Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by joepistole, May 13, 2016.
strange--- i would have assumed that the gun would be kept by the law enforcement as evidence.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Your not from the southern region of the US are you? once he was acquited they couldn't keep the gun. even if he a freaking sociopath with extreme violent tendencies.
Records of firearms (and documents relating to firearms) involved in criminal or civil proceedings, or that are voluntary surrendered; and
Non-criminal records relating to the receipt, storage or return of firearms.
there is also this, http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-policy/
The prosecution in the case did not attempt to charge him with minor crimes associated with his behavior regarding the firearm. So once acquitted for the major assault, he was restored to his former status as a responsible owner of the firearm in question.
Various relevant aspects of responsible gun ownership that could be regulated - such as initiating insecure confrontation in public while armed, failing to secure the firearm from apparent risk of theft or loss, improper loading and safety-off status, responsibility of local law enforcement to take steps to modify the behavior of citizens they observe to have a pattern of negligence in these regards, etc, have broad support among all Americans (including NRA members etc).
So basically, while you acknowledge he was not in violation of any particular law regarding Martin, you're now saying they should have charged him with "something" on the basis of society... not liking him very much?
Irresponsibility leading to death?
Stupidity leading to death?
Ignorance leading to death?
Oooh, I like this one:
"initiating insecure confrontation in public while armed"
Incarcerate all them insecure mofos?
How about charging society with ignorance in general?
Hmm. bit of a rabbit hole.
Hell, you have to get this guy behind bars, right?
Legislate to something.
No, I don't. And I said I didn't, for all non-trolls and non-stupid people to read and comprehend.
Not even Florida can be completely bereft of laws regarding negligence, creation of hazard, attractive nuisance (making his gun available to teenage strangers), stalking, assault (impeding passage and harassment on the public sidewalk is a form of misdemeanor assault, in most States) and so forth. No attempt was made to charge Zimmerman with anything other than the killing itself.
Incarcerate the ones who start fights without securing their firearms - or at least suspend their right to carry them. That's pretty basic.
The big Z claims to have received 250k for the gun, btw. Nice payday for shooting somebody's kid.
The auction is over, and the gun is reported to have sold for nearly $140,000. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/us/george-zimmerman-gun-auction/
I was reading somewhere the other day that he accepted a $250k offer after accepting the $140k bid.
Money changes everything, but George Zimmerman is still his same prickly self even after successfully selling the gun that killed Trayvon Martin for $250,000.
The former Florida neighborhood watchman bragged to KTNV between puffs of a cigar and said that he has given the weapon to the anonymous winner of an online auction
Zimmerman, who was acquitted for shooting the unarmed 17-year-old in a 2013 trial, said that he was preparing to transport the 9mm to a buyer in Daytona before unexpectedly receiving a higher bid.
Oooh, now. Angry boy with no sense of humour.
Can't throw an insult worth a damn. Well, this'll be interesting for all of about 5 minutes.
Right. So that means he either didn't flout any specific law, or couldn't be charged with one with a reasonable chance of conviction.
You want him to be charged with something. Not too specific on what, other than a few vague references to stalking and whatnot. You want a revenge charge, in effect, because the system let you down, and well, you just... don't like it.
Thing is, though, that you can't do that... for a reason.
If we were allowed to go making up charges based purely upon whether or not we think someone should be charged with something, in spite of the fact that the charge you want him brought up on can't be effected, then we would be opening ourselves up to all sort of nasty situations.
You know those police who'll bring you up on a charge of resisting arrest because you back talked them after they tried to stop you because you're black or something? Same mentality.
Just get 'im, yo. Don't care on what, just write up something that'll fly and... get him.
It's not that I don't agree, particularly... there probably should have been one or two other charges he could be brought up on in preference to murder. Manslaughter due to imperfect self defense, or the like, would have been the one I'd have gone with based on what I can glean of your different types of murder charges.
But the public were a factor in this, too. And the media.
The prosecution would have been influenced by the fact that the public wanted him done on second degree murder. It was people like you who profiled it as a race hate crime from the very beginning, and people like you who wanted to "see justice done".
This is only a theory on my part, but if the prosecution had come up with something like manslaughter in the first place with an imperfect self defence argument, which I believe is applicable in California (?) then that would have seen it done.
But, in all likelihood, there would have probably still been a large number of angry people about spouting on about racial discrimination. Was it an election year for someone?
Y'all do have a tendency to shoot yourselves in the foot on a fairly regular basis, you know.
But an insecure firearm? Stalking?
That whole post was tongue in cheek, son. If you'd actually read it, you might have seen a few things in there that would indicate that I have as much distaste for Zimmerman as most do.
The "insecure" bit being a play on words, y'see. Sort of vaguely funny. Now you come back and say it wasn't, yada yada attempted zing.
Point is, given that Zimmerman was not found guilty of anything, then you have absolutely no right to be telling him he can't sell his gun, any more than I have to tell Kim K to put her bloody oversized arse away and get the fuck off the front page.
You can't charge him for being a wanker.
All you can do is bitch about it.
Little bit boring to have to explain that.
It's incredibly disgusting that he should be able to profit from his misdeed, and it is even more disgusting that someone would buy it as a trophy weapon.
That's not anger (at trollish dumbness around here? c'mon). It's experience. I know pretty much who I'm dealing with - somebody who takes the premises of his jokes for granted, thinks objecting to them is not getting the joke, and therefore won't get anyone else's. KIS when dealing with S.
One of my points, above, which somebody is now lecturing me about. Explaining to me. And about here we discover that I do have a sense of humor.
He did follow Martin for some distance, at night in the rain, alone, in plain clothes and an unmarked pickup truck, even on foot. He did accost Martin on the public street without securing his firearm, and without support. This is negligence at a minimum, and it resulted in a death.
Put it this way: suppose Martin had taken Zimmerman's gun and shot him with it - he had a perfect right to do that, no? It would have been clearly self defense on Martin's side. When some stranger starts following you around at night with a loaded gun, you are allowed to respond as if threatened, surely.
No, it doesn't. It means nothing of the kind. That's the larger point. That's the main and central matter at hand.
1) I was just pointing out that he probably could have been, even in Florida, and lost his gun or at least the right to profit from selling it.
2) Lucky guess: That's not what I said, or an implication even, but it is sideways true: the straighter version is more along the lines of I want law enforcement to charge and convict people who do what he did, with and of a crime of some sort - at least enough to prevent them from making a profit from such behavior. If there is no applicable law - which nobody really believes, I think - there should be.
Way back in school we learned that one of the old Greek citystates - Sparta? probably - had as a last and summary law a sort of miscellaneous offense: if you did something unanticipated that was so bad the community had to pass a new law against it, they threw you off a cliff outside of town. We have a Constitution that prohibits such laws now, and that's good - but it's not an unmixed blessing.
You are, as always, confused about other people and what they are like. Especially "the public". And so you post mistaken muddles.
A large fraction of "the public", well represented in local law enforcement and government, wanted Zimmerman not only uncharged but congratulated, praised for his sense of responsibility and courage. Notice that this part of "the public" included the prosecutor's political and residential associates, co-workers, and job supervision. And apparently the prosecutor herself: http://www.theroot.com/articles/pol...george_zimmerman_trial_but_will_angela_corey/
The "people like me" of course noticed that it was a crime (and police response) redolent of racial bigotry - that Zimmerman was racially profiling, a racial bigot behaving badly with a firearm; that the prosecution and police work was maybe not in the Ferguson gutter but hardly what one would call diligent and hardass persecution of a child killer, instead resembling what one has come to expect of police response to the shooting death of a black teenage boy in a hoodie; and so forth.
Exactly my original response to the scene, way back when, reading the newspaper.
I - and that means people like me, notice - thought from the newspaper reports he was probably guilty of first or second degree manslaughter. We wanted the jury to have that available at least as an alternative verdict. We suspected then - and still do - that the failure to charge him with that was calculated or instinctive good-ol'-boy stuff - a way of letting him off. Of course this is only a theory on our part, but we think that if the prosecution had not rejected that option (in the face of recommendations and so forth, completely aware of the options available under Florida law) it might have seen it done. But that's just people like me, y'know.
Well, there you go.
So you profiled me and responded based on what you thought I was, rather than what I'd written.
Point made, I think.
This site would still be worth something if most of the real quality hadn't been driven from it. Still, every now and then one can still pick up a fleck of gold or two.
In that first paragraph, those couple sentences, I profiled your posting identity based on what you'd written. Accurately, it appears so far (post 32 contains nothing in response to the several paragraphs of actual thread content in post 31, say).
In the remainder of that many paragraph and screen size post, I responded to what you had posted.
That you are what you write, here.
In your case, a collection of cognitive biases revealed via characteristic errors, made when projecting unto others stuff not present or implied in their posting (in your case, even stuff contradicted by their posting). You are going to get it wrong, of course, but why? Sophisticated trolling? Possible.
But on the off chance that a sincere relationship to the thread topic exists in there somewhere, note that profiling is most visible in projection, especially the projection that guides behavior. We know that Zimmerman was racially profiling, we know what he thought he saw, by what he said and did ("They always get away". Following in an unmarked vehicle, chasing armed and on foot, in response to no visible criminal behavior. Etc.).
And since we know that, and we know that essentially everyone knows that, we have some insight into the set of attitudes possible or even likely in the purchaser of that firearm. And that becomes part of the moral assessment - joining monetary profit from killing a child, and so forth.
Having read back through what I posted and when, I do have to concede you're quite right, here. I did pick on entirely the wrong person in this instance.
That isn't a one hundred percent concession. You did do exactly what I'd accused you of.
I should have picked a more appropriate target though.
In case it has become obscured, though, the message was that everyone profiles. Everyone.
The truly annoying thing about that is not that it exists - although that is annoying in itself - but that it is one side which is more susceptible to co-opting the argument and used it as a platform.
But you'll note on even on the briefest of searches that they'll do exactly the same thing themselves. Repeatedly.
Do you really think that when I make these sweeping statements, I'm completely excluding myself?
I do admit, I might sound that way.
But not in the same way, or with the same consequences. Everyone lies, too - nevertheless swindlers and con artists exist as an identifiable group, different from ( however overlapping with ) dentists and Dairy Queen franchise owners.
No. You erred in your presumptions, flagrantly.
These "sides" of yours are confusing you.
The people who are abusing, even killing, other people's children as a consequence of their racial "profiling" are not on a side in a debate or discussion: that isn't a platform, it's a mental disorder. Although it's nice that you recognize, in annoyance, that this behavior of theirs does make them more "susceptible" to other people's "co-opting the argument".
Wow. You did profile, you said flat out you profiled, and now you're back tracking.
Whatever ground you gained, you just lost. Fucking arguing for the sake of arguing,.. go away, peon.
The third consecutive post from you with no relevant thread content, and instead attempted disparagement of something you haven't followed based on what I suppose we are supposed to assume is not deliberate troll-"failure" of reading comprehension, but is instead sincere - if bias crippled - failure to keep up with a fairly simple exchange.
You can set yourself in order beginning with a rehabilitation based on correcting this fundamental error:
On that oblivious wrongfooting of yourself pivots much of your stagger into goofyville. Fix that, and a lot of the rest falls into better order.
Or better yet, drop the entire approach, and start over by considering the moral and ethical aspects of Zimmerman's profiteering here - in the forum subsection devoted to ethics, morality, and justice.
Already did address the morals of it.
I mean like I said, Nobody seems to mind celebrities selling their bodies to sell more media and therefore dumbing down the entire population, yet if someone sells a gun you get your panties in a twist. Does it affect you if it's sold? Anyone else?
Is the transaction in your face? Is anyone even going to remember it even happened next week?
Nope. Not a jot. Yet here you are, whining like a little girl because it's just so wrong.
Talk about focusing on minutiae... no sense of perspective, no sense of the greater or lesser evil, just all "oooh, loook, the bad man is trying to sell a gun!!! someone... please please think of the chilllldreennnnn!!!"
Fucking useless moralistic hysteria over nothing.
You're still banging on about some error I've already apologised for, which you completely ignored and are now presenting again as if setting the record back to the beginning is going to make more of an impact.
What, exactly, are you hoping to achieve here?
You pulled me up on something. I apologized. You're still here as if I hadn't.
You profiled me. I pointed it out. You just make excuses.
Do you have integrity? Honesty?
Nah. Just a another useless demagogue who can't even let go when he's scored a point.
and this is where you so completely expose yourself... right here.
"On that oblivious wrongfooting of yourself pivots much of your stagger into goofyville"
Trying so hard to put a clever insult together because you know I've been talking about it. You're trying to impress me, aren't you?
But failing. So very, very badly.
I mean... what the hell was that?
You can come back in here again if you like, make more excuses, try so very very hard to pretend you mean something.
But me? Nah. You've been found wanting, I'm afraid. Maybe another time, in another thread.
So that's what you meant by addressing the moral and ethical aspect of Zimmerman's profiteering, the justice of it.
Unless something affects one directly and personally and tangibly, it has no moral or ethical aspect, no bearing on justice.
Well, it is a stance. Methinks you need a bit of reasoning on that.
Nope. Wrong again. You haven't. And if you had, there would remain the matter of correcting your approach - so as to acquire relevance, join the discussion, etc.
Until then, another post from you completely devoid of thread relevance. Four in a row.
Separate names with a comma.