• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun owner should be held criminally liable for reckless behavior.

It is imperative that gun owners should always exercise due caution and take reasonable steps to make sure the likelihood of any unforeseen fatal encounter is minimized to the lowest probability when armed. A gun owner should not be allowed to take matters into his own hand by taking upon himself to act as though he is a law enforcement officer in pursuit of a "suspect". As such, an armed person should not pursue a "suspect", whether with merit or not, but to wait and let the law enforcement officers take over after reporting the event.

If the "suspect" got away before the police arrived, so what? It's better to err on the safe side and let the "suspect", who may or may not turn out to be a criminal, escape than to kill an innocent human being by mistake.

One debater said, "nobody says that is required of anyone who is legally carrying a concealed weapon." Maybe not be for now. But, in light of recent Florida fatal shooting of an unarmed teenager by a self-appointed neigborhood watch captain, Zimmerman's case demonstrated that it should be by law required of gun owners to exercise some reasonable care when they are armed with a weapon in the public.

They should be held to a higher standard of care to ensure the safety of the general public is safeguarded while they carry a lethal weapon to protect themselves. In other words, they have every right to arm and protect themselves against unforeseeable deadly force but not at the expense of subjecting innocent people or by-standers to serious harm as a result of their reckless behavior that could have been avoided by exercising reasonable care.

In Zimmerman's case, his defenders kept saying that it's not illegal for him to follow someone in order to keep an eye on him until the police come. How was he able to keep an eye on Trayvon safely without endagering anybody else with his weapon by venturing into a dark environment where nobody could see anything clealy in the rainy darkness? He could have easily mistaken the identity of another kid or resident who might happen to come out of his back door and walked down the concrete pathway.

Sure, it's not illegal for Zimmerman to follow someone while he was armed but it's dangerous not only to himself or to Trayvon, but most importantly, also to unsuspecting children and residence living in the two rolls of buildings where the incident occurred.

Remember the youngest witness who was walking his dog in the rain? He is a 13 year old black kid who stood about the same height as Trayvon, weighed about the same except slightly less and looked just like Trayvon. This kid was so affected by that night he was emotionally stressed by the thought that he looked just like Trayvon and to think it could just as easily be him laying on the wet grass dead if the event of that night would have just changed a little.

Now, Zimmerman supporters always argue that Trayvon should have just run home to his daddy girlfriend's house and everything would be fine.

But, if Trayvon had run home and was safe in his daddy girlfirend's house, who is to say nothing else fatal would not have happened? Who is to say it won't have happened to this 13 year old by a fatal mistake on the part of Zimmerman's impulsive overzealous behavior while in pursuit of a "suspect"?

At that time when Zimmerman and Trayvon came upon each other just before the fight broke up, this 13 year old was heading out of his house to walk his dog. If Trayvon had already headed home and Zimmerman was still wandering there in the dark backyard not knowing where Trayvon was and not knowing Trayvon was now safely home at his daddy girlfriend's house nearby, he would assume the "up to no good" thug is still hanging around somewhere in the dark nearby.

As it was, at about the time when Zimmerman and Trayvon was on the ground fighting just before the gunshot went off, the 13 year old was walking his dog and it got off the leash. If Trayvon wasn't there but safe at home at that point in time, this boy could have run after his dog and inadvertently knocked down Zimmerman in the dark.

At that point Zimmerman could have just the same instantly thought it was that "up to no good" thug that had come back and attacked him to the ground. Fearing for his life, he would then struggle to retrieve his weapon but the kid was struggling to get up to his feet while not knowing what was going on in the dark, and then within a few seconds the fatal shot ran out.

So, now, would the argument then be the same old, "it's not illegal to follow and monitor until the police arrive"? Or would it also be: "Well, the kid shouldn't be walking his dog in the dark when it's raining anyway. He should have stayed at home and nothing like this would happen"?

Interestingly, everything Zimmerman did is not illegal. Not only that, he is faultless. He could do anything he want. He could go walking with a concealed weapon in the dark and in the rain in pursuit of his prime "suspect". He didn't have to stay home or stay in his car. He didn't have to wait for the police who was on the way there. Everyone else had to run home or stay home and not walk on the street at night when it's raining. Otherwise, it's their fault if they got killed by an overzealous concerned and armed neighborhood watch captain.

Then again, things could happen in many ways not just these two possibilities.

That night Trayvon didn't run home but was on the ground with Zimmerman and got shot when the 13 years old kid was standing less than 20 yards away from where the fight occurred. The bullet could have exited Trayvon's body and hit the head of this 13 year old. Or the stray bullet could have shot a child coming out of his back door or through somebody's kitchen and killed a kid sitting at a dinning table for supper while supposedly safe at home.

No, it's not illegal to follow a suspect into the dark alley. It's not illegal to disregard a wise suggestion of a dispatcher. But, when something like this happened to innocent people or by-standers or residence in their own home, is there no accountability for the deaths that is in all respect avoidable.

If it is your child walking home from the store or walking his dog in the neighborhood or simply having a supper in the kitchen and died as a result of an avoidable event that had gone wrong as a result of an overzealous concerned citizen armed with a weapon in pursuit of an unfounded suspicion while disregarding good advice, and the police chief subsequently came out publicly to defend this guy saying he did nothing illegal, would that sit well with you? If we sanction this kind of behavior from an armed person, there's no telling who else' children or loved ones would be next.

Just think about it.
 
 
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,261
Reaction score
84,781
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
actually a citizen should take out a criminal that has engaged in murderous activity. BTW cops are more likely to shoot innocent bystanders by mistake than us legally armed non Law enforcement Civilians. Your average CCW holder is a better shot than your average police officer
 

Chaddelamancha

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
1,458
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This argument is the weakest of all the arguments against Zimmerman. The what if it was your child argument. If you want, I can paint it to look like Zimmerman was just a honest man, trying to protect his neighborhood when a young thuggish gangster attacked him. When you have an argument, just try and stick to the facts. By trying to paint Trayvon as some innocent teenager (which he wasn't) and Zimmerman some over eager neighborhood watchman (which he wasn't) just ruins any credibility you have. Your argument would be thrown out as pure conjecture. Like I said, weak.
 

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Chaddelamancha;bt1601 said:
This argument is the weakest of all the arguments against Zimmerman. The what if it was your child argument. If you want, I can paint it to look like Zimmerman was just a honest man, trying to protect his neighborhood when a young thuggish gangster attacked him. When you have an argument, just try and stick to the facts. By trying to paint Trayvon as some innocent teenager (which he wasn't) and Zimmerman some over eager neighborhood watchman (which he wasn't) just ruins any credibility you have. Your argument would be thrown out as pure conjecture. Like I said, weak.
Well, if you wanna stick to the facts, how about you show some evidence to support Trayvon wasn't innocent of a crime on that night of the fatal event?
 

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
TurtleDude;bt1552 said:
actually a citizen should take out a criminal that has engaged in murderous activity. BTW cops are more likely to shoot innocent bystanders by mistake than us legally armed non Law enforcement Civilians. Your average CCW holder is a better shot than your average police officer
So, you believe a citizen can just take out a criminal whom he/she "thinK" has history of murderous activities without the need of due process through our justice system?

I don't believe this kind of belief is consistent with our American value.

I disagree to your notion that cops are more likely to shoot innocent bystanders by mistakes. They are specifically trained to handle those situation whereas not all gun owners are. Besides, cops are held accountable for every shooting event.

Allowing armed civilian to follow and chase down people for just walking down the street isn't going to make things safer. It will only add to what is already a difficult situation even for the cop.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom