Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Mar 13, 2012.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    How many times have you chased drivers in your car because you thought they were driving in a bad manner or if you believed they were breaking a road law? Chasing a reckless driver is dangerous for trained police officers. Innocent people sometimes die because of such chases. The situation can be even more dangerous when the driver believes that the person chasing them might be trying to kill them, for example.

    How many times have you called the police because people in your neighbourhood left their garage doors open?

    I have called the police on several instances where I knew a crime was being committed. I have also stepped in on some occasions where there was domestic abuse happening. That is human instinct.

    Zimmerman went above and beyond what he had been advised to do:

    Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival said she met Zimmerman in September at a community neighborhood watch presentation.

    “I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location.’ There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.”


    It's a pretty interesting article actually. It goes on to say that the local police actually encourage neighbourhood watch volunteers to not be armed.

    Then we look at the fact that the 911 dispatcher told him he did not need to chase or follow Martin. It seems he often disregards the advice of police.

    Which, as we see now, can be dangerous.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Engaging in such reckless behavior defeats the purpose of reporting it.

    According to the article, the other driver was frightened by Zimmermans pursuit and tried to flee.
    The police report on that incident may be revealing.

    Never. I leave mine open sometimes. We do not know what circumstances were involved that Zimmerman called it in.

    On this I agree. I've referred to him as:

    Point of contention: If Zimmerman is guilty of Vigilantism, what does that make those who express support of Kangaroo Court?
    Trial by media?

    Which can be one of many important lessons learned from this tragedy.

    Recognizing the potential for danger that a person can inflict even if they never wanted it to happen... maybe this case going through the media can prevent such a thing from happening again. For citizens to not behave so dangerously.

    That a Trial By Media never really informs anyone- it just makes everyone upset.

    That any one of us has demonstrated the ability to lose ones cool, not think clearly and any of us- could grieve consequences from that.

    I said this early on...

    A kid will never get married. Be a father of his own. Go to college-- Be Somebody.

    I've said I dread that being a waste.

    Doesn't it make a lot more sense to make it not one?

    To fight against the BAD
    Not just problems of racism, not just profiling, but jumping on bandwagons too. Not giving into resentment and anger to blind oneself and point with hate. These things are Just as Bad.

    So kids can walk down the street. So that no one profiles them. Also so that no one is afraid- to speak up or stand up- as you said human nature- because if something terrible happens... You might be criminalized, and judged before a fair trial.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    I think her point was more along the lines that instead of calling the police, Zimmerman tried to act like a police officer in many instances. He was over vigilant. That it is not his job to try and figure who the people he finds suspicious are, that is for the police to do and he failed to do that but instead decided to be the cop and give chase.

    I do not support a Kangaroo Court, nor do I know anyone who does, so you will have to ask those you know who do that question.

    The main issue with a trial by media is the speculation. The possibilities and yes, the hypotheticals. It clouds the issues and the true facts becomes lost amongst the 'what if's'.. And then you have confusion and media reporting on all sorts of things instead of what is important in the story.

    No one here has ever said that Zimmerman did not deserve a fair trial. On the contrary, we all support this actually having it's day in court. The earlier disagreements in this thread, before you entered it, was about just that. That Zimmerman had appeared to have gotten off without a trial.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    It's not actually "trial by media" or a "kangaroo court" to judge someone by there OWN public comments. Unless you claim that he has been misrepresented by himself or that someone was holding a gun on HIM or that he has been replaced by an alien then his public comments should stand by themselves and he has condemned himself with them. Neverfly asked would bells stand by and apologise if he is found innocent but a) he can't be, it's not guilty and b) the trial is now more about how the laws are written than his actions because his own explanation about his actions condemns himself as a killer not a defender and the only real question is wether the law can fit that killer where he belongs under the label "murder"
  8. Neverfly Banned Banned

    You posted, Bold mine:
    Asguard, He has pled Not Guilty.
    Even if his own comments are a full confession, saying, "Normally I would be first to say you should wait for a jury verdict to pronounce judgment on someone BUT..." it implies.
  9. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    If OJ simpson came out and said he killed her would you say everyone should treat him as innocent even though he admitted it?
  10. Neverfly Banned Banned

    The difference between a confession and an interpretation of a defendants statement really is not very relevant.

    The plea was, for both cases- Not Guilty. That was how they pled.

    If the plea changes, then we'll end up discussing that.
  11. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Someone can be found not guilty and still be morally and ethically guilty. As I said by his own words he is a killer, the only thing to be waited on is to find out if the legal framework which surrounds the term "murder" is applicable. What he pled is irrelivent. He CHOSE to put himself in that situation, he CHOSE to chase this kid in his car, he CHOSE to get out and chase him on foot, he CHOSE to take his gun with him into this situation, his choices lead to the death of this kid and he is MORALLY responsible for his death, no matter what the legal system states
  12. Neverfly Banned Banned

    AH, ok. I think I understand you now. You are saying that in your own opinion, normally you leave it to the jury. But in this case, you're convinced by his statements, not by the jury. Is that it?
  13. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    I know he's in OZ, so laws are different...But what I think he's saying is, there's a wrongful death suit coming.

    Gotta love it here...You can be found innocent, but still get nailed on a civil suit.
  14. Neverfly Banned Banned

    If he did get hit with civil, he racked up $200,000 from a website right before the trial began...
  15. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    Bottom line is, It's gonna be a long, drawn out ciivil lawsuit....

    And since you can't get blood from a turnip, no money will change hands for a while.

    Yes, Zimmerman is getting money from his website, but will take a while for the IRS to figure out how much, and what he owes,,,

    And, the Gov't, will get theirs, before any civil suit is settled.
  16. Neverfly Banned Banned

    I'm betting he won't be dismissed anyway. Politically, there's practical concern for Riots were he to be found Not Guilty.
    Given the evidence, it's highly unlikely he wouldn't get convicted of something, even if it's a lesser charge.
    Even, if more evidence is presented that is more incriminating, a higher charge...
  17. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    He's being tried in Florida...I see the whole Casey Anthony thng happening again...He's being overcharged, and he will walk...

    Then comes the civil suit, which IMO he will lose.
  18. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Greemi haven't you ever herd of "lesser included charges".
  19. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    Of course...But, as far as I know, that isn't the case here...
    I could be wrong. If you know something I don't, do tell.
  20. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

  21. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    "Death threats" are also not substantially a "lynch mob."

    And not just because of the distinction between threats and actions. A lynch mob is an actual mob, in the first place. It's a group of people sufficiently large to, literally, take the law into their own hands. And not just in the sense of enforcing their own personal view of justice in the situation, but in the larger sense of usurping the role of the authorities in the public sphere. Lynchings are public, social events. That is what separates them from mere violence (even, mob violence).

    And false equivocation isn't Neverfly's output, but Neverfly's output contains a lot of false equivocation.

    You think that "lynchmob mentality" is defined by... a preference for a court of law to find someone guilty and duly sentence him?

    Because that's the exact opposite of a "lynchmob mentality." The lynch mob mentality is: we can't depend on the courts, so let's go grab the guy, drag him into the street, and kill him ourselves. Any one who wants the process to go through the courts is necessarily not exhibiting "lynch mob mentality," regardless of what they think of the dude's guilt and what they'd like to see as the outcome of the court proceedings.

    Black men still get lynched in the present day. And so the courts respond by being extremely aggressive and proactive in prosecuting them when they are suspected of victimizing whites (especially, white women). The juries involved likewise exhibit corresponding racial bias. In marked contrast to the attitudes the authorities display when the races of victim and perpetrator are reversed, as in this case. We had to have weeks of national outcry, to the point where the tone-deaf chickenhawk crowd was crying "lynch mob! lynch mob!" just to get a jury involved.

    If you don't know about that, then, again, you're clearly too ignorant to even participate in this discussion, let alone go around demanding anyone prove the obvious to you. This stuff is the basic, common background setting for any discussion of race and the criminal justice system in the USA, and anybody who'd pretend that such is a matter for debate is either a real fool or - more likely - trolling. And that sort of troll line is a common one around here, these days - it's a big part of the modern GOP playbook.

    Better yet, I'll just repeat my assertion that we are not epistemic peers, and that your demand that I subject the obvious and well-known to some process of "proof" to the likes of yourself is a standard troll tactic around here. I reject the assertion that I "cannot" support said claim, and also the implication that it requires support to begin with, as well as the demand that I have to prove anything at all to your personal satisfaction. You don't get a veto on reality or my aknowledgment of it, and you can expect to be reminded of that any time you try such with me.

    Threads here are going to reflect obvious, basic reality, regardless of how inconvenient that may be for your politics and rhetoric, and any attempt on your part to control that with these troll tactics is going to get thwarted. You aren't the first conserva-troll to try that gambit, and you should not expect to do any better than any of your predecessors did (note that they all ended up leaving this site permanently once their failures became clear to them).

    That said, according to your overbroad definition of "lynch mob" above, they are absolutely everywhere, by trivial observation. If you're going to pursue the whole "prove to me that the sky is blue" gambit, then don't go and define "sky" down to "anything that is colored blue" at the outset.

    And you are.... apparently defining "lynch mob" down to "death threats" and/or "opinions about the guilt of the accused that may or may not agree with what the jury finds?"

    In that case, again, there are "Lynchmobs" absolutely everywhere, all the time.

    Maybe to you. Adults with eyes in their heads are perfectly aware of the relevant history, and the resulting higher scrutiny that the police and courts apply to certain racially-charged combinations of perpetrator/victim races that are well known to inflame problematic passions. And the lowered scrutiny that said authorities apply when it's a black male that gets victimized, as they did here. If you want to insist that we all pretend we live in a color-blind post-racial utopia, and then use that as a basis for attacking people who are fed up with racial injustice, you can expect a lot of grief in return. Because that's a reprehensible goal pursued with dishonorable tactics, and also exactly the kind of bullshit that Sci has had quite enough of lately.

    That's exactly what a troll would say.

    What a strange implication, that idea that I would want to avoid addressing your nasty racist trolling because doing so might hurt your feelings.

    Let's be clear: I don't care about your feelings at all. To the extent that you're going to engage in racist trolling, I'm going to hammer you mercilessly. If you don't like that, then stop. If you think you can browbeat me into giving you a pass, then think again. Worse than you have tried that approach, and failed.
  22. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    How about you refer to him as what he is:

    Who, exactly, do you think expresses such support?

    Anyone who has an opinion on what the dude's guilt is and what an appropriate sentence would be?

    That's why most of us don't go around playing policeman with loaded guns.

    What is the relevance of this? Who do you think did this?

    You're addressing people who were outraged by the obvious injustice and racism here, and demanded a thorough investigation and fair trial. That is the sum total of the moral hazard you're addressing here - the thing you're dressing up as "just as bad" as murder and systemic racism in the justice system.

    Again, you are talking right past the point that no trial would ever have occurred in the first place if not for all this "criminalization" and "judgement." Without all this sentiment that you're here crapping on as "barbaric" and "vigilantism," there would be no trial at all.

    If it happens that Zimmerman gets acquitted, and then some mob of people drags him out of his house and murders him, then you'll have a point. As of now, you're just misrepresenting people who demanded justice in court as "vigilantes" and a "lynch mob," while disguising apologists for a racist killer as principled "law and order" types. It's reprehensible.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I've worked with guys who would be described as Zimmerman has been described, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if any of them said "fucking coons" on a 911 call. It doesn't sound improbable at all, to me.

    Vigilante types are proud of their independence from "PC" concerns. They flaunt it. And Zimmerman was talking to someone he regarded as on his team, part of his crowd, - which seems to have been the case, given the way he was treated after packing a gun, picking a fight, and killing somebody's kid he'd chased down on the public street.

    btw: maybe it's again time to repeat a detail: Zimmerman was not a Neighborhood Watch captain, member, or representative of any kind. He was just a guy, acting on his own, with no formal role or community status. He had no more business chasing someone as they walked down the street than any other randomly chosen citizen of that town.

Share This Page