Zimmerman Arrested

[_Analytics]

In general, if somebody "beats the crap out of you", is the proper response to shoot them dead? Jesus said something about turning the other cheek in such instances. Would have that been a better response? Why or why not?

Do we get to pick and choose who we want to be held to this standard legally? I guess turning the other cheek worked for the Kansas boy. Now both of his cheeks are burned and he's told by the state that he has to go back to the school where his attackers are waiting for him unless his parents can come up with enough money to send him to a private school...

Are you talking about the following story?

http://www.kmbc.com/news/30572405/detail.html

To summarize, a couple of black kids (and nobody knows who they are, what school they go to, where they live, etc.) attack a white kid, giving him a few first-degree burns (i.e. the minor kind), and singeing some of his hair. The police are looking for the perpetrators.

So you are comparing Zimmerman to the kids who set the Kansas City boy’s hair on fire, and think it should be a commensurate news story, right? There are a few differences which you are ignoring. First, Zimmerman killed somebody, while the Kansas City kids only lit somebody’s hair on fire. Second, Zimmerman wasn’t immediately arrested, while the Kansas City boys certainly would have been.

If the black kids in Kansas City would have killed the white kid, and if the police would have let the black kids go, I assure you it would have been a huge story that would have outraged the nation.

Turning the other cheek makes no sense if you don't believe in God or an afterlife. It's just masochism and lack of self respect. Aren't you guys atheists? Why even bring that up? From atheists perspective, Jesus was just a fool who went out and offended people and ended up getting himself killed for it.

Not necessarily. Being an atheist doesn’t preclude somebody from being pacifist.

Obviously neither Travon Martin nor George Zimmerman were very good Christians. Villifying one and exalting the other is just partisan fighting in an effort to support the demographic you have chosen to align yourself with.

Very few people exalt Martin. They just correctly point out that he was the victim of murder.

[_ajax18]

If the black kids in Kansas City would have killed the white kid, and if the police would have let the black kids go, I assure you it would have been a huge story that would have outraged the nation.

Maybe Fox news would have played it. And what do you say about the fact that the state is forcing this child to go back to the same school. The mother said they weren't even asking for a bus to transport him elsewhere. They just don't want him to have to go back to that environment. What do you think should happen to the boys if they are apprehended and found guilty of this? 10 days expelled vacation?

Being an atheist doesn’t preclude somebody from being pacifist.

Maybe not, but it doesn't make much sense to me to be a pacifist if you're an atheist.

They just correctly point out that he was the victim of murder.

This was manslaughter at worst, not murder. It will look really bad if he is convicted of 2nd degree murder and Casey Anthony was just recently acquitted.

[_Morley]

Maybe not, but it doesn't make much sense to me to be a pacifist if you're an atheist.

Please share your reasoning.

[Anonymous]

And what do you say about the fact that the state is forcing this child to go back to the same school. The mother said they weren't even asking for a bus to transport him elsewhere.....

I suspect that is a lie made up by the right-wing media. CFR?

I note that you ignored this CFR and moved on to a different point. I take it you concede that the "fact that the state was forcing this child to go back to the same school" is in fact a lie. Out of curiosity, what was your source for this lie?

[_ajax18]

It's not very complicated reasoning. For me, Jesus gospel is only in the best interest of the individual if you have an after life. There was an interesting quote on the other board by Nietzsche

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

If there is no after life, why do I as an individual think that I am making things better by sacrificing myself for the tribe. That's not even increasing the collective good. Turn the other cheek is not why I would want as an individual. I'd want an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It does't matter to me if an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I am an individual and I am responsible for my own happiness first. If that objective is not met, what happens to other people does not matter. Without an afterlife, that objective truly would never be met. The only way the Jesus story is a good story is if in fact He was resurrected.

What do the family of Travon Martin want, or the entire black community? It's not a Christian message of forgiveness. And if it were a simple case of murder that wasn't entangled with self defense and if they weren't Christians, I could understand why thy would want to kill Zimmerman to have their vengeance. That's the only thing that would make sense.

[_ajax18]

If I were the DA, I'd go for attempted murder with extra punishment for being a hate crime.

That would be fair in my estimation. It just seems like it's only a hate crime when it's a white person saying a nonwhite racial slur.

I disagree. I find that in general, atheists are more peaceful people than Christians.

But in my experience atheists seem to be more in favor of the death penalty than many Christians. Do you disagree? I do see atheists as less willing to fight in wars and more willing to tolerate unfairness if they can preserve their life. Based on their perspective, I can understand why they would choose that.

"At worst"? If I have a gun, follow you into a bar, start a fight with you, and then shoot you when you hit back, can I claim I was standing my ground, and get off on manslaughter, "at worst"? The fact that he was armed and was following an innocent guy whom he subsequently killed precludes the killing from being anything less than second-degree murder.

If Travon physically attacked Zimmerman first (threw the first punch), regardless of whether Zimmerman followed him or confronted him verbally, in my opinion it's no more than manslaughter.

[_Morley]

But in my experience atheists seem to be more in favor of the death penalty than many Christians. Do you disagree? I do see atheists as less willing to fight in wars and more willing to tolerate unfairness if they can preserve their life. Based on their perspective, I can understand why they would choose that.

I disagree. Completely and entirely.

[_Analytics]

If Travon physically attacked Zimmerman first (threw the first punch), regardless of whether Zimmerman followed him or confronted him verbally, in my opinion it's no more than manslaughter.

I disagree. I can appreciate the self-defense argument and the whole stand-your-ground philosophy if a passive person is being attacked and then as a last resort uses deadly force to defend himself. But once you start following somebody and making verbal threats, you are no longer standing your own ground and are instigating trouble.

It's like if you are committing armed robery, something happens, and in the heat of the moment you pull the trigger and somebody dies. In that case you didn't pre-meditate murder, but you pre-meditated putting yourself into a heated enviornment with a loaded gun. People who choose to put themselves into that type of situation are committing murder when their guns kill somebody.

[_ajax18]

Robbing someone is a lot different than verbally confronting someone. One is a crime and the other is not.

I guess we just have a different view of justice on that. But at least we understand how each of us feel differently given the same set of facts. So many times it's impossible to know the facts.

Would you feel differently if every fact in this case were the same, but Zimmerman was a female hispanic rather than a male hispanic?

[_Analytics]

Robbing someone is a lot different than verbally confronting someone. One is a crime and the other is not.

I guess we just have a different view of justice on that. But at least we understand how each of us feel differently given the same set of facts. So many times it's impossible to know the facts.

Would you feel differently if every fact in this case were the same, but Zimmerman was a female hispanic rather than a male hispanic?

My point is that you should leave your gun at home--especially when you go around confronting people. It has nothing to do with the race and sex of the people involved. It has everything to do with how stupd it is to carry a gun.

If a person of any color and any sex wants to confront on the street people they suspect to be criminals, they should arm themselves with pepper spray, not guns.