@msolga,
msolga wrote:They advised him to stop & leave it to them, David.
And because he didn't a young man is now dead.
Those are the facts of the situation.
U bend over backward to assume and
insist
that decedent was the most pristine essence of innocence.
U have no evidence that he did not become violent with Mr. Z
with little or no provocation.
I 'm pretty sure that if I had been in decedent's situation,
there 'd have been no fight, because I 'd have had
a civilized converstion.
It 'd go something like this:
Z: "Excuse me, Sir. Can I ask u what u r doing in the naborhood?"
ME: "Who the hell r u ??"
Z: "I 'm with the naborhood watch"
ME: "OK. I 'm a guest in that house over there."
Possibly, he might want to confirm over there,
but there 'd be no violence and neither of us
woud have any reason to draw out our guns.
msolga wrote:Whether the police had any jurisdiction to advise him to desist or not, I have no idea.
I wasn't arguing that they did.
U made your post
SOUND LIKE
u had in mind that we shud all
DO
whatever the police get it into their heads to tell us to
DO.
msolga wrote:What happened was a self-appointed "watchman" was cruising the streets
of a gated community in his car with a gun, looking for people who might be "suspicious".
That, in itself, is not necessarily bad.
It might have a good effect in suppressing burglaries.
msolga wrote:He sees a young black man wearing a hoodie & notifies the police. (who apparently were used to him doing this sort of "surveillance" & reporting back to them.) They advise him to leave & that they would follow up. He doesn't & continues to stalk the young man. Apparently he then gets out of his car & approaches the young man .... a scuffle breaks out & the young man shot & killed.
Note, incidentally, that the same thing can happen
to
salaried police, including police of decedent's race.
That woud
not be the first time in history.
msolga wrote:I don't know nearly enough about Florida/US laws to confidently assert which laws he might or might not have broken .... but from what I understand about the published details of this incident, his actions certainly CAUSED that unarmed young man's death.
If Trayvon had been placid & inoffensive,
he 'd almost certainly still remain intact.
Unless Z is wildly crazy (which, from his holding a job and calmly
speaking to police on the tape, appears not to be the case), he 'd
not decide to gratuitously assassinate a total stranger,
when he knows that the police will arrive momentarily
and find him with a
bloody corpse in front of him.
msolga wrote:WHATEVER the laws in Florida, Zimmerman was a dangerous menace on the streets.
U know this because of his life-long history
of personal violence, in addition to this incident, right???????
My sense of the situation is that if I had been standing next to him,
I 'd have been
completely safe.
msolga wrote:Why you persist in splitting hairs in attempting to find loopholes in the laws to defend him, beats me.
His actions were responsible for the death of an innocent person.
Probably not as innocent as u think.
From my observation of inter-personal dynamics
over a goodly number of decades, I 'm fairly confident that this
was
not unilateral, as u try to suggest.
msolga wrote:Why are you not a lot more concerned about that?
Does your obsession with gun ownership override everything else?
Yes. Nothing is more fundamental
than the right to self defense; it is
existential.
"The commonwealth is theirs who hold the arms:
the sword and sovereignty ever walk hand in hand" Aristotle
David
