Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetcharity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
He was not a vigilante, because he did not set out to kill or punish the person. However, I can not view him as a neighborhood watchman, as he also abandoned his “watching” in favor or armed pursuit.
Click to expand...
It would then fall into the question of what the object of pursuit was. Was his goal to apprehend or to watch further?

If it was to watch further, then it would not be an abandonment of ‘watching’ but a fulfillment of the task.
 
Brendan said:
It would then fall into the question of what the object of pursuit was. Was his goal to apprehend or to watch further?

If it was to watch further, then it would not be an abandonment of ‘watching’ but a fulfillment of the task.
Click to expand...
Agreed. How do you watch someone when you can’t see them?
 
Brendan said:
It would then fall into the question of what the object of pursuit was. Was his goal to apprehend or to watch further?

If it was to watch further, then it would not be an abandonment of ‘watching’ but a fulfillment of the task.
Click to expand...
That is watching in the literal sense, but not as recognized as* neighborhood* watch, where chasing after folks that you see is a threat is abandoning the guidelines and purpose of neighborhood watch, top of which is, “Do not confront suspects”.
 
styrgwillidar said:
You keep putting a tag line stating guns are incompatible with love. Again, I ask you the question in another way.

Does love demand you not defend yourself against an attacker?
Click to expand...
Robert Sock,

Didn’t see you respond, sorry if I missed it and I need to move on to some other things. I also haven’t seen you provide any definition or evidence of Zimmerman being a vigiliante, or how he as a CCW holder was negligent, or anything to support that Zimmerm continued to follow Martin.

Something to ponder from the catechism-

" 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66 "

Guns are simply a tool. They are particularly useful for those of us who abhor confrontation, or are weaker, smaller, less skilled at fighting in defending our lives. Something the catechism indicates is quite consistent with love. Love towards oneself being a fundamental principle of morality. If we hold our own lives in contempt, it is a logical extension to treat the lives of others with contempt. If we value ourselves, we tend to also appreciate others more, to see the similarities they share- joy of life, children etc.

If love is not incompatible with self-defense, the means of self-defense is irrelevant. It is the underlying principle that is important.

Love does not demand we allow others to kill or seriously hurt us.
 
pnewton said:
That is watching in the literal sense, but not as recognized as* neighborhood* watch, where chasing after folks that you see is a threat is abandoning the guidelines and purpose of neighborhood watch, top of which is, “Do not confront suspects”.
Click to expand...
Source?

Isn’t the purpose of a Neighborhood Watch to watch people in the neighborhood? When does 160 feet become a pursuit?
 
styrgwillidar said:
Sorry, not familiar with Florida law so I don’t know how they would treat it specifically and how the unintentional/negligent definitions relate. I do know that police departments have been sued and lost under these conditions. A shooting which would be considered justifiable self-defense becoming manslaughter because a jury decides the officer didn’t really mean to pull the trigger when he did.

Its why some departments have shifted to dual action only and/or increased the trigger pull on their weapons. The testimony, if I remember correctly, indicated the trigger pull on Zimmermans weapon was ~5 lbs for every pull of the trigger. NYC for example, requires their officers weapons to have a 12 lb trigger pull for every pull of the trigger. Accuracy suffers greatly (unless officer does a lot of shooting on their personal time) but the risk of negligent discharges, inadvertant trigger pull is diminished.
Click to expand...
I’m not familiar with FL law either, other than the little bit I’ve picked up from this case. The part about negligence stuck out, because there was so much talk about negligence.

Thanks for the info, it was interesting.
 
What is the point of arguing the fine points of the Zimmerman case ad infinitum?

That was already done in Court, by attorneys, before a picked jury of twelve peers in accordance with the laws of American jurisprudence.

WE SHOULD ALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY OF LAW AND THE JURY SYSTEM BY ACCEPTING THE VERDICT.

But…of course that’s not going to be permitted to happen by certain wicked spirits in high places!

Just goes to show you can never win an argument with a liar.
 
Robert_Sock said:
But that’s what the Florida state law is doing; making it OK to shoot somebody in cold blood provided you say that you perceived the victim to be a threat to your wellbeing. Concealed weapons should be outlawed, except for law enforcement personnel. LOVE, not guns!
Click to expand...
If you believe the law should be changed, so be it, though I disagree.

But in a country of laws, we don’t retroactively condemn people because they followed the law and we didn’t like the law. It i hard to argue the verdict was incorrect. The argument should be that the law should be changed, if that is your opinion. Otherwise, we can simply pass legislation, and retroactively throw you in jail because you didn;t follow the “future law.”

We have to be careful about this heavy-handedness with applying the law to other people’s lives, because it will always come back to be used against us as individuals later.
 
pnewton said:
That is watching in the literal sense, but not as recognized as* neighborhood* watch, where chasing after folks that you see is a threat is abandoning the guidelines and purpose of neighborhood watch, top of which is, “Do not confront suspects”.
Click to expand...
Again, what evidence that Zimmerman was “chasing after” Martin? He admitted to observing him, following him and then when told “we don’t need you to do that…” he continued the call and gave substantial details to the dispatcher during which he was obviously not running after an agile and apparently fit teen. He said he’d lost sight of Martin. Martin’s girlfriend said he told her he’d fled and could not longer see Zimmerman.

Where was the 'chase?"

Did Zimmerman confront Martin, or the reverse? I think Martin moved out of sight and then returned while Zimmerman was on the phone, surprising Zimmerman and engaging first in harsh words followed by the fight.

Martin had several opportunities to flee, return home, call 911, ask Jeantel to call 911. According to testimony he did none of those things. He confronted Zimmerman, not vice versa.

Lisa
 
Robert_Sock said:
But it could very well be possible that TM used physical force in pounding GZ’s head into the ground after GZ pulled his gun. This is perfectly plausible given the evidence, but nobody seems interested in taking this into account. This thread is so biased.

LOVE, not guns!
Click to expand...
And that would mean something to the courts if you had any evidence besides the possibility that is occurred, without any proof or anyone even claiming that. You don’t convict someone of a crime because of what “may have happened.”
 
Tucker_R said:
All they think about is the gun used. Nevermind the fact he was justified in shooting him.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it was unfortunate that a young man is dead because of it. No one seems to mention that Zimmerman would be dead if he did not have the gun and used it. No one wins in that situation - someone dies or is horrifically injured.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I’m not questioning people’s faith, I’m just stating the fact that this thread is lacking in Catholic virtue. For example, where is the maxim of “turning the other cheek” being applied here?

LOVE, not guns!
Click to expand...
By that logic, should we not turn the other cheek even if GZ is guilty as you falsely believe him to be? Turn the other cheek and let him alone, right?
 
I just pray both families can move on. Hopefully the media doesn’t disrupt their llives anymore… altho I doubt it 😦
ComputerGeek25 said:
Yes, and it was unfortunate that a young man is dead because of it. No one seems to mention that Zimmerman would be dead if he did not have the gun and used it. No one wins in that situation - someone dies or is horrifically injured.
Click to expand...
 
SamH said:
Source?
Click to expand...
This didn’t take long to find:

bja.gov/Publications/NSA_NW_Manual.pdf

*Community members only serve as the extra “eyes and ears” of law enforcement. They should report their observations of suspicious activities to law enforcement; however, citizens should never try to take action on those observations. Trained law enforcement should be the only ones ever to take action based on observations of suspicious activities. *

Had Mr. Zimmerman not taken the action he did, Martin would not be dead and he would not be dealing with this mess. Yes, the same can be said for Trayvon Martin. Oh well. Guns often give men a feeling of safety that exceeds their competence.
 
40.png
styrgwillidar:
Oh my, and the opinions will go on and on, with no justification what so ever.
The verdict is in, and only God knows for sure. Peace, Carlan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top