• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

Status
Not open for further replies.
Res Cogitans said:
Right, but what constitutes criminal negligence? If it is the "reasonable perception" that one's life is iminently endangered, then it seems like anyone who is physically threatened anywhere should be able to shoot anyone else (except police officers).

And look, I realize that I'm making a slippery slope argument. But I honestly believe that this sitiuation is a case-in-point that the slippery slope is actually not unreasonably applied here.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. It's always going to boil down to that "reasonable perception," isn't it? We already have Castle Laws that do pretty much the same thing for one's home...some states include one's property...and some, like Florida, include everywhere. This SYG Law is more about one not being civilly liable than actually changing self-defense laws.

In every state in the union, one is entitled to counter a perceived violent threat with force. And, if that happens to be a gun, so be it.

It always depends on the circumstances. It's not a license to kill.
 
American said:
Most of you have been dancing all around it anyway, talking about an almost white man killing a black child. Most of the talk on this website assumes whites would be Republicans and blacks are Democrats. So cut your feigned outrage....especially YOU.
Click to expand...

What baloney. And not even good baloney. What evidence do you have that anybody here other than you attempted to see this as a partisan situation? Present it. Link to it. Lets see it.

Your post was beyond disgusting for attempting to do that.
 
haymarket said:
What baloney. And not even good baloney. What evidence do you have that anybody here other than you attempted to see this as a partisan situation? Present it. Link to it. Lets see it.

Your post was beyond disgusting for attempting to do that.
Click to expand...

Just a small deviation from topic, but

Why was Zim expelled from Seminole State College?
 
American said:
Or C) you are totally wrong about calling Z an "AGGRESSOR". The connotation is that he attacked Martin, instead of just asking him what he was doing.
Click to expand...

What evidence is there that Martin attacked Z and not the other way around?
 
ric27 said:
Just a small deviation from topic, but

Why was Zim expelled from Seminole State College?
Click to expand...

They said it too dangerous for him to be allowed to remain there for all the death threats, protestors etc.
 
Porchev said:
Why did you add that link?
Click to expand...
What link?
What are you talking about?



Porchev said:
I said "like they are typing from", please try to pay attention.
Click to expand...
I know.
If they are typing from there and you are seeing it here, that means they are fronting as a member.
Who do you suspect?



Porchev said:
You ignore any information that doesn't make Zimmerman look good.
Click to expand...
No I don't, I ignore it if it isn't backed up by the evidence.
 
American said:
Or C) you are totally wrong about calling Z an "AGGRESSOR". The connotation is that he attacked Martin, instead of just asking him what he was doing.
Click to expand...

Well, that's yet to be determined. It hasn't been fully established who legally counts as the "Aggressor." The one thing that is certain is that Z approached M and was following him. For my perception, that is aggressive. If some dude is following me at night time, I will percieve him as an aggressor. I also think that any reasonable person would. Any reasonable person realizes that if someone is pursuing them in the dark that they had better figure out how to defend themselves. What do you defend yourself against? Agression. I have a feeling that outside of the scope of this particular debate, you are just like the rest of us, and you would react just like the rest of us: Fight or Flight. If you have a hypothalamus, then that is what you do.


Aside from that, if it is about perceptions about who counts as an aggressor, why is one man's conception of "aggressor" better than another's? And this gets to the core of my point: for me, getting punched on the ground is what happens in a fight. It doesn't strike me as indicative of great bodily harm or as an iminent threat to a person's life. Aside from that, it is exceptionally rare for someone to die in a fist-fight. As such it doesn't seem reasonable at all that Z should have the right to use deadly force. But that is my perception.

So the point is, whose perception are we going to trust?

As far as I'm concerned, the good people of Florida are creating an entirely new reasonable perception: If you are young and suspicious, and you try to defend yourself, then you can be legally killed. Therefore, you should immediately rush to kill those who are threatening you and claim self defense.

Travon Marin WAS killed, even if he wasn't murdered. So now young suspicious people have a perfectly reasonable case in which someone was killed legally for trying to defend himself against what he took to be an "aggressor." Now they have the reasonable expectation that if some dude follows them in the night that that person intends to do them great bodily harm.

I know that is what I'd believe.

thankfully for me, my days of looking suspicious are over. Well, I guess I still LOOK suspicous, but since I am "articulate," I normally get a pass.
 
haymarket said:
What evidence do you have that anybody here other than you attempted to see this as a partisan situation? Present it. Link to it. Lets see it.
Click to expand...

Almost all of you are doing this.
 
joko104 said:
They said it too dangerous for him to be allowed to remain there for all the death threats, protestors etc.
Click to expand...

The truth of the matter is, joko

That college is simply confirming that the liberal racist lynch mob that is against Zimmerman, even without all of the facts, is an unpredictable group of savage animals that could erupt and cause havoc at any time.
 
Excon said:
I know.
If they are typing from there and you are seeing it here, that means they are fronting as a member.
Who do you suspect?
Click to expand...

I meant as if they were. I didn't mean it literally.
 
American said:
No, Obama beat me to it.
Click to expand...

How could you POSSIBLY say this when Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich have ALL come out with statements on the matter. Not to mention the fact that Gingrich had some pretty detailed things to say about it, and endorsed Obama's position on it...

Be real, dude.
 
OscarB63 said:
The correct response to being asked what you are doing in the area is NOT to punchthe person in the nose and smash their head into the concrete
Click to expand...

ah, but thats not what Zimmerman said.

That's the GFs story, which is completely different than the one Zim related.
 
ric27 said:
Just a small deviation from topic, but

Why was Zim expelled from Seminole State College?
Click to expand...

The college's statement:

"Due to the highly charged and high-profile controversy involving this student, Seminole State has taken the unusual but necessary step this week to withdraw Mr. Zimmerman from enrollment. This decision is based solely on our responsibility to provide for the safety of our students on campus as well as for Mr. Zimmerman."
 
If the standard is "not criminally negligent", then that raises the civil bar from "balance of probabilities" to the criminal law's "beyond reasonable doubt".
 
kenvin said:
Immoral. A law that allows the killing of minors for simply walking down the street will soon fall.
Click to expand...

Yup that's exactly what the laws says and intends. :roll:
 
Manc Skipper said:
If the standard is "not criminally negligent", then that raises the civil bar from "balance of probabilities" to the criminal law's "beyond reasonable doubt".
Click to expand...

Sounds very complex. What does this have to do with M pounding Z's head into the road surface?
 
Porchev said:
The college's statement:

"Due to the highly charged and high-profile controversy involving this student, Seminole State has taken the unusual but necessary step this week to withdraw Mr. Zimmerman from enrollment. This decision is based solely on our responsibility to provide for the safety of our students on campus as well as for Mr. Zimmerman."
Click to expand...

I see it as...catering to the ignorant masses and they will never be forced to use any other methods than intimidation to get their way.

So, its scared of the mob being whipped into a frenzy by all the blatantly irresponsible reporting of this story

Lord, this is 2012 not 1812
 
haymarket said:
What evidence is there that Martin attacked Z and not the other way around?
Click to expand...
Really?
Again with this nonsense?

You already know what the evidence is.
Zimmerman's statement.

You don't like it, so you ignore it.

Well, dwell on this while you are at it.
"The evidence and testimony we have so far does not establish that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self-defense," the police chief said. "We don't have anything to dispute his claim of self-defense, at this point, with the evidence and testimony that we have."
911 calls detail neighbors' terror during shooting of Florida teen - CNN.com
Click to expand...
 
In other news, 3 black guys shoot and kill an unarmed white guy. And 3 black guys pour gasoline on an unarmed innocent white child and no one seems to give a damn. No protests. No lynch mobs. No bounties. No speech from Obama. Nothinf
 
OscarB63 said:
In other news, 3 black guys shoot and kill an unarmed white guy. And 3 black guys pour gasoline on an unarmed innocent white child and no one seems to give a damn. No protests. No lynch mobs. No bounties. No speech from Obama. Nothinf
Click to expand...

How can we care you didn't post links?
 
ecofarm said:
But that's not the law. The law is "forcible felony".
Click to expand...
would you mind citing the source for this definition of the law? I've been reading about this and haven't come across this. I didn't see it in FLA statute 776.032




Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Feel free to ridicule me if you like, but I am entitled to my own reasonable perception [which is exactly my point. Why should YOUR reasonable perception be more important than MY reasonable perception?] Keep in mind that I've trained Martial arts for several years and have hence been in tons of "Fights." Getting punched on the ground is not that big of a deal. For as many fist fights there are in a year, I have cant recall the last time I heard of someone DYING as the consequence of a one on one fist fight. I'm sure its safer than driving a car.



That is not what is required. Again... "forcible felony".



Again... "forcible felony".



C) Don't commit battery (a forcible felony).
Click to expand...
 
OscarB63 said:
In other news, 3 black guys shoot and kill an unarmed white guy. And 3 black guys pour gasoline on an unarmed innocent white child and no one seems to give a damn. No protests. No lynch mobs. No bounties. No speech from Obama. Nothinf
Click to expand...


Yeah, and its probably because its obvious if they catch those dudes, that they will be going to jail...

The outrage isn't over the fact that some "white" guy did something to some black guy. The outrage is that it seems like the "white" guy is going to LEGALLY get away with it.

Those black guys who shot the unarmed white guy or those other black guys who burned that white guy will all go to jail if they are caught. And that is just as it should be.

What would there be to protest about?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom