6: Avoid "fishism" That is taking a debaters post, fragment it into multiple quotes, and then respond to each in turn. It just fragments a debate into multiple red herrings. Stick to at most two major points that you quote and want to debate, not the usual fishism ploy of multiple, even dozens of quotes. That being said your post is semantic at best. If there's no witnesses it's one man word against another's? Seriously? We know he was following him and he had no legitimate reason to do so, I'd say that's harassment. In your post you focus on the right's of Mr. Zimmerman, but guess what Zimmerman still has rights, because he's alive. He'll get his day in court, Trayvon will not. In your post you admit he was told not to do what he did by the dispatcher, in what world does it make sense that he should continue doing what he is doing? You call what I said conjecture, but that's unreasonable. Where do I have incomplete information? Where does Zimmerman HAVE legal standing here? Trayvon wasn't on his property, wasn't doing anything to his family, or anything he owns. He was walking down a PUBLIC road. Zimmerman is not the police, it's not his job to question people walking in the street. You mention that it's not illegal for him to walk down the street and ask questions, but don't you find it a little off putting at best that there is a man who has no power vested in him by the state, walking around with a firearm asking random people questions? Don't you think he's done his civic duty, when he calls the police? You don't think he takes it a step too far when he ignores the dispatcher telling him not to follow Trayvon, and when an altercation breaks out kills him? You ask if that gives Trayvon the right to respond with violence, and while I'd say no I also understand why he would. Middle of the night, an unknown person is repeatedly asking you questions, they have no legitimate authority, and refuse to leave you alone, what's your next play? The police are not our masters, but they do have authority, and if the police tell you to stay away for your own good and you go about doing it any way what does that say about your mental state? What does it say about a man, who has called the police multiple times in the past, and is now following a man around in the middle of the night(a man he has no real reason to suspect is up to anything), all the while he has a gun in his hand. The point is, it's none of his business, he's a neighborhood watchman, the police told him to back off and that's what he's supposed to do. Zimmerman is allowed to own that gun, he isn't allowed to harass people with it. He also isn't allowed to follow people down the street asking them questions, that means he's harassing somebody.
I throw anyone who likes to jump on the thug band wagon and sag their pants and fuck bitches and get money in the same category. Useless thug, I also kinda like to blame that whole urban subculture of crime and gang related business, because their music glorifies it. The protestors in Chicago are backwards, they shouldn't be protesting against Zimmerman. They should be boycotting and not letting their children succumb to negative influences. Obama saying his son would look and be like Tray speaks volumes about his character.
[quote name='"garrison68"'] Zimmerman is shorter than Martin was, and had asthma. I've seen tall, thin athletic guys easily overpower heavier guys that were 10 years older than themselves.[/quote] Bullshit! Lol
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5rxHcKjoU4]Rally for Trayvon Martin in Washington, DC - YouTube[/ame] Top Comments:
If so, then prosecute for harassment. The legal response to harassment is calling the cops, not jumping on top of somebody and beating the shit out of them. In my post, yes. And the rest of the posts? 2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14] 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. ok, now here comes the important part.... (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. ^Zimmerman didn't harass anybody with a gun, he shot somebody and the cops deemed it lawful. So I guess the lesson here is that George Zimmerman should listen to what the cops tell him, but everybody else should come to their own conclusions regardless of what the police say. Can you say double standard?
We don't know what was said, or how long this went on for, or how intense the harassment was. Not saying I condone his actions, but there could easily be mitigating factors. It's seems you want to have your cake and eat it too, Zimmerman has all these legal rights, can ignore what the dispatcher tells him to do, and in the end it's Trayvon that should've went about things in the appropriate legal manner. Does Zimmerman have a right to be there? Sure. But so did Trayvon, and Trayvon also had a right to not be harassed, by some random guy walking down the street. We know literally nothing about the incident that took place, things like who instigated the fight, and important questions like when and how was Trayvon shot aren't answered. It would seem to me if Zimmerman was hit multiple times there would have to be some lull in the fighting for him to grab his gun. When did he shoot Trayvon, was Trayvon literally on top of him hitting him in the face at that very moment? Was it later? We'll see about that. George Zimmerman was in a specific situation, one that could of(and did) turn violent. If George Zimmerman is told by the dispatchers to stay away from this possibly dangerous person, who is not affecting him or his things in anyway, why would he continue? Again I'll ask; A man with a gun, was following someone around in the middle of the night after being told not to by the police, later he shoots the man who he is following after a fight that could've easily been instigated by either of them. You're telling me the man with the gun is not at fault here at all? If you don't think Zimmerman deserves any sort of fault, blame, or jail time, and you truly believe that he was in the right in this situation then I hope all the worst things in life for you. If you truly don't believe that the onus isn't on him somewhat, then you would do well to check your moral compass.
#7 avoid appealing to emotion Please stick to logical arguments. The man with a legally registered gun is not automatically at fault just because somebody got shot. Also, I find it disturbing that you wish ill will against me just for having an opinion that opposes yours. It's no surprise to me that you are full of hatred though, I saw it coming a mile away... I've said nothing against you personally, yet you wish harm upon me just for disagreeing with you. Check my moral compass indeed... seems to be working just fine, thank you very much. Peace out homie
Say one mean thing to you and the rest of the post in somehow appealing to emotion? Sure buddy whatever you say. I do like how you ducked my question though. It's like you refuse to admit on any level that this is Zimmerman's fault. I'm not foolish, I don't doubt that Trayvon played a part in this, but the fact that you seem to just ignore my point that at a very basic level a lot of the blame must also go to Zimmerman you just up in leave. That's why I hope all the worst things in life for you.
Your entire argument, from beginning to end, is based on emotion, conjecture, and speculation. Quote ONE SINGLE statute, law, or precedent that backs up your arguments instead of asking rhetorical questions. All you have is "street justice" and appeals to emotion, and that is why I'm politely ending this discussion with you.
The street where this happened is inside a gated community, meaning that Treyvor Martin was trespassing and had to climb a fence to enter. Zimmerman had been patrolling this area long enough to recognize when something isn't quite right, so he followed Martin - who attacked him, and he responded by protecting himself with his weapon. If you don't like self-defense shootings like this, then you should support tougher gun-control laws. Under the circumstances, and according to the laws that exist in Florida, I believe that Zimmerman was justified. Personally, I support tougher gun control.
Also this was far from a self defense shooting. I hope your just playing the Devils Advocate/Trolling.
what is tougher gun control?? leaving zimmerman defenseless? he did nothing wrong. it is quite disheartening to see all of the racial discrimination that is going on. Just because Zimmerman is Hispanic does not mean he didn't have the right to defend himself! He did what anyone would do when posed with a tangible threat. it's not about race, but you are all trying to make it about race.
I didn't know I need to quote precedent when a man follows another man around and after/during a fight shoots him. I'm not asking rhetorical questions, I'm asking you to answer a question which you refuse to do. You're so hell bent on trying to show that Zimmerman was legally allowed to be there that you won't even answer the actual question here.... was Zimmerman at fault for this, did his actions cause this, and the answer is yes.
Gang Signs? The kid is flipping the bird at the camera. Unless you consider the middle finger to be some sort of international gang signal or something. Oh wow that was hilarious, and racist all at the same time.
When someone pursues and harasses me in the middle of the night, and walks back to their car, I'm going to assume they're going for a weapon. The assumption on my part, as a victim of harassment by a stranger at night, is no longer one of innocent intentions. The assumption is of guilt. I carry a knife when I walk alone for exactly this reason. If Trayvon Martin had any sense, he would've done the same, and stuck George Zimmerman in the throat when he refused to leave him alone.
Maybe it's where I grew up that makes me think this way but I'm a little surprised at how many people here are jumping the gun on this. At first I was 100% "this man needs to be charged." Now there is enough information out there to make me go well I'm not too sure. We have no way of knowing exactly how the encounter went down. This kid was a young athlete and I'm 6'4" 150-160 pounds ex champion swimmer and I know for a fact not many 240 pound chunkers with asthma are gonna have an easy time dealing with me. The media should be ashamed of itself stirring up such a frenzy that we created a new fucking black panthers. A half black man shoots a black kid and "OMG RACE WAR!!"? Really? I do think however this man should have been charged day 1 for manslaughter for not following police orders but that was a fuck up on the cops part. Good old fashion stupidity, but not racism. Now this man's life, regardless of guilt, is entirely fucked because we need America as divided and distracted from shit that matters. (oh and it makes for good ratings, fucking pathetic)
Why avoid that? Sounds like a good way to stay on point. Break it down to the main points and respond to each one. What a ridiculous claim. Responding to different parts of someone's writings doesn't necessarily mean your responses are irrelevant and/or meant to mislead. That's just ridiculous, if it was true, this would be a red herring. You have to make a lot of bad assumptions to conclude that "fishism" (a method of communicating) is a ploy and results in the committing of fallacies. So I can divide a post into two points, but not five, or I've responded with a red herring? Lol, seems you were eager to conjure up something in support of your bias.
I never mentioned, or alluded to, race. He would have been better off with a siren, a nightstick, etc., rather than a gun. I suspect that he had no police or guard-related training. That community is private, the people obviously have money, and could have afforded to hire a professional private security company to patrol.
http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/259858-how-make-argument.html Is he not being semantic when he says it's not actually harassment unless there was a witness to him following Trayvon?
I don't think he actually ever said that. And so what if he's being semantic, I don't think that's reason in and of itself to dismiss what he's saying.