Gibberish Boy wrote:
You claimed Martin was not justified in running, and it was explained having broke no law he was justified to do whatever he wanted. You said assault is breaking the law so running wasn't justified.
You do see the logical fallacy here yes?
That you're conflating several different statements in the wrong order and creating logical associations between them that I never claimed? Yeah. I see a whole bunch of fallacies in what you're doing.
For the record: At no point *ever* did I say that running wasn't justified because
assault is breaking the law. That's honestly the most bizarre statement I've heard someone make in this whole thread, in fact.
You really really really need to lay off the pot.
It all comes down to Zimmermans choice to pursue Martin and not listen to the 911 operator, which is the only piece of evidence that matters.
piece? So three eye witnesses saying they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him doesn't matter? I'd say that matters a hell of a lot more than Zimmerman's choice to follow Martin. Following someone doesn't justify a violent action against you. Sitting on top of someone and beating them *does*.
Zimmerman knowingly and willingly pursued a target he did not know and suspected to be up to no good. His suspicions even led to the calling of 911. Zimmerman put himself in a potentially dangerous situation (if we believe the snooping around type behavior claimed to be seen) the 911 operator told him he did not have to follow Martin.
So you're saying that a private citizen on private property to which he is a part owner and has volunteered to watch over cannot follow someone he thinks is suspicious because that person might assault him violently and require him to defend himself? Really? So if I see someone stealing my stuff, I just have to stand there and watch because if I approach the thief and ask him to stop, he might do something violent? And if I do, and he does get violent, it's my fault?
How about we blame the guy who got violent? Doesn't that make a hell of a lot more sense? Zimmerman following Martin is not dangerous *unless* Martin is a dangerous person. Are you saying that Martin was a dangerous thug and Zimmerman should have known this and thus not followed? I thought the whole argument for weeks now has been that Martin was this angelic innocent kid who couldn't hurt a fly? If this fact is so obvious that you've all adopted it without question, then shouldn't Zimmerman have felt completely safe following Martin?
Maybe Zimmerman just wanted to ask him where he got his skittles? Since it should have been so obvious to him that Martin was completely harmless. Which is it?
Thus the silly law should not apply here. Zimmerman knowingly and willingly endangered himself Martin was not responsible for Zimmermans choice to do that. It is murder, Zimmerman put himself at risk, and then when sh*t hit the fan killed a man, knowing full well it could have ended either way, from the moment he opted to play police man.
Ok. I get that some of you are very emotional about this case. But that's not even remotely how the actual law applies. The law does not require that you adjust your every choice and act in order to avoid the possibility that someone might violently respond to you. It does, in fact, protect your rights to do any lawful action and punish those who act violently against you.
If all Zimmerman did was follow Martin, and Martin assaulted him because of that, then Martin is the one committing a crime. Zimmerman did nothing wrong. I just don't get people who so willingly adopt an argument that basically says that you have to appease anyone who might become violent. That's not the way the law works. And if you step back from your emotional attachments to this issue, you'll see that the law *can't* work that way. It would become arbitrary if it did. By your own logic, we can blame Martin for running because he should have known that Zimmerman would follow him and lead to a confrontation which would result in Martin being shot and killed. Or heck! Martin should have not walked to the store because by doing so, he might have encountered a watchman on his way back, and then run, and been chased, then got into said confrontation leading to him being shot and killed.
Zimmerman had no more reason to assume that following Martin would end with the result that occurred than Martin could assume that running would, or walking to the store, or any actions that occurred that day. The law requires that we look at the first illegal action taken and follow from that chain. Running, and following, are not illegal. Edited, Apr 4th 2012 2:19pm by gbaji