It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If someone isn't a police officer - and thus doesn't possess the power and authority that a uniform and badge projects - should they be allowed to carry guns and go about stocking people?
This question goes beyond the race question. But it is at the very heart of this issue.
and to this quote of yours he has that right as the constitution guarantee a right to carry a fire arm (if you are not prohibited person) and thus you have the right to self defense in this country weather you like i or not
Witness or no witness, in my opinion it is irrelevant to the originating cause. Why should someone who does not possess the requisite authority and power believe he has the right, and even more concernedly, the ability, to question and harass another person? It is this woefully inept belief that led to this tragedy to begin with.
It’s only immoral in your opinion. You seem to forget that a man’s life was in danger and he had every right to defend himself. Do you think he should have just accepted his fate and died? Would that have been more moral? Would a murder conviction have been the moral thing to do to a man who chose to defend his life rather than die? Why does TM’s life have more value than GZ’z life?
There is the law and then there is MORALITY.
Didn't you ever hear or use the phrase 'the law's an ass'?
What has occurred here is immoral. The fact that it has made global news and stimulated international debate should be an indication to US citizens of how abhorrent their sense of justice (and actual justice) is to many people around the world.
It’s not that, we just don’t care what the rest of the world thinks about us. I certainly couldn’t care less.
The US's insulation from the rest of the world has skewed its perceptions.
The thing that baffles me is that Zimmerman instigated the incident knowing full well that he had a gun that he could use to end the confrontation and used it. In a way, the precedent set by this case is that, if someone confronts you in the middle of the night and you feel threatened, then responding in self-defense basically gives someone a license to shoot you. Vigilantism is a dangerous thing.
My question is: should someone who isn't a police officer - and doesn't possess the power and authority a badge and uniform projects - be allowed to parole neighborhoods with a gun?
The OP stating "if you suspect they are going to react with violence then you should have no right to do anything" is patently ludicrous.
If someone is that volitile then the "authorities" failed in their job long before that night.