal behavior. The police officer testified TM was doing absolutely nothing wrong.

If so, might as well have an every man and citizen for himself mentality and get rid of the expensive police force.
Click to expand...
Where is the evidence that he detained him? Total fiction:rolleyes:
What you leave out is that Z just didnā€™t pull the gun and shoot him down because he thought he was a theif. TM wasnā€™t doing anything wrong until he started assaulting Z. At that point, he was doing something wrong.
 
rlg94086 said:
Hmmā€¦seeking justice outside of our judicial system is vigilantism. Deciding that someone is guilty in absence of evidence is uncharitable and unjust. That would be a Catholic perspective, speaking of perspectives. šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
So, it sound like GZ was indeed acting as a vigilante, and behaving uncharitably and unjustly, according to your reasoning.
 
Wow! I never heard of this Zimmerman guy . When is his trial? You think he will get the death penalty?
 
Robert_Sock said:
So, it sound like GZ was indeed acting as a vigilante, and behaving uncharitably and unjustly, according to your reasoning.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was a great definition posted and it fits GZ to a T.
Stay in your vehicle, wait for the police and let them do their job.
Mary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top