- Joined
- May 21, 2005
- Messages
- 9,196
- Reaction score
- 9,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.
While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.
What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?
Neither the question you ask or any answer to it are relevant to the case.This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.
While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.
What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?
Neither the question you ask or any answer to it are relevant to the case.
This is not a matter of individuals making free will decisions in an environment so conducive.
This is a matter of two people caught up in a dysfunctional environment of over-population and under-supply of needs that thereby creates a collective neuroticism in the population resulting in boundary violations and suspicions that are compelled upon the minds of the inhabitants.
This is a systemic problem, solely.
No amount of searching for specific idiosyncratic culpability in the matter is of any value.
We need to focus on solving the causitive systemic problem before the number of such tragic events continues an even greater ascent rate than present.
Nothing whatsoever can be gained by polarizing with scapegoats.
Both Martin and Zimmerman are tragic victims of a systemic problem, the responsibility of the solution to which lies squarely with elected and appointed officials with the authorization to do something about it.
False, obviously.Wrong It is a matter of law That side step of *a dysfunctional environment of over-population and under-supply of needs* is bs
Absolutely not. It is not illegal to follow someone, inappropriate, maybe, but not illegal. It is, however, illegal to assault someone.
False, obviously.
But, your answer doesn't surprise me.
Most people are easily seduced into looking for devils and scapegoats because they too see from their own ego and thus look to make the ego of the participants everything, and thereby they can imagine they might be capable of having control of themselves in the same situation ..
.. Which, when most are subjected to the same situation, they find out that they are truly powerless in the matter, much to their "surprise".
Martin and Zimmerman were so "surprised".
Now, one is dead, the other, hiding for his life.
Anyone who thinks they would do better than these two did simply haven't walked a mile in either's shoes .. and, are also likely living in denial of how bad the over-population and under-supply of needs truly is, how it can compel collective neurotic behavior in even those who think they have all the control over it.
A word to the wise American.
Sadly, too many people are erroneously focused on shallow perspectives.The cause of what happened was "over-population and under-supply of needs?"
Really off the deep end.
This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.
While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.
What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?
Meaningless over-simplification of a tragedy.Why does nearly everyone see such simple questions with such obvious an answer as endless irrelevancies? Two men get nose to nose in ways both legally could and neither had to - and a fight breaks out. There's a deadly weapon that comes into that picture. So one dies. The other doesn't. That's the way it goes. The living one tells the story. The dead one doesn't. So the living one won. The dead one lost. There is is, folks, there is what is called R E A L I T Y! That's been reality for thousands of years at least.
Meaningless over-simplification of a tragedy.
Everyone is talking about this tragedy and looking for causes and solutions to prevent recurrence.
Social scientists take note of frequency and location of such tragedies, and when an abnormal amount of similar occurrances happens they attempt to determine the cause with an idea toward prevention before the problem gets worse and the occurrences escalate, as it is natural for us to want to prevent tragedies.
Too many people are dividing up simplistically between dualistic extremes, focusing on the specific persons of Martin and Zimmerman, attempting to find fault singularly and alone within one or the other.
The more profound examination takes a deeper look at the matter .. and realizes that there is a trend and that the unhealthy trend has an etiology, so to speak, in over-population increases and under-provision of needs, creating neurotic living environments that foster boundary violations and suspicisions .. and an increase in understandably resulting tragedies.
For years, university students have done the rat-environment experiment, where they put a number of rats in a sufficient environment with adequate food and all is well, and then they double the population in that same-space living area and don't increase the food .. and the neuroticism that develops as a direct result causes the rats to see each other as dangerous competitors, eventually eating each other.
We are seeing similar but more human-specific behavior in our own over-populated and under-provided demographics .. and the Martin-Zimmerman tragedy is simply one more publically presented result.
This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.
While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.
What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?
Your disconnect here implies, perhaps, that this statement was meant as a reply for someone else's post.I could be mistaken, but I am fairly certain only GZ and TM were outside and they had plenty of room. There was no hint that TM wanted to buy a case of Skitttles and a case of that bottled drink.
Again, you over-simplify, this time as a rationalization for your subsequent unjustified ad hominem.It would seem your point is that if people all lived in the country with lots of space they'd be no violence. I dunno, did you move to the country to prevent yourself from being violent?
excuse me sir.. how do you know martin started the fight.?.. because zimmerman said so... dam i would say someone hit me first to if i was on trail for murder and no one saw what happened .. i would also say that the person told me they are going to kill me too... please give me a break...do you really think people are that ignorant... sounds like treavon is very hardcore to say you are going to die today.... that fits the description of a person with a long criminal record.... a gang member
No. No ifs or buts or what ifs about it.
Unless the person is touching you, about to touch you, making threats to you. You pretty much dont have a case for smacking them around.
Maybe if you are a woman you may get away with the disparity of force type thing. But otherwise forget it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?