RE: Martin and Zimmerman - A reasoned logical discussion
September 12, 2012 at 4:51 am
(This post was last modified: September 12, 2012 at 4:53 am by Puddleglum.)
(September 12, 2012 at 4:40 am)Faith No More Wrote: Even if the evidence shows that Treyvon Martin was attacking him, Zimmerman acted with reckless disregard by pursuing Martin after repeatedly being told not to. Zimmerman was the aggressor, and he shouldn't be able to hide behind self-defense when he was ultimately responsible for the whole situation snowballing out of control. I think racism is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a crime was committed or not. Is Zimmerman racist? I think his actions show that he is somewhat, even if only at the subconscious level(something I think everyone could be guilty of at one point or another in their life). Does it matter that his motivations were racial? No, it does not, and I think bringing in the racism aspect of the situation just muddies up the whole issue.
Not quite as stupid as the previous post but. Zimmerman was not 'repeatedly told' to do anything so that is your first untrue statement. he 'Once' was told 'we do not need you to do that' which is not telling someone not to do anything not that the Police despatacher had any legal right to tell him not to follow someone.
The aggressor was whoever threw the first punch. I have no idea who that was and neither do you.
I know nothing of Zimmerman's racism but for some reason certain people have lied about what he said (including NBC) but I agree with you that it is not relevant.
If Zimmerman acted lawfully and Martin hit him then Zimmerman is not guilty. I have seen no evidence so far that Zimmerman has acted unlawfully.
Perhaps someone can tell me where Zimmerman acted unlawfully up and until the first punch was thrown (by whomever)?
(September 12, 2012 at 4:49 am)Faith No More Wrote:Puddleglum Wrote:Knee jerk reaction number one. No reason just pointless sloganeering.
Ah, I see. You're not actually interested in a serious discussion, but are simply hoping for an emotional reaction that you can point at and condemn.
I'm very interested in reasoned discussions.Hence I will condemn every emotional reaction. I am not emotionally involved in this. It is an interesting case both in the legal case and its exploitation by others.
