George Zimmerman shot

RandFan said:
Absent a conspiracy I personally don't see how I could doubt the investigators. Apperson is going to regret taking the law into his own hands.
Click to expand...

Which law was he trying to enforce? The offense of driving after being acquitted of a murder isn't actually a law...
 
Newtons Bit said:
Which law was he trying to enforce? The offense of driving after being acquitted of a murder isn't actually a law...
Click to expand...
So, in your world, once a defendant is "acquitted" everyone adopts that conclusion. Therefore it would be impossible for anyone to mistakenly attempt kill Zimmerman out of some twisted vigilante sense of judgment.

Explain that thought process to me.
 
quadraginta said:
If that is the case then what does the supposed delinquency of "GZ haters" have to do with it?

Was that simply gratuitous?
Click to expand...

Probably.

Nothing about Zimmerman, not even the original story about the Martin shooting, is actually important for anyone not directly involved. So I for one don't place any expectation on anyone saying anything about it at all, even if they've commented in the past. I did find the enthusiasm of some for the idea of Zimmerman getting shot by Apperson to be rather disturbing, but that's a rather different issue.
 
theprestige said:
I'm with Newton's Bit: What law would that be?
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to think I'm missing something here.

Okay let's recount.

  1. Zimmerman killed Martin.
  2. He was charged, tried and acquitted,.
  3. Some people, rightly or wrongly, believe Zimmerman got away with murder.
  4. Some people want Zimmerman dead as punishment for Martin's death.
So, the law would be the one that proscribes murder and/or manslaughter. Or does acquittal erase every thought in every head that thinks Zimmerman should have been found guilty and now want to carry out extra judicial punishment?


Or is that an impossibility for reasons I'm unaware of?
 
RandFan said:
So, in your world, once a defendant is "acquitted" everyone adopts that conclusion. Therefore it would be impossible for anyone to mistakenly attempt kill Zimmerman out of some twisted vigilante sense of judgment.

Explain that thought process to me.
Click to expand...

I can't tell what you're responding to. It's certainly not anything in my post. Perhaps you'd like to review the post you've replied to?
 
Newtons Bit said:
I can't tell what you're responding to. It's certainly not anything in my post. Perhaps you'd like to review the post you've replied to?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Would the review demonstrate that Apperson had no knowledge or interest in the Zimmerman/Martin case? Would it demonstrate that Aperson could not have tried to punish Zimmerman for Martin's death? Thanks. :)
 
RandFan said:
Perhaps. Would the review demonstrate that Apperson had no knowledge or interest in the Zimmerman/Martin case? Would it demonstrate that Aperson could not have tried to punish Zimmerman in the Martin case? Thanks. :)
Click to expand...

You probably have a different idea of what "taking the law into his own hands" means than me.

ETA: doing a bit of googling, both definitions of the idiom are valid and mutually exclusive. English man...
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
You probably have a different idea of what "taking the law into his own hands" means than me.

ETA: doing a bit of googling, both definitions of the idiom are valid and mutually exclusive. English man...
Click to expand...

RandFan said:
Probably true. I've relied on the dictionary all these years.

a person who is not a police officer but who tries to catch and punish criminals

What is your definition?
Click to expand...
No prob.

ETA: I'll google but I'd like to know what that other meaning is. I've never heard it used differently. :)
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Probably true. I've relied on the dictionary all these years.

a person who is not a police officer but who tries to catch and punish criminals

What is your definition?
Click to expand...

In this case, Zimmerman isn't a criminal, because he was acquitted. That phrase, "take the law in his own hands" can also mean people who try to punish people who got away with a crime. Which I think is anti-law, so it wouldn't be a correct usage, but it is commonly used in that way. :cool:

I see the phrase as meaning someone who is trying to enforce an actual law without being a police officer. Which is also a common use of it. Weeeeee...
 
Newtons Bit said:
In this case, Zimmerman isn't a criminal, because he was acquitted. That phrase, "take the law in his own hands" can also mean people who try to punish people who got away with a crime. Which I think is anti-law, so it wouldn't be a correct usage, but it is commonly used in that way. :cool:

I see the phrase as meaning someone who is trying to enforce an actual law without being a police officer. Which is also a common use of it. Weeeeee...
Click to expand...
Got it. IMO: Justice is a system not an outcome. After the OJ verdict I examined my views on crime and punishment and decided that I needed to accept jury verdicts. That does not preclude me from forming an opinion but, just as a reminder, the Jury was easily correct on this one based on the considerable evidence.
 
Newtons Bit said:
In this case, Zimmerman isn't a criminal, because he was acquitted. That phrase, "take the law in his own hands" can also mean people who try to punish people who got away with a crime. Which I think is anti-law, so it wouldn't be a correct usage, but it is commonly used in that way. :cool:

I see the phrase as meaning someone who is trying to enforce an actual law without being a police officer. Which is also a common use of it. Weeeeee...
Click to expand...

I assumed that RandFan's use of the phrase "taking the law into his own hands" meant that he was referring to shooting at Zimmerman because Zimmerman had supposedly pointed a gun at him. I see that I was wrong, but it's strange to me that a possible misuse of the phrase has been the subject of the last 20-ish posts. I think the use was appropriate, for what it's worth.

Who knows what Apperson was thinking, he seems like a nut. ;)

If someone shoots into another occupied vehicle, they'd better have a very good reason for it, and be able to prove it.
 
I think if Apperton were engaged in "vigilantism", it would've been over the earlier incident in which he believed Zimmerman was stalking him at his workplace. Has he made any statements indicating he had an opinion about Zimmerman one way or another until that incident?
 
Checkmite said:
I think if Apperton were engaged in "vigilantism", it would've been over the earlier incident in which he believed Zimmerman was stalking him at his workplace. Has he made any statements indicating he had an opinion about Zimmerman one way or another until that incident?
Click to expand...
Seems an interesting point and a fair question. I'll cop to jumping to a conclusion. I don't know what the motivations were.
 
mgidm86 said:
I assumed that RandFan's use of the phrase "taking the law into his own hands" meant that he was referring to shooting at Zimmerman because Zimmerman had supposedly pointed a gun at him. I see that I was wrong, but it's strange to me that a possible misuse of the phrase has been the subject of the last 20-ish posts. I think the use was appropriate, for what it's worth.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom