For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, it sound like GZ was indeed acting as a vigilante, and behaving uncharitably and unjustly, according to your reasoning.
So, according to your reasoning, it would have been charitable and just for Zimmerman to not defend himself and to just allow himself to be beaten to death after being attacked?
 
So, according to your reasoning, it would have been charitable and just for Zimmerman to not defend himself and to just allow himself to be beaten to death after being attacked?
Charitable and just (and more intelligent) would be to let the police handle the situation.
Don’t get out of your vehicle with your gun that someone saw and reached for and scare them so much they have no alternative but try to grab the gun or fight for their life.

Not only that it seems illogical to follow around in your vehicle and on foot someone you Perceive is a thug, up to no good, and on drugs. That’s simply dangerous and not prudent.
 
Charitable and just (and more intelligent) would be to let the police handle the situation.
Don’t get out of your vehicle with your gun that someone saw and reached for and scare them so much they have no alternative but try to grab the gun or fight for their life.

Not only that it seems illogical to follow around in your vehicle and on foot someone you Perceive is a thug, up to no good, and on drugs. That’s simply dangerous and not prudent.
Again, Zimmerman couldn’t begin to guess that he would be attacked and that he would have to defend his life. We have the benefit of perfect hindsight. Though I wouldn’t have made the same choices as Zimmerman did, I don’t fault him for not knowing in advance what would happen.
 
Wow! I never heard of this Zimmerman guy . When is his trial? You think he will get the death penalty?
For some, lying just became another “perspective” they could don. Relativism at its worst.
 
Again, Zimmerman couldn’t begin to guess that he would be attacked. We have the benefit of perfect hindsight. Zimmerman didn’t.
What did he expect to happen if he got out of his vehicle after following someone in his vehicle and on foot who saw his weapon?
 
Again, Zimmerman couldn’t begin to guess that he would be attacked. We have the benefit of perfect hindsight. Though I wouldn’t have made the same choices as Zimmerman did, I don’t fault him for not knowing in advance what would happen.
GZ didn’t know that following a ‘suspect’ could be dangerous? What was he doing in a NW?
 
GZ didn’t know that following a ‘suspect’ could be dangerous? …
I didn’t say that. I said this:
Again, Zimmerman couldn’t begin to guess that he would be attacked and that he would have to defend his life. We have the benefit of perfect hindsight. Though I wouldn’t have made the same choices as Zimmerman did, I don’t fault him for not knowing in advance what would happen.
 
So, it sound like GZ was indeed acting as a vigilante, and behaving uncharitably and unjustly, according to your reasoning.
By calling the police, when he thought someone’s actions were suspicious? No. By my reasoning, he was doing what you should do, when you see something suspicious in your neighborhood. 🤷
 
What did he expect to happen if he got out of his vehicle after following someone in his vehicle and on foot who saw his weapon?
So your assumption is that Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun, while Zimmerman was in his vehicle and on his phone with the dispatcher?

What, was Zimmerman carrying on his forehead? Or are you trying to say that Zimmerman was brandishing his gun in his vehicle?
 
Don’t get out of your vehicle with your gun that someone saw and reached for and scare them so much they have no alternative but try to grab the gun or fight for their life.
Police do this all the time with their hand on their firearm. And down South multiple police, local, county and state. Police rule is well established, you can’t fight back. surrender and be submissive is the more successful path. Some have a hard time with this.
 
Don’t get out of your vehicle with **your gun that someone saw **and reached for and scare them so much they have no alternative but try to grab the gun or fight for their life.
What did he expect to happen if he got out of his vehicle after following someone in his vehicle and on foot who saw his weapon?
Where did it come out that Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun prior to the confrontation?
 
GZ didn’t know that following a ‘suspect’ could be dangerous? What was he doing in a NW?
Being a vigilante police wanna be. Hoping to catch a suspect never realizing after stalking
around someone in his vehicle and on foot they just wouldn’t roll over and “surrender” but fight for their life.

Can’t even have the common sense to identify himself as a “concerned neighbor”
 
Police do this all the time with their hand on their firearm. And down South multiple police, local, county and state. Police rule is well established, you can’t fight back. surrender and be submissive is the more successful path. Some have a hard time with this.
George Zimmerman is not a police officer and TM had no need to acquiesce to him.
George Zimmerman is actually a police officer assaulter .
 
Being a vigilante police wanna be. Hoping to catch a suspect never realizing after stalking
around someone in his vehicle and on foot they just wouldn’t roll over and “surrender” but fight for their life.

Can’t even have the common sense to identify himself as a “concerned neighbor”
And, it is “common sense” to leave your father’s house to go after the person whom you saw following and (allegedly has a gun you saw) to confront them? Wouldn’t the common sense and prudent thing to do be to go into your father’s house and/or call 911?
 
So your assumption is that Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun, while Zimmerman was in his vehicle and on his phone with the dispatcher?

What, was Zimmerman carrying on his forehead? Or are you trying to say that Zimmerman was brandishing his gun in his vehicle?
I am saying that when TM came over to find out what GZ’s problem is he saw the gun reached for it and fought for his life. Read the testimony to the police. GZ said he reached for it once and touched it another.

He’s not required to “surrender” or acquiesce, or be detained by anyone that is not a police officer.

GZ wanted to be a hero and instead killed an innocent man. Was he an “angel” No.
No one is. Neither was GZ. There are consequences to actions.
 
I think I am going to borrow and repeat rlg94086’s quote below as needed.
Right. Jury trials are how we determine whether someone is guilty, so that is how we do know he is not guilty.

Hmm…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. 🙂
 
I am saying that when TM came over to find out what GZ’s problem is he saw the gun reached for it and fought for his life. Read the testimony to the police. GZ said he reached for it once and touched it another.

He’s not required to “surrender” or acquiesce, or be detained by anyone that is not a police officer.

GZ wanted to be a hero and instead killed an innocent man. Was he an “angel” No.
No one is. Neither was GZ. There are consequences to actions.
According to the testimony, he saw and allegedly touched/went for the gun, while he was on top of Zimmerman, beating him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top