Again, how do you figure your material possessions are worth more than human life? The responsibility IS yours. You're the one holding the gun. You are being asked to make that decision. Don't weasel out and say that the thief made that decision. You are making it. Do you believe it's morally right to take a human life if you don't need to?Originally Posted by Gameface
My material possessions are not worth more than a human life.
If someone comes into my home by force they have made the decision to imitate force against me and my family. If they chose to take my possessions by force I have every right to stop them by the use of force.
If someone was carrying my DVD player out of my house I would tell them to stop. If they did not stop I would physically attempt to stop them. If they physically tried to resist me I would escalate my use of force to include the use of a firearm. If they simply tried to run away I would not shoot them in the back, but I would try to prevent them from running away by placing myself between them and their escape route. If they chose to attack me, gun in my hand telling them to stop, I would shoot them.
Why not just let them leave and call the cops? That's what the cops are for. You fighting the guy is just unnecessary and pointless vigilantism. One of you will get hurt and you still may not get your DVD player.
First, the cops are not going to investigate the burglary of a DVD player. Second, I don't have to allow people to take my things. Why do you think I do?
I think we should construct a system with no deterrents and watch it quickly flail into lawlessness. Mad max society is so much better at valuing life.
I call Eli. Which one of you cuties wants to play Solara for a couple days?
I have rational discussions with criminals all the time. I work with a committee to disarm all prison guards and pass out pamphlets explaining to the inmates the importance of peace. I don't get why these violent Americans have to use guns to protect against criminals without first attempting rational persuasion.
Because, shockingly, they also don't think a DVD player to be very valuable. Certainly not worth getting into physical altercations with someone.
Because it's going to escalate. Do you figure a thief will simply give you your DVD back when confronted? Or they won't hit back if hit?Second, I don't have to allow people to take my things. Why do you think I do?
Do you acknowledge that the burglar is the one initiating force against me?
Let's explore a hypothetical.
Guy knocks on your front door. You and your family are in the living room watching TV. You answer the door, the guy says he's there to take your TV and possibly some other things he finds if he's interested in them. You then, not waiting a confrontation and not being a vigilante let him in. He's having a little trouble disconnecting the cables so he tells you to get over there and unhook them or he'll cut them loose. You go over and remove all the wires for him. On his way out he sees an expensive urn that holds the remains of your mother. Tells you his arms are full and says that you need to carry it out to his car for him. You're a little hesitant, those remains mean a lot to you and the rest of your family. You tell him he can't have the urn. He says if you don't bring the urn he's going to kick your daughter in the face. Well, we don't want violence so there's nothing to do but take the urn out to his car for him.
Do I have your ideal response to a robbery correct, or at some point would it have been okay to resist him?
Keep in mind that the trigger was not pulled until a person was physically assaulted. This whole situation could have gone the other direction had a gun not been in play. I wonder what everyone's take would be if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and got his head bashed in to the point where he was comatose or dead because he confronted Martin?
€¥€
You might find this shocking, but there are people out there who don't believe that violence is the answer to anything. They're not all Amish or hippies, either. I would categorically say that I would not take another life under any circumstances. Not even in self-defense. I don't know if I'd go as far as say that I would not use any violence ever, but I would say that I would keep my opposition to killing in mind before I get involved in any violent situation.
But this isn't about that. This is about whether or not you believe that your paramount duty is to protect your material possession or preserve human life. It's pretty clear from the story that Zimmerman believed the former to be true. I find that depressing.
That would, of course, be a whole different story, though I'd still ask why Zimmerman felt the need to confront someone he thought "suspicious" instead of calling the cops.
You know, you're really lucky Gameface is such a badass who would use physical force to restrict this person as his first option. Most Americans are chicken **** wannabe cowboys who would shoot the person on the spot and worry later if he was with a gang of meth heads who would assault his family while Gameface is busy rolling around with the good chap.
I say you just get out of the way of these criminals gangs because the majority of them have no intentions of raping your daughter who they are standing between you and her room. They also don't want to be seen and will never incite violence when you catch them in their act of burglary. It's best you just hide under your bed until they are gone.
Do you realize yet how absurd you sound?
Depending on the circumstances and what would have come out, Martin may have been able to claim self-defense. I don't think he would be at fault, regardfless.
Zimmerman did call the cops. The cops told Zimmerman that there was no need to follow Martin. Zimmerman followed Martin anyhow.
Yeah, bringing in that meth-head gang was so reasonable, by comparison.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote