So I have to argue all or nothing? Why? There's always grey area involved. It's not every kill in the history of earth is wrong, or every kill in the history of earth could be legit. Every situation is different and in this case I feel it was an over reaction. He wouldn't have even needed to defend himself if he didn't stalk the kid, against advisement. You keep dismissing that point over and over with very weak reasoning. The police were on their way and I do not believe Zimmerman's life was in any immediate danger. If he held out until they arrived, he may have ended up beaten up, but he also might be receiving a large settlement of money, and a 17 year old kid would probably not be dead and may have learned from the situation. Teenagers don't think the same as people who are 30+. They are rebellious, proud and think they own the world. Situations involving them require special attention. It's not like somebody getting robbed on the street and fighting back. You think I get my morals from the bible? :lol: Just stop with the semantics already. I base my morality on empathy. I put myself in other people's shoes. Also random question. Couldn't attacking a stalker be considered standing your ground? The kid probably felt seriously threatened by this guy following him and might have thought he was going to rob him or worse. It's not like he attacked him for no reason. If you seriously think that following him was a smart move worthy of commendation and that he didn't instigate the entire situation, I honestly don't know what to say. Man with gun stalks unarmed kid. Unarmed kid feels threatened and attacks him Man with gun pulls out gun and shoots him getting a soda = red herring completely irrelevant to the situation. Martin didn't have a weapon, Zimmerman's choice to pull out a gun and fire was not simply self defense. He wasn't protecting himself or his family from a killer. He instigated the entire situation and then over reacted to it when he couldn't handle it like he believed he could. He was over confident and disregarded 911 advice seemingly to satisfy his ego, but in reality he is in way over his head. It was poor judgement. Arguing against that is beyond silly.
of course there is, but your statement did not attempt to claim such a gray area. your quote was"The immoral part was grabbing his gun and pulling the trigger, a decision that he consciously made." that statement does not take into account the fact that he was getting beaten and could have been acting in self defense -- the gray area of the situation. except what he did doesn't fit the definition of stalk at all. so do you want to discuss what happened or your own fantasy of what happened? avoid the emotional rhetoric. nothing I stated was dependent on semantics. try looking up what that means before using it. I wasn't trying to trick you with word play. and that isn't how morals work. morals have to be based on a system of right and wrong, not your own personal beliefs. otherwise there is no absolute morality and thus it is meaningless. if I get to choose what is right and wrong simply by how it makes me feel, that could differ from how you feel, and we could have two differing systems of morality. if you accept that, you can't project your morals onto anyone else, because each person's system of morality is valid. unless you want to claim your system of morality is what everyone else should be following. I am willing to allow you to make that assertion. but there is nothing about YOUR empathy that equates to it being the basis of morality that everyone should follow as the absolute moral system. likely, but there is zero evidence in this case that Zimmerman was stalking him. Zimmerman followed him in the open, making his presence known, while calling the cops. you have no idea what stalking is if you think that is what stalking is, so please stop with that nonsense. maybe, but you have to have evidence to support that claim, otherwise you aren't talking about what happened, just what you hope happened so it validates your ignorant position. if he was scared he could have made it home with Zimmerman ever knowing where he went, because he had lost Zimmerman. doubling back behind Zimmerman and then asking him why he was following him doesn't sound like the actions of somebody scared. you see, this is why speculation is meaningless, because if there is evidence to contradict it you have admitted you either aren't interested in an honest discussion because you are willfully ignoring the evidence, are ignorant of the evidence, or don't posses the abilities to apply the evidence to the situation and come to a logical conclusion. no, man with gun follows unarmed young man. more emotional rhetoric which only invalidates your argument. based on what would make him feel threatened. Zimmerman never approached him, he was simply watching him. man with gun who was attacked pulls gun and shoots him. of course. that's a red herring. not having a weapon doesn't equate to not having the capability to put someones life in danger. based on what? another red herring. you only have to be protecting yourself from an attacker you feel could be threatening your life. do you want to talk about the actual case or your fantasy? he didn't instigate anything. Zimmerman never once attempted to approach Trayvon. only one thing instigated the situation -- whoever decided that it needed to deteriorate into a physical confrontation.
It's relevant because person who excluded Joe Pa from any culpability should not be taking high moral ground on anything, regardless of what the topic is. There is deeper relevance as well. In PA case, you were defending JP based strictly on the letter of the law, not allowing anything that was not proved in the court to be a part of the conversation. In this case however your position is 180 degrees opposite. Now you completely dismiss the letter of the law and try to lead everyone on morality road. This selection of how to approach each case is indicative of lack of objectivity.
Jetblue I agree with most of what you are saying but don't pretend to know that a white man following a black kid at night couldn't make a black kid feel threatened
Martin didnt have a weapon. Martin, did have 4 1/2 minutes to get home down the courtyard, if he felt "seriously threatened". He didnt. His choice to double back, and confront Zimmerman negates that point. Zimmermans injuries suggest he was defending himself. I wont interject that Zimmermans call said, the guy was walking up to and looking in windows, because while he said it to the dispatcher, In real time....its not relevant once you get to the 4 minute gap between the end of Rachels call, and the befinning of the confrontation heard on the next 911 call. Bottom line is, your Threatened/attacks scenario, is really only valid, if Martin was cornered. He wasn't.
Beach, anyone....following anyone in the rain, in the dark....would certainly make the followee feel insecure on some level. Its just that at the point of "these assholes always get away" Those roles reverse. You could make the argument that Zimmerman, being devious and hateful, said it because he knew the call was recorded, hung up then attacked Martin but its unlikely.
Hmmm,it was dark,and there was a hoodie. Kinda makes you wonder how he could be racially profiling doesn't it? Well,regardless. This case has touched me so deeply. I just can't help to ponder it hourly. I lay awake at night thinking of sweet,saint Trayvon,and poor Mr Zimmerman. It has touched me so deeply,that it has made me forget that probably over 10k other people have been shot and killed since for such a wide variety of reasons. I don't care about any of them,not even the baby shot at point blank range while the teens robbed and shot his mother. Nope,just poor,sweet Trayvon,and Mr Zimmermans right to stand his ground. I feel like he was my child,and George my uncle. Is that asteroid on its way yet?
Cant talk about Chicago. Black on Black crime, prominent Democrat mayor. When Chicago gets brought up, the excuse is the lax gun laws, though Illinois is a Restrictive state in that regard. Black politicians, it seems to me, care far more about the lefty agenda..,than saving black lives.
Okay, that's a lie. I clearly mentioned him getting his ass whooped multiple times. Was his life in immediate danger? Were the police not minutes away? :lol: You claim you aren't arguing semantics, yet your argument is to pick apart the meaning of the word stalk. Righto. You knew damn well what I was talking about. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stalk 2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement Sorry, but that definition of stalk could indeed fit my context. Except the statement RIGHT ABOVE THIS, plus your half ass attempt to dismiss morality based on biblical definitions of 10 commandments meaning purely legal. Sorry, but that argument is PURE semantics and completely irrelevant. Wrong again and more semantics. Morals do not have to be based on belief systems. Belief systems were written by people WHO BELIEVED THEM. If I have beliefs that differ from other systems, it doesn't make me wrong or immoral. Everyone has their own moral code, it doesn't have to conform to an exact existing system. I know Christians that follow every rule in the book, and Christians that only belief certain parts of the biblical moral code. Not a single belief system out there can be proven as accurate. There IS no absolute morality, there is just what we feel is correct based on emotion and how we perceive other people's suffering. You do not need a written moral code to have empathy for all people. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of weak minded people that DO need a written code to live ethical lives, but causing unnecessary suffering to others is wrong. It really is that simple, and I don't think Zimmerman even considered this before following the kid or before pulling the trigger. And again, I'm not saying my morals are absolute or that Martin was right. They were both wrong in what they did. They both unnecessarily escalated the conflict. It's just funny how people are acting like Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong at all. Dude, the evidence died with Martin. He's dead so you can't exactly ask him. Just because you can't prove one side, it doesn't validate the other. Would you say a soldier on the front lines of a war is afraid of death? He doesn't hesitate when given the command to fight, but that doesn't mean he's not afraid or that he isn't fighting to protect himself. I know you'll instantly dismiss this and say "oh it's not the exact identical perfectly same scenario so you can't say that", but you'll be wrong because it's about fear for your life. He didn't have any life threatening injuries and the police were already on the way. Shooting the kid was not necessary. That's not a red herring! Please stop taking one liners out of context. I wasn't using it to justify the actions. If you want to respond to me you can stop the damn quote mining and respond to my point as a whole. It's not like somebody was trying to rob him on the street or somebody broke into his house. This is the simple TRUTH. Jesus tittyfucking christ. Arguing with you is like pulling teeth. He followed him. That action instigated the entire conflict. Stop denying and attempting to rationalize this. It was a poor judgement and negligent behavior on his part. Denying that is beyond stupid, I'm sorry.
Therein lies part of the problem, you don't see the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world out protesting the latest gangsta movie from John Singleton that glorifies gang lifestyle and black on black violence or the latest Lil Wayne album where he says the N word 33 times a song. Instead they focus their energy on movies like American History X which shows how someone realizes the tragedy of their ignorant thinking and some old lady like Paula Dean. How about this for a concept? Violence on all levels is wrong not white on black or black on black, it's all tragic and how about anyone who uses the N word is ignorant regardless of the context.
No. It shows that every situation is different and taking the same stance in every single situation regardless of the details shows lack of objectivity if anything. It shows pure blindness to emotion and preferred political views. These situations are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Why should anyone who defended Paterno HAVE to agree with Zimmerman's actions? Why should anyone who defended Paterno be excluded from talking about morals or be considered immoral? I don't see the connection at all. That's like saying that anybody who supports Israel has to support all Jewish interests everywhere otherwise they aren't being objective. Sorry bud, but that is the exact opposite of objectivity. An objective person analyzes each situation individually and comes to a conclusion based on that and the evidence available. They DO NOT show bias by incorporating data from unrelated cases or past stances taken on issues. How are you going to criticize my morality based on a subjective opinion about something we didn't really know for sure? What are you talking about? Where did I defend him strictly based on the letter of the law or even mention the constitution? I was defending him because he was the public figure of Penn state, and as a result was being criticized more harshly then the guy who actually abused the children or Joe's supervisor who neglected to take action when Paterno reported it. Unless further information has been discovered about him actively covering up Sanduski's abuse of children, I stand by that. I'm near positive that I said multiple times that Paterno could have done more to follow up, but it's not like he was the one abusing children. I don't recall ever saying he was completely blameless.
how the hell would Zimmerman know, at the moment his head was getting bashed in, how far the Police were and whether they would make it in time? the fact that you know it afterwards is irrelevant. not to mention, you didn't account for that in your blanket statement that pulling the trigger was immoral. no, my argument is not to pick apart the definition of the word stalk, it is stating that the definition does not apply in this situation because his actions do not match the definition. your context but not what actually happened. there is no evidence that Zimmerman was deranged of obsessive. being concerned and attempting to relay information to the police does not equate obsessive. another example of you not knowing what you are talking about. you don't even grasp what a semantic argument is, so you probably shouldn't lean on it as an argument. wrong again. not a semantic argument as we are not arguing over what a word means. you can certainly believe that, but it renders any argument based on morals irrelevant. if there is no absolute moral system, you have no ground to criticize anyone's behavior because you have to accept that every person has there own personal belief of right and wrong. was Zimmerman immoral for killing Trayvon? no, because there is no moral system to claim his actions were right or wrong, so bringing morality into the situation was just another red herring on your part because you have nothing valid to defend your position. you have to define exactly what Zimmerman did to escalate the situation or what he did that was wrong. He was wrong in his assumption that Trayvon may have been suspicious, but that doesn't mean he was wrong for considering Trayvon suspicious. those are two entirely different situations. what exactly did Zimmerman do to escalate the situation? there is no evidence that he ever confronted Trayvon, but according to Jeantel, she believes Trayvon hit Zimmerman first because that was the "black" way to handle it, err, she meant to say a "teenager" way to handle it. whoever attacked the other person is the only person to escalate it. no it didn't. there is plenty of evidence. both Zimmerman and Jeantel claim that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. there is no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. Zimmerman claims Trayvon attacked him, and Jeantel testified she heard Trayvon ask why Zimmerman was following him, followed by the sound of a punch. both Jeantel and Zimmerman are saying the exact same thing. and she later stated in an interview that she believed it was Trayvon attacking Zimmerman. evidence is not simply the testimony of the parties involved. that's another red herring on your part. except in this case you can prove on side or the other. in addition to the claims above, Zimmerman's face and head show he had been punched and his head smashed against the ground. Trayvon's autopsy report states he suffered no physical bruising that would indicate Zimmerman had attacked him. the physical evidence of both of their bodies validates Zimmerman's claims. that is why the prosecution was so intent on claiming the confrontation started simply by the act of following Trayvon, not the actual confrontation of who started the fight -- because the evidence shows that Trayvon started the fight. I won't dismiss it. I will correct your example to make it applicable. a soldier will attack when he has no other choice. but if he is not required to fight, and has the opportunity to avoid a fight that isn't necessary, he likely will do so. we can examine a famous example, Operation Redwing. surrounded by 100 fighters, a four man Navy SEAL team fought their way down a mountain because it was there only option, but they only pulled the trigger on the very first shot that started the fight when one of the enemy combatants was on top of them. had that not occurred, the SEALs would have let them walk right by rather than start a gun fight outnumbered 25-1. they didn't simply srtat blasting at the first sign of the enemy. after 3 of the 4 were dead, and the last remaining SEAL had been blasted over the side of the mountain and they couldn't find him, he didn't simply gather himself and attack again. he stayed hidden to escape. you see, there is a difference between a situation where you have to fight and where escape is an option. and for Trayvon, he had the option to escape and instead double back to attack. that isn't applicable to your hypothetical of having to fight. in Trayvon's case, he chose to fight, as he had the option to escape. and when a soldier has an opportunity to escape, they will do so. again, how would Zimmerman know how long the police would take or whether Trayvon would further escalate it? the kid already escalated a situation that wasn't violent with a punch, and then was on top of him pounding his head. your entire argument against defending himself in that moment has no basis in reality for what a victim of that battery should be thinking at that moment. it is ridiculous Monday morning quarterbacking claiming what should have been done after you know how the defense was playing. it certainly is a red herring. the only rationalization is on your part claiming that following someone starts a conflict rather than the actual behavior that instigated the confrontation. it is as arbitrary as claiming that Trayvon going to the store instigated the conflict because had he stayed at home Zimmerman would never have been suspicious of him. it was negligent for Trayvon to go to the store. I am following the same logic you are.
How the hell would Trayvon know that Zimmerman wasn't following him to rob or kill him? The average response time for emergence calls is 10 minutes. By the time they were actually fighting the police were probably less than a few minutes away. If Zimmerman took their advice, none of it would have happened. If he can't fight, then what business did he have following a teenager that appeared dangerous to him? Dude sounds like a complete pussy, just sayin. (awaits response where he singles out that one line and uses it to define my "points") Yes I did account for my statement about pulling the trigger. Since you only break down things line for line, you didn't catch it. You can't blame me for that. Since you love nitpicking so much, I'm going to nitpick. Read the definition. It says "especially". It doesn't say that it's required to be considered stalking... but you could consider it obsessive because he was specifically told not to, but did it anyway because he was obsessed with the kid not getting away. So the word stalking fits. Sorry but it DOES apply. Arguing about meanings of terms and concepts is exactly what a semantics argument is and you've used a few of them thus far. Attempting to dismiss morality of not killing based on biblical interpretations is semantics. It seems you are the one that does not understand semantics. YES it is. You were arguing about the definition and application of morality. Based on my moral system, it was an immoral act. That is my opinion, I never said it was absolute fact. Morals can indeed be subjective, but I believe that anything that intentionally causes harm or suffering to others is immoral. I have made dozens of valid points about this. Why do you act like my one line about it being immoral to pull the trigger is my only argument? It's not a red herring, it's directly related to what we are talking about. He was wrong for following a kid, whom he thought was dangerous, against 911 advice when he obviously knew nothing about fighting and got his ass whooped by a teenager. He was arrogant and thought he was above the 911 operator, in all likelihood because he was armed. It seems to be that he was just stroking his ego by following him in the first place. (MY OPINION! I know I have to say this or you will isolate those 2 lines and think you've debunked my entire point) Um, we were talking about whether Trayvon was afraid or not. That is evidence that you cannot get from witnesses and it did indeed die with Martin. Sounds pretty flaky to me. She saw nothing but heard the sound of a punch? What exactly does that sound like lol. Life isn't a cartoon. :lol: at hearing a punch when you aren't close enough to even see what's happening. I'm not saying that's not what happened, but seriously, that's a really poor description. (Just my opinion, I'm not using this as a debating point!!) Maybe you should look up "red herring". I never claimed anything like that. I never said that wasn't what happened. Why did you quote that line separate from the others??? My point was about whether Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, and you are responding with complete non sequitars. I said that you cannot tell for sure whether he was or was not afraid, and you responded to each one line of that paragraph and gave it separate responses. Why? Stop breaking my points into several, it kills the context. If Zimmerman did not follow him, and he still went to the store, the conflict still would not have happened. You cannot logically say that going to the store caused the conflict. If he didn't go to the store and Zimmerman kept following him, it most likely would have still happened. Zimmerman following him was a direct cause for why Martin attacked him. To deny this is delusional. Again, I'm not arguing that Zimmerman is guilty of murder. Just that he was negligent and partially responsible for what happened. You seem to take the extreme viewpoint that he's completely innocent and did absolutely nothing wrong. That view is just as absurd as saying Zimmerman was 100% culpable. Both of them could have chosen different actions and taken the high road in the situation, but nether of them did.
The problem with this discussion and all the emotions surrounding the case is the fact that none of the information we have that is not coming from Zimmerman is useful in determining what actually happened the night Martin died. The 911 calls, the conversation Martin has with Jeantel, none of them tells us what happened. We only have Zimmerman's story, that he was attacked and feared for his life. There is all kinds of reasons to doubt and disbelieve him, but none of them proves he is a liar and a murderer.
no it isn't. otherwise, you could have said Zimmerman "ate" Trayvon, and if I told you the definition of "ate" did not apply to this situation you could claim I was just arguing semantics. a semantic argument is where we disagree about the meaning of a word, not disagree that a word doesn't apply to the actions in question. the rest of your nonsense on this topic is simply an extension of the same ignorance you have applied and doesn't require being addressed individually, as I would just be repeating the above. no, that is simply speculation without any evidence to support it. if you are going to claim something, you have to have evidence to support it. without it it is fantasy.
So we have this http://www.infowars.com/i-hate-white-people-media-downplays-alleged-racial-attack/,the 88 year old war vet killed by black teens,and the aussie baseball player killed for a black gang initiation,but yea,Alabama state marching band spells out Trayvon during halftime show. uh huh
Who defended this fuck? Dude was arrested AGAIN. Supposedly had an altercation with his pregnant girlfriend. Gun was involved. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
