not even close. if that is your position, it is identical to the rape analogy. by your own words, The parents (or rape victim) is not doing anything illegal (by allowing the children to stay with the sex offender/or getting sloppily drunk and getting raped). The illegal/bad thing was committed by the sex offender (in both scenarios). there is absolutely zero difference in those scenarios when applied to your own criteria. the only person willfully missing the point is you when you dispute my analogy because it applies identically to your own argument structure. so do I. but that is not the point. the point is the larger social narrative that says you don't blame the victim if their behavior is legal just because an illegal act is committed against them as a result. so it is hypocritical for that to be applied differently to Zimmerman than it is rape victims.
when you take Zimmerman's story in conjunction with Jeantel's testimony, together they seem to corroborate Zimmerman's account. Zimmerman claims that he was approached by Trayvon. Jeantel testified that she heard Trayvon ask Zimmerman why he was following him (immediately followed by the sound of a punch). so the only evidence of who was the first one to approach or talk to the other was Trayvon asking Zimmerman the question. this was after Trayvon had run away, but not to get away but to double back behind Zimmerman. that is where we are allowed to start filling in the blanks to why he would do so. it wasn't because he was scared, otherwise he would have run home. and if he was just curious why he was being followed, there would have been no reason to run away and then double back around him. Trayvon could have simply stopped in the street when he noticed Zimmerman following him and asked. you can come to any conclusion you want, but the conclusion I come to is that Trayvon did so to turn the tide on Zimmerman from the pursuer to pursued. Jeantel also testified that she thought she heard the sound of a punch immediately after Trayvon asked Zimmerman the question. if Zimmerman was the one who simply responded to Trayvon's question by attacking him, there would be at least the slightest bruise on Trayvon that would indicate such, but there was no testimony of such. but there is physical evidence that Zimmerman was punched, in addition to his testimony. obviously we have to fill in those blanks, but you can do so logically and without direct evidence that it occurred to come to such a conclusion. so, it isn't that people claim to "know" with proof and certainty what happened, but you can tale the evidence that is known and draw a conclusion that is reasonable.
I'm confused. What do you mean there is no way you can tell whether he listened to the operator or not? He clearly did not, because the confrontation happened away from where he made the call, did it not? I know it's not technically illegal, but it's negligent and caused an unnecessary death, which is what I'm arguing for. Negligence or manslaughter. And yeah, Florida laws are stupid as hell, which is pretty much the only reason he got off. If that happened in Jersey it would have been open and shut case and he'd be in jail. Also catching an ass whooping for stalking someone isn't reason enough to shoot someone. I don't care about the technicalities of laws made by morons. It's not justified from a moral standpoint. Zimmerman was a pussy and used piss poor judgement on the evening in question. If you can't win a fight against a 17 year old kid, you have no business following people in the first place.
According to the early reporting, and initial investigation, thats where he made it to. Common Snese, and his friends testimony also confirms it, when hes running, if he continues home, he is home. Its four minutes from tue end of Zimmermans call, to the 911 call reporting the confrontation. The apartment comples, is not that big.
no, following Trayvon did not cause Trayvon's death, because following someone does not justify or naturally lead to the physical confrontation that occurred without completely independent anti-social behavior. you can't backtrack the event to completely legal and allowable behavior and claim that caused the death. otherwise it is completely arbitrary. had Trayvon not gone to get soda he would be alive, so that caused his death. problem is Trayvon had every right to do so, just as Zimmerman had every right to be suspicious of him. it was the subsequent attack that occurred that led to his death. everything else, about Zimmerman being a pussy and trying to justify fighting, is simply a distraction from the law.
Best summation in this entire discussion. Unfortunately, some people want to turn knuckleheads into heroes for a cause on both sides of the fence.
I'm not speaking legally, I'm speaking morally. Cause and effect isn't limited by what's legal and what's not. Getting a soda is a stupid red herring and has nothing to do with the incident itself. If Zimmerman hadn't followed Trayvon, the confrontation and his death would not have happened. Bottom line end of story. Basic cause and effect. It was stupid and caused the start of the entire incident. To deny that is absurd. I'm not saying Martin was justified in attacking him, but Zimmerman was not justified in following him. That's the reason I don't think he should be guilty murder, but criminal negligence, yes. And if you really want to be technical about direct cause and effect, Zimmerman pulling the trigger is what caused the death, nothing else. He made that choice to avoid getting his ass whooped even though the 911 people were already on the way.
So the "larger social narrative" tells you that you don't blame the victim if their behavior is legal and you just apply that with a broad brush to anything and everything devoid of any context but the law? I doubt you even believe the words you are typing. That sounds more like a convenient excuse for you to apply in this thread.
no, I am the one that included the legal context in this discussion, which you got all pissy about and tried to dispute. do I need to remind you of your own words: your position about blame was to eliminate the legal context of it. I said blame for a crime was dependent on the legality of the behavior. so clearly I am not taking a position absent of legal context. keep up with your own arguments, please.
I'm going to have to ask you if you can read again. I didn't say you were taking a position devoid of legal context. I asked you if it is the ONLY context you apply. Because that sure seems to be what you're saying, and that is what I have a hard time believing. Do you apply this no blame idea devoid of any context BUT the law? See the word "but"? It's kind of important to the meaning of the question I asked.
Why don't we all discuss the post verdict crime that not surprisingly is gathering steam by the day...... Are any of u offended by the full court press being applied for a civil rights case?? I would imagine there is every right to examine that possibility and I fully support this possible next step - if there is a legitimate claim - HOWEVER....... The activist, media, and publication network is working overtime here to gather support for this to occur. Has anyone been listening and watching what is being said here, what the TV is showing, what the "leaders" are saying? I am trying to look at the larger picture and when I see and hear these folks talk about the killing of blacks and a regressing legal system (Jackson), It creates social unrest and keeps the fire smoldering. And I thought civil rights was about promoting peace and togetherness. Fail.
no, what you did was criticize the inclusion of the legal concept initially. problem is, the most widely used complaint against blaming victims who are engaged in legal behavior that instigates an illegal act against the victim is rape. that being a woman can do what she pleases, absent of any blame whatsoever, if it is legal. and if it brings any harm to her it isn't her fault. like you, I would disagree with that broad sentiment. a woman isn't to blame for being raped if she is too drunk to resist or behaves like a cock tease, but she can be blamed for putting herself in a position that led to that occurring. same with Zimmerman, he is the only person to blame for him being in that situation to begin with, but he isn't to blame for Trayvon's criminal reaction to him. no, and I addressed that previously, so you should not question anyone else's reading ability if you missed it. I have differentiated blame for their personal behavior and blame for any additional illegal act that occurs as a result of that behavior. the latter being where the legal context is relevant. and since one is a legal issue and one is a personal responsibility issue, you can't lump them together as being the same.
Holy straw man, batman. So you're basically now saying that you've agreed with me from the beginning and were just doing... I don't know what.
no, that is not what I said, and the last part of my previous post clearly describes where we have been disagreeing. holy strawman indeed, cappy, and completely on your part.
The last part of your previous post is precisely what I am saying is the straw man: Not once have I "lumped them together" or said that they are the same. If you can find a post where I said those two are the same thing, I will stand corrected and apologize for the misunderstanding. (Pro tip: You won't.) If you cannot find a quote of mine where I said that legal responsibility and personal responsibility are the same thing, then I will stand by my comment that you are setting up straw men and I would expect you to admit as much as well. I have been saying that they are separate things from the get-go, explicitly stating that while the verdict was correct, Zimmerman deserves some blame for his lack of judgment. They might be separate issues, but both deserve consideration when it comes to forming an opinion on the legally innocent but personally irresponsible/stupid man.
Dude, you are like the king of nitpicking and cherry picking arguments. I never said that. Try looking at the whole thing in context instead taking one line and blowing it out of proportion like Jets media. You do this all the time while ignoring the context. You were the one that suggested cause and effect only matters legally, which is a complete joke of an argument. It was poor judgement. I didn't say it was immoral to follow him. I said it is was STUPID and negligent. The immoral part was grabbing his gun and pulling the trigger, a decision that he consciously made. It's funny what lengths you'll go to defend this guy. It really makes me wonder why. Zimmerman chose to follow a teenager at night with a loaded gun. It was idiotic and he knew that it could potentially end in disaster, yet he still perused him against recommendation. It's almost as if he was welcoming a confrontation. If he doesn't have the gun, he doesn't follow Martin.
there is nothing immoral about defending yourself either, and that is his claim why he shot Trayvon. someone dying does not equate to an immoral act. so there goes that argument as well. thou shall not kill is merely a translation from the hebrew phrase though shall not murder, which is governing unlawful killings. you either have to argue that any killing whatsoever is immoral, even in war or defense of yourself or your family, or you have to accept that killing can be justified, lawful and thus not immoral. which will it be? there is no historical context or widespread historical belief that claims every incident of death caused by another is an immoral act.
