[ SECRET POST #2370 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2370 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 105 secrets from Secret Submission Post #339.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Zimmerman and Trayvon

[xerox78]

If Trayvon was such a big, hulking, violent thug, why didn't Zimmerman stay in the safety his truck, the way he was told to? It seems like common sense to not approach someone you think you'd need a gun AND martial arts to defend yourself against, especially when they clearly want nothing to do with you.

And I don't know why Trayvon (not "Trayton", people) owed an explanation of why he was in the neighborhood to a phony "neighborhood watch captain" who didn't even live there.

Re: Zimmerman and Trayvon

[darkmanifest]

This is what I'm trying to figure out. Why would you even confront some stranger like that, who isn't committing any visible trespass or crime that requires emergency intervention, unless you're looking for trouble? Take all the racial implications away, even, and this case still reeks of a guy with a gun who leaped at a chance to prove what a big man he was, and got more than he bargained for.

Re: Zimmerman and Trayvon

[ill_omened]

Because he thought he was being a good samaritan, monitoring and ready to act as an effective witness for any future action and to discourage a crime then and there, as well as being able to provide criminal intelligence.

I mean he called the police, so he obviously thought that something was up.

Re: Zimmerman and Trayvon

[darkmanifest]

So why not just follow the guy in his car? He didn't have to approach what was potentially a dangerous criminal to act as a witness. By Zimmerman's own statement, Martin started running away, and there was no one in danger on the street, so any crime Zimmerman had been on the watch for had already been averted. The police were already on their way. They told him to stay put. He disobeyed.

"I thought something was up" is not actually a good excuse for chasing down an unarmed person and they somehow end up dead at your hand. At least, not unless you're a cop.

Re: Zimmerman and Trayvon

[ill_omened]

Because if he turns off the road, you can't follow him?

The police didn't tell him anything.

A CAD operator told him 'we don't need you to do that'.

He was probably working under the assumption he could track him so the police could do a stop and account, get more information to prevent future crimes and etc. And yeah, what he did was ill thought out, which means what? Doing something stupid and shortsighted means it's acceptable that someone should try to crack your skull on concrete?

Re: Zimmerman and Trayvon

[darkmanifest]

Uh, then that means you stop following.

Cracking someone's skull on the concrete means it's acceptable to kill them? Last I checked, the guy who brings a knife to a fistfight is in larger error no matter who throws the first punch. Especially if that person was already running away. Even if you assume the very worst of Trayvon's intentions, he didn't approach anybody, he didn't have a weapon on him, and he didn't kill anybody. Even if you assume the very best of Zimmerman's intentions, he approached somebody, he had a weapon on him, and he killed that person. He took action against somebody who he had not witnessed commit a crime. That is not just stupid, it's actually just plain wrong.

And even if it was only stupidity and not malice, that doesn't mean Zimmerman didn't commit a crime. It's stupid and shortsighted to text while driving, but we still prosecute the driver if they kill someone, because there's consequences to being stupid when in possession of a lethal weapon.

Re: Zimmerman and Trayvon

[ill_omened]

Assuming the worst of Trayvons intentions he tried to kill a man for the crime of asking him what he was doing in the neighbourhood.

It's not a legal or hell even moral obligation to stop following, you have to make a judgement call, one which was clearly wrong, but how much training do you think CAD operators actually get?

And no, person who throws the first punch is pretty massive in assigning responsibility when the question is whether Zimmerman had a valid case for self defence or not. The fact he had a gun on him is fairly irrelevant to that assigning of guilt, unless you think he was criminally negligent in his actions (you would find it extremely difficult to argue this)?

Your comparison is fairly silly. Texting whilst driving has clear links to losing control of your vehicle and killing someone. Merely possessing a weapon and following/talking to someone does not. It's in no way equivocal.

Re: Zimmerman and Trayvon

[darkmanifest]

And assuming the best of Zimmerman's intentions, he took that gun with the intent of possibly using it, because that's what guns are for. Assuming the best of Martin's intentions, he was out for a walk. It is far easier to argue that Zimmerman meant ill going after Martin, than Martin did when he went in the opposite direction.

I said the person with the knife was more culpable in a fistfight, not that the person without the knife wasn't responsible at all. Self-defense is called into question because why was the weapon even involved? And how is Zimmerman being armed irrelevant? In regards to his intent, he had a gun to use it, whether as defense or not. In regards to his actions, he did use it. It wasn't like he stabbed Martin in the eyes with his keys. A gun only has one purpose, and it makes the user's intentions suspect unless they can prove lack of premeditation.

The purpose of that comparison was to point out that being really stupid - as you called Zimmerman - with innocent intentions is no excuse for getting someone killed. I'm not calling Zimmerman a cold-blooded murderer any more than I would the careless driver, but because of their unnecessary foolishness, someone is still dead. That warrants a lot more than a slap on the wrist and an "oh I'm so sorry".

Re: Zimmerman and Trayvon

[ill_omened]

He had the weapon, because he regularly concealed carried.

Specifically because he was advised to by someone in animal control.

The weapon wasn't involved until it had to be, and he might have been dead without it.

That's hardly reckless to the point of manslaughter, and says nothing about any culpability.

Re: Zimmerman and Trayvon

[darkmanifest]

That would all make perfect sense if he had stayed in his car and Martin had come after him. The minute he went after Martin, someone he considered dangerous, with a weapon on him, that made him reckless, and he became the instigator of a confrontation. This didn't happen because Martin was out walking around. It happened because Zimmerman was an idiot who didn't just wait for the cops.