Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Probably?

Yeah probably. I don't know what's in this guys heart. I do know that he's a liar, so nothing would surprise me.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

I think it shows how he really thinks hes a superhero and above the law. Im not saying that helping a family is bad,just that he has to be ''that guy''

 

[timschochet]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

 

[jon_mx]

The assumptions they've made are wrong. Recognizing that the experiences and history that compelled them to their wrong assumption are very, VERY real, does nothing to change the fact that their assumptions are wrong. I don't allow one of my sons to justify what he did to his brother because of what his sister did to him first. Being a victim doesn't entitle you to commit your own wrong. But Obama just told the nation, yes it does.

He told the nation to look at it from the AA POV. From your POV you think they are wrong. From their POV they don't. No need for the hyperbole. It doesn't help anything. The only thing we can hope for as a society is that we understand each other better allowing empathy/sympathy to flow freely among us as individuals. Only then will we all start to "get it".

Hyperbole?!?

From their POV he was guilty before they had any knowledge, thought or reason to conclude that. And they still do. And they will make him pay for it in their own way. They are victims. There is no doubt about that. But being victims doesn't justify what they are doing to him at all.

Yes...hyperbole. When you go on and on about Obama single handedly "sealing Zimmerman's fate" and all that nonsense, that's hyperbole. Legally, I agree that being victims doesn't justify their actions towards Zimmerman, but one has to be foolish not to understand society doesn't have to abide by the laws of this land for society's sake. Society works things out on it's own terms. What is happening to him is happening because he shot an unarmed kid after being attacked by that kid. It's the classic monday morning QB. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it's just. I'm saying it's a reaction to an action. That reaction is based on a very long history that few take the time to understand.

The fact that society works things out on it's own terms is EXACTLY why I find what Obama did on Friday to be sickening. He affirmed that because the AA community is a victim of history, they are justified in the societal prison they will make Zimmerman live in. You're perfectly fine with that. It's you're right to feel however you want about it. It's my right to be sickened by it.

You understand that society is upset because an unarmed kid was killed right? That's what this is primarily about. That's all society needs to put this guy in "societal prison". It happened well before Obama said a word. Do you have issue with Casey Anthony having to live in a similar societal prison? WE are part of this society, yet I see a lot of deflection and segregation with "they". Why? I personally believe you and some others here have read WAY into what Obama said. Only you can answer why. I'm not sure what you're getting out of doing so. Is it a misplaced anger release or something?

Unarmed kids are killed every day. In fact, many of them are killed are not in the process of committing a felony assault. But good try rationalizing all the societal hate towards the guy. The unequal treatment that Zimmerman has recieved by the courts, being lied about in the media, being singled out by well-known stars and athletes for death, and being singled out by the president is all repulsive.

Well, since it happens everyday, no big deal. This post is probably one of your more short sighted of this thread. That's saying something. Zimmerman was tried ina court of law and found not guilty. What else was the court suppose to do that it didn't to consider him "unequally treated". Do you mean because others aren't tried like he was? Good sound logic you have here. Spare me your political with regards to Obama as well. We get that you hate the guy. You have to let go.

It does not matter who is the President, what this President is doing is wrong. The justice department has zero business in this case. The state of florida was wrong to pursue charges it would not normally pursue. Ali people are entitled to be treated equally by our government, but I suppose constutional rights should only be dished out as you see fit based on whether or not you like the individual. Pathetic.

 

[The Commish]

Are we really to the point where we are arguing that killing someone isn't a bad thing? No wonder our society is struggling. Legally, based on FL law he did nothing wrong. He doesn't go to jail, fine. Morally, he killed someone and that has consequences in our society. Why is this even a debate? Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

 

[The Commish]

The assumptions they've made are wrong. Recognizing that the experiences and history that compelled them to their wrong assumption are very, VERY real, does nothing to change the fact that their assumptions are wrong. I don't allow one of my sons to justify what he did to his brother because of what his sister did to him first. Being a victim doesn't entitle you to commit your own wrong. But Obama just told the nation, yes it does.

He told the nation to look at it from the AA POV. From your POV you think they are wrong. From their POV they don't. No need for the hyperbole. It doesn't help anything. The only thing we can hope for as a society is that we understand each other better allowing empathy/sympathy to flow freely among us as individuals. Only then will we all start to "get it".

Hyperbole?!?

From their POV he was guilty before they had any knowledge, thought or reason to conclude that. And they still do. And they will make him pay for it in their own way. They are victims. There is no doubt about that. But being victims doesn't justify what they are doing to him at all.

Yes...hyperbole. When you go on and on about Obama single handedly "sealing Zimmerman's fate" and all that nonsense, that's hyperbole. Legally, I agree that being victims doesn't justify their actions towards Zimmerman, but one has to be foolish not to understand society doesn't have to abide by the laws of this land for society's sake. Society works things out on it's own terms. What is happening to him is happening because he shot an unarmed kid after being attacked by that kid. It's the classic monday morning QB. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it's just. I'm saying it's a reaction to an action. That reaction is based on a very long history that few take the time to understand.

The fact that society works things out on it's own terms is EXACTLY why I find what Obama did on Friday to be sickening. He affirmed that because the AA community is a victim of history, they are justified in the societal prison they will make Zimmerman live in. You're perfectly fine with that. It's you're right to feel however you want about it. It's my right to be sickened by it.

You understand that society is upset because an unarmed kid was killed right? That's what this is primarily about. That's all society needs to put this guy in "societal prison". It happened well before Obama said a word. Do you have issue with Casey Anthony having to live in a similar societal prison? WE are part of this society, yet I see a lot of deflection and segregation with "they". Why? I personally believe you and some others here have read WAY into what Obama said. Only you can answer why. I'm not sure what you're getting out of doing so. Is it a misplaced anger release or something?

Unarmed kids are killed every day. In fact, many of them are killed are not in the process of committing a felony assault. But good try rationalizing all the societal hate towards the guy. The unequal treatment that Zimmerman has recieved by the courts, being lied about in the media, being singled out by well-known stars and athletes for death, and being singled out by the president is all repulsive.

Well, since it happens everyday, no big deal. This post is probably one of your more short sighted of this thread. That's saying something. Zimmerman was tried ina court of law and found not guilty. What else was the court suppose to do that it didn't to consider him "unequally treated". Do you mean because others aren't tried like he was? Good sound logic you have here. Spare me your political with regards to Obama as well. We get that you hate the guy. You have to let go.

It does not matter who is the President, what this President is doing is wrong. The justice department has zero business in this case. The state of florida was wrong to pursue charges it would not normally pursue. Ali people are entitled to be treated equally by our government, but I suppose constutional rights should only be dished out as you see fit based on whether or not you like the individual. Pathetic.

So you're "angry" because this guy went to trial while others who have done the same thing haven't. Got it.

 

[Christo]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

I think it shows how he really thinks hes a superhero and above the law. Im not saying that helping a family is bad,just that he has to be ''that guy''

As opposed to "that guy" who ignores people in trouble?

 

[Christo]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

 

[Christo]

Are we really to the point where we are arguing that killing someone isn't a bad thing? No wonder our society is struggling. Legally, based on FL law he did nothing wrong. He doesn't go to jail, fine. Morally, he killed someone and that has consequences in our society. Why is this even a debate? Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

It is not morally wrong to kill someone in self-defense.

 

[Witz]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

 

[Hang 10]

I can't believe the SUV rescue story isn't from the onion. You just can't make this #### up.

 

[The Commish]

Are we really to the point where we are arguing that killing someone isn't a bad thing? No wonder our society is struggling. Legally, based on FL law he did nothing wrong. He doesn't go to jail, fine. Morally, he killed someone and that has consequences in our society. Why is this even a debate? Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

It is not morally wrong to kill someone in self-defense.

To you....for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong, but it's becoming clear to me that my morality is slightly different than some folks here. I'm ok with that.

 

[RCon]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Probably?

Yeah probably. I don't know what's in this guys heart. I do know that he's a liar, so nothing would surprise me.

No, you think he's a liar. You don't know it.

 

[Hang 10]

Are we really to the point where we are arguing that killing someone isn't a bad thing? No wonder our society is struggling. Legally, based on FL law he did nothing wrong. He doesn't go to jail, fine. Morally, he killed someone and that has consequences in our society. Why is this even a debate? Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

It is not morally wrong to kill someone in self-defense.

To you....for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong, but it's becoming clear to me that my morality is slightly different than some folks here. I'm ok with that.

You think it's morally wrong to kill to protect your children? Wow

 

[ATC1]

Got an e-mail from University police listing 3 robberies that occurred yesterday on campus and asks people to be on a look out. the suspect tired to take a laptop and asked people to use their cell phone and just takes off. Police asking us to report any suspicious activity, however there is no description of the suspect other than it was a male.

LSU is a walking campus and I do walk a bit around from time to time. At least give me a description to look out for. But something tells me they are hesitant to do so. I wonder why.

 

[Christo]

Got an e-mail from University police listing 3 robberies that occurred yesterday on campus and asks people to be on a look out. the suspect tired to take a laptop and asked people to use their cell phone and just takes off. Police asking us to report any suspicious activity, however there is no description of the suspect other than it was a male.

LSU is a walking campus and I do walk a bit around from time to time. At least give me a description to look out for. But something tells me they are hesitant to do so. I wonder why.

racist

 

[timschochet]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Probably?

Yeah probably. I don't know what's in this guys heart. I do know that he's a liar, so nothing would surprise me.

No, you think he's a liar. You don't know it.

I don't recall you once applying this strict correction to the many people in this thread who have slavishly repeated George Zimmerman's narrative as if it were the Gospel truth.

But you're quite correct. I don't know that GZ is a liar. I have strong reason to believe that he is.

 

[Hang 10]

Got an e-mail from University police listing 3 robberies that occurred yesterday on campus and asks people to be on a look out. the suspect tired to take a laptop and asked people to use their cell phone and just takes off. Police asking us to report any suspicious activity, however there is no description of the suspect other than it was a male.

LSU is a walking campus and I do walk a bit around from time to time. At least give me a description to look out for. But something tells me they are hesitant to do so. I wonder why.

Possibly a white hispanic.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

Silly me, just repeating what the courts determined after a thorough police investigation, eye-witness accounts, forensic specialists, and a jury determined after examining all the facts. But Tim knows Zimmerman is a lying racist murder, so we will go with that.

 

[Bonzai]

Got an e-mail from University police listing 3 robberies that occurred yesterday on campus and asks people to be on a look out. the suspect tired to take a laptop and asked people to use their cell phone and just takes off. Police asking us to report any suspicious activity, however there is no description of the suspect other than it was a male.

LSU is a walking campus and I do walk a bit around from time to time. At least give me a description to look out for. But something tells me they are hesitant to do so. I wonder why.

They're afraid you'll shoot him?

 

[The Commish]

Are we really to the point where we are arguing that killing someone isn't a bad thing? No wonder our society is struggling. Legally, based on FL law he did nothing wrong. He doesn't go to jail, fine. Morally, he killed someone and that has consequences in our society. Why is this even a debate? Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

It is not morally wrong to kill someone in self-defense.

To you....for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong, but it's becoming clear to me that my morality is slightly different than some folks here. I'm ok with that.

You think it's morally wrong to kill to protect your children? Wow

I don't think it's necessary to kill to protect my children. This is a strawman, but we can do this if you want. Even if I was put in a position that I had to kill to protect my children I'd understand that there was probably going to be some societal fallout and I'd expect it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Have we all discussed how we would feel about this if Martin had been a 16-year-old girl followed around by an armed man in the middle of the night yet? I feel like that's the next great perspective to discuss.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

Silly me, just repeating what the courts determined after a thorough police investigation, eye-witness accounts, forensic specialists, and a jury determined after examining all the facts. But Tim knows Zimmerman is a lying racist murder, so we will go with that.

They were determined, all right.

 

[Hang 10]

Are we really to the point where we are arguing that killing someone isn't a bad thing? No wonder our society is struggling. Legally, based on FL law he did nothing wrong. He doesn't go to jail, fine. Morally, he killed someone and that has consequences in our society. Why is this even a debate? Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

It is not morally wrong to kill someone in self-defense.

To you....for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong, but it's becoming clear to me that my morality is slightly different than some folks here. I'm ok with that.

You think it's morally wrong to kill to protect your children? Wow

I don't think it's necessary to kill to protect my children. This is a strawman, but we can do this if you want. Even if I was put in a position that I had to kill to protect my children I'd understand that there was probably going to be some societal fallout and I'd expect it.

Not really a strawman. You're the one who said "for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong".

What does "societal fallout" have to do with anything? I thought we were just talking morality here.

 

[Hang 10]

Have we all discussed how we would feel about this if Martin had been a 16-year-old girl followed around by an armed man in the middle of the night yet? I feel like that's the next great perspective to discuss.

5 or 6 times I think.

 

[timschochet]

Have we all discussed how we would feel about this if Martin had been a 16-year-old girl followed around by an armed man in the middle of the night yet? I feel like that's the next great perspective to discuss.

Here's a better question: how would we feel about this if Martin had been an unarmed teenage boy followed by an armed man? Because what really happened is awful enough without the need for analogies.

 

[Henry Ford]

Have we all discussed how we would feel about this if Martin had been a 16-year-old girl followed around by an armed man in the middle of the night yet? I feel like that's the next great perspective to discuss.

5 or 6 times I think.

Thank God. I'd hate to think any stone has been left unturned.

 

[ATC1]

Got an e-mail from University police listing 3 robberies that occurred yesterday on campus and asks people to be on a look out. the suspect tired to take a laptop and asked people to use their cell phone and just takes off. Police asking us to report any suspicious activity, however there is no description of the suspect other than it was a male.

LSU is a walking campus and I do walk a bit around from time to time. At least give me a description to look out for. But something tells me they are hesitant to do so. I wonder why.

They're afraid you'll shoot him?

Campus is a gun free zone. Good thing the criminal at least knows that.

 

[Henry Ford]

Have we all discussed how we would feel about this if Martin had been a 16-year-old girl followed around by an armed man in the middle of the night yet? I feel like that's the next great perspective to discuss.

Here's a better question: how would we feel about this if Martin had been an unarmed teenage boy followed by an armed man? Because what really happened is awful enough without the need for analogies.

Yeah, we should definitely discuss that.

 

[parasaurolophus]

They interviewed the passenger of the overturned vehicle last night. She said once the truck flipped and caught on fire, she remembered that she had a can of watermelon juice and a bag of skittles in the glovebox. She popped the can of juice, shook the bag of skittles and George Zimmerman appeared out of nowhere. She said it was miraculous and she will forever carry watermelon juice and skittles wherever she goes.

1/10

Your first factually accurate post in this thread. Good job.

 

[The Commish]

Are we really to the point where we are arguing that killing someone isn't a bad thing? No wonder our society is struggling. Legally, based on FL law he did nothing wrong. He doesn't go to jail, fine. Morally, he killed someone and that has consequences in our society. Why is this even a debate? Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

It is not morally wrong to kill someone in self-defense.

To you....for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong, but it's becoming clear to me that my morality is slightly different than some folks here. I'm ok with that.

You think it's morally wrong to kill to protect your children? Wow

I don't think it's necessary to kill to protect my children. This is a strawman, but we can do this if you want. Even if I was put in a position that I had to kill to protect my children I'd understand that there was probably going to be some societal fallout and I'd expect it.

Not really a strawman. You're the one who said "for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong".

What does "societal fallout" have to do with anything? I thought we were just talking morality here.

Every action we take has a consequence/reward. I think it's morally wrong to kill, for any reason. Doesn't mean I wouldn't go against my morals if absolutely pressed. Going against those morals, I'd be prepared for society's opinion on my actions (right or wrong). The "societal fallout" in the Zimmerman case is his having to live in hiding and receiving death threats. Things of that nature.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

Silly me, just repeating what the courts determined after a thorough police investigation, eye-witness accounts, forensic specialists, and a jury determined after examining all the facts. But Tim knows Zimmerman is a lying racist murder, so we will go with that.

Not guilty means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what a court determines. They don't determine that X happened or didn't happen.

I don't understand why people get this confused so often. I wish jon_mx was an outlier, but he's not. People on both sides of this and every other argument after a jury trial confuse a verdict with a conclusion. Why do they do this? Is the principle confusing? It doesn't seem confusing.

 

[The Commish]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

Silly me, just repeating what the courts determined after a thorough police investigation, eye-witness accounts, forensic specialists, and a jury determined after examining all the facts. But Tim knows Zimmerman is a lying racist murder, so we will go with that.

Not guilty means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what a court determines. They don't determine that X happened or didn't happen.

I don't understand why people get this confused so often. I wish jon_mx was an outlier, but he's not. People on both sides of this and every other argument after a jury trial confuse a verdict with a conclusion. Why do they do this? Is the principle confusing? It doesn't seem confusing.

It's about winning an iFight best I can tell.

 

[Christo]

Are we really to the point where we are arguing that killing someone isn't a bad thing? No wonder our society is struggling. Legally, based on FL law he did nothing wrong. He doesn't go to jail, fine. Morally, he killed someone and that has consequences in our society. Why is this even a debate? Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

It is not morally wrong to kill someone in self-defense.

To you....for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong, but it's becoming clear to me that my morality is slightly different than some folks here. I'm ok with that.

You think it's morally wrong to kill to protect your children? Wow

I don't think it's necessary to kill to protect my children. This is a strawman, but we can do this if you want. Even if I was put in a position that I had to kill to protect my children I'd understand that there was probably going to be some societal fallout and I'd expect it.

How do you know whether it would be necessary unless you were faced with it?

 

[RCon]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Probably?

Yeah probably. I don't know what's in this guys heart. I do know that he's a liar, so nothing would surprise me.

No, you think he's a liar. You don't know it.

I don't recall you once applying this strict correction to the many people in this thread who have slavishly repeated George Zimmerman's narrative as if it were the Gospel truth.

But you're quite correct. I don't know that GZ is a liar. I have strong reason to believe that he is.

It's not worth my time to try to correct posters like Jojo. I feel like there's hope for you.

 

[Doug B]

To you....for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong, but it's becoming clear to me that my morality is slightly different than some folks here. I'm ok with that.

This can't be an absolute on your part. Just can't be. You wouldn't kill to prevent somone from bludgeoning your children, for example?

Not equating that to Zimmerman-Martin ... just trying to see if your "killing's never moral" stance is absolute.

 

[Witz]

Got an e-mail from University police listing 3 robberies that occurred yesterday on campus and asks people to be on a look out. the suspect tired to take a laptop and asked people to use their cell phone and just takes off. Police asking us to report any suspicious activity, however there is no description of the suspect other than it was a male.

LSU is a walking campus and I do walk a bit around from time to time. At least give me a description to look out for. But something tells me they are hesitant to do so. I wonder why.

racist

Genderist.

 

[Doug B]

I don't think it's necessary to kill to protect my children. This is a strawman, but we can do this if you want. Even if I was put in a position that I had to kill to protect my children I'd understand that there was probably going to be some societal fallout and I'd expect it.

There's be no fallout whatsoever, unless the situation was absurdly ambiguous This kind of stuff has happened in real life to real people ... it's not like the justified-homicide bridge has never been crossed.

 

[Hang 10]

To you....for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong, but it's becoming clear to me that my morality is slightly different than some folks here. I'm ok with that.

This can't be an absolute on your part. Just can't be. You wouldn't kill to prevent somone from bludgeoning your children, for example?

Not equating that to Zimmerman-Martin ... just trying to see if your "killing's never moral" stance is absolute.

Pretty sure Commish is 99% shtick.

 

[Witz]

To you....for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong, but it's becoming clear to me that my morality is slightly different than some folks here. I'm ok with that.

This can't be an absolute on your part. Just can't be. You wouldn't kill to prevent somone from bludgeoning your children, for example?

Not equating that to Zimmerman-Martin ... just trying to see if your "killing's never moral" stance is absolute.

Pretty sure Commish is 99% shtick.

It's the conclusion I've come to.

 

[ATC1]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

Silly me, just repeating what the courts determined after a thorough police investigation, eye-witness accounts, forensic specialists, and a jury determined after examining all the facts. But Tim knows Zimmerman is a lying racist murder, so we will go with that.

Not guilty means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what a court determines. They don't determine that X happened or didn't happen.

I don't understand why people get this confused so often. I wish jon_mx was an outlier, but he's not. People on both sides of this and every other argument after a jury trial confuse a verdict with a conclusion. Why do they do this? Is the principle confusing? It doesn't seem confusing.

My problem is that the DA was forced to press charges by the mob after the police did not feel the need to press charges. Same can be said as to why GZ won't be charged federally. There is nothing that can prove GZ racially profiled TM.

 

[Doug B]

Pretty sure Commish is 99% shtick.

In any case, there are people who are, philosophically, conscientious pacifists (cf Jainism in India). The position can be internally consistent -- for instance, Commish may volunteer that he'd conscientiously object to being drafted for war.

 

[Hang 10]

Pretty sure Commish is 99% shtick.

In any case, there are people who are, philosophically, conscientious pacifists (cf Jainism in India). The position can be internally consistent -- for instance, Commish may volunteer that he'd conscientiously object to being drafted for war.

He's not a pacifist. Pretty sure he was arguing a few pages ago that it was ok for Martin fight Zimmerman because he followed him.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

Silly me, just repeating what the courts determined after a thorough police investigation, eye-witness accounts, forensic specialists, and a jury determined after examining all the facts. But Tim knows Zimmerman is a lying racist murder, so we will go with that.

Not guilty means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what a court determines. They don't determine that X happened or didn't happen.

I don't understand why people get this confused so often. I wish jon_mx was an outlier, but he's not. People on both sides of this and every other argument after a jury trial confuse a verdict with a conclusion. Why do they do this? Is the principle confusing? It doesn't seem confusing.

My problem is that the DA was forced to press charges by the mob after the police did not feel the need to press charges. Same can be said as to why GZ won't be charged federally. There is nothing that can prove GZ racially profiled TM.

I don't understand your problem with the decision to press charges in the initial case. Any time someone kills an unarmed person there needs to be a more thorough investigation than originally took place, and if the thorough investigation doesn't definitively resolve the question of self-defense, I'm fine with the DA having discretion to prosecute or not as they see fit.

Agree on the federal charges; that was dumb from the get-go, and I have a problem with all the people clamoring for it. and I think Justice will ultimately decide not to move forward. If they do move forward I'll lose a modicum of respect for this administration, unless they know something I don't.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

Silly me, just repeating what the courts determined after a thorough police investigation, eye-witness accounts, forensic specialists, and a jury determined after examining all the facts. But Tim knows Zimmerman is a lying racist murder, so we will go with that.

Not guilty means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what a court determines. They don't determine that X happened or didn't happen.

I don't understand why people get this confused so often. I wish jon_mx was an outlier, but he's not. People on both sides of this and every other argument after a jury trial confuse a verdict with a conclusion. Why do they do this? Is the principle confusing? It doesn't seem confusing.

Where did I say anything otherwise?

He went to court, and Zimmerman prevailed. The killing was legally justified by the system of justice in Florida. Now Tim's statement that Zimmerman is guilty is based upon what? The person whose statement is just utterly ridiculous and is contrary to fact is Tim's, but yet you insist on giving me #### for being correct.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

Silly me, just repeating what the courts determined after a thorough police investigation, eye-witness accounts, forensic specialists, and a jury determined after examining all the facts. But Tim knows Zimmerman is a lying racist murder, so we will go with that.

Not guilty means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what a court determines. They don't determine that X happened or didn't happen.

I don't understand why people get this confused so often. I wish jon_mx was an outlier, but he's not. People on both sides of this and every other argument after a jury trial confuse a verdict with a conclusion. Why do they do this? Is the principle confusing? It doesn't seem confusing.

My problem is that the DA was forced to press charges by the mob after the police did not feel the need to press charges. Same can be said as to why GZ won't be charged federally. There is nothing that can prove GZ racially profiled TM.

I don't understand your problem with the decision to press charges in the initial case. Any time someone kills an unarmed person there needs to be a more thorough investigation than originally took place, and if the thorough investigation doesn't definitively resolve the question of self-defense, I'm fine with the DA having discretion to prosecute or not as they see fit.

Agree on the federal charges; that was dumb from the get-go, and I have a problem with all the people clamoring for it. and I think Justice will ultimately decide not to move forward. If they do move forward I'll lose a modicum of respect for this administration, unless they know something I don't.

The investigation was thorough the first time around. The crime scene was documented. People were questioned. 9-11 calls were reviewed. Zimmerman was thoroughly interogated. Forensic evidence was studied. It wasn't perfect, but probaby ranked in the top 10% of decent police work. Nothing new came out of anything which was a result of the witch hunt which followed.

 

[ATC1]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

Silly me, just repeating what the courts determined after a thorough police investigation, eye-witness accounts, forensic specialists, and a jury determined after examining all the facts. But Tim knows Zimmerman is a lying racist murder, so we will go with that.

Not guilty means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what a court determines. They don't determine that X happened or didn't happen.

I don't understand why people get this confused so often. I wish jon_mx was an outlier, but he's not. People on both sides of this and every other argument after a jury trial confuse a verdict with a conclusion. Why do they do this? Is the principle confusing? It doesn't seem confusing.

My problem is that the DA was forced to press charges by the mob after the police did not feel the need to press charges. Same can be said as to why GZ won't be charged federally. There is nothing that can prove GZ racially profiled TM.

I don't understand your problem with the decision to press charges in the initial case. Any time someone kills an unarmed person there needs to be a more thorough investigation than originally took place, and if the thorough investigation doesn't definitively resolve the question of self-defense, I'm fine with the DA having discretion to prosecute or not as they see fit.

Agree on the federal charges; that was dumb from the get-go, and I have a problem with all the people clamoring for it. and I think Justice will ultimately decide not to move forward. If they do move forward I'll lose a modicum of respect for this administration, unless they know something I don't.

My point is if there is no outcry for "Justice for Travon." DA would have never pressed charges. It's not the standard I would like to see for our judicial system that the mob gets what they want without properly investigation the facts of the case themselves.

 

[The Commish]

Are we really to the point where we are arguing that killing someone isn't a bad thing? No wonder our society is struggling. Legally, based on FL law he did nothing wrong. He doesn't go to jail, fine. Morally, he killed someone and that has consequences in our society. Why is this even a debate? Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

It is not morally wrong to kill someone in self-defense.

To you....for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong, but it's becoming clear to me that my morality is slightly different than some folks here. I'm ok with that.

You think it's morally wrong to kill to protect your children? Wow

I don't think it's necessary to kill to protect my children. This is a strawman, but we can do this if you want. Even if I was put in a position that I had to kill to protect my children I'd understand that there was probably going to be some societal fallout and I'd expect it.

How do you know whether it would be necessary unless you were faced with it?

I don't...but to me "necessity" isn't part of whether it's moral or not.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

Silly me, just repeating what the courts determined after a thorough police investigation, eye-witness accounts, forensic specialists, and a jury determined after examining all the facts. But Tim knows Zimmerman is a lying racist murder, so we will go with that.

Not guilty means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what a court determines. They don't determine that X happened or didn't happen.

I don't understand why people get this confused so often. I wish jon_mx was an outlier, but he's not. People on both sides of this and every other argument after a jury trial confuse a verdict with a conclusion. Why do they do this? Is the principle confusing? It doesn't seem confusing.

Where did I say anything otherwise?

He went to court, and Zimmerman prevailed. The killing was legally justified by the system of justice in Florida. Now Tim's statement that Zimmerman is guilter is based upon what? The person whose statement is just utterly ridiculous and is contrary to fact is Tim's, but yet you insist on giving me #### for being correct.

You didn't just say "the courts found otherwise." You didn't just say you disagreed with Tim's conclusion. You said definitively that "it was a legally justified killing." That's what I took issue with- equating a jury verdict to a definitive conclusion about what happened.

I take issue with Tim's conclusion for completely different reasons. IMO you're both in the wrong here. I just highlighted my issue with what you said because I've seen the same error made many times by many different people- equating a verdict with a conclusion. Maybe you didn't actually mean to equate the two, which is fine. But you did in your post. I haven't seen other people just declaring "manslaughter!" out of the blue, which is why I didn't bother taking issue with Tim's conclusion. It was a timschotchet special, not something I see all the time that annoys me.