• 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!

Here we go again ...

Frankly, I'd like never to hear his name again, but the damned fool is too much of a trainwreck to stay out of the news.
 
My armchair, not worth a nickel, lay opinion is that Zimmerman was/is guilty (No, I didn't follow all the arguments and yada, yada. I'm simply giving my opinion) of murdering Martin on some criminal level. Zimmerman knows this and as a result cannot live with his image of himself, regardless what the courts determined. He is thus living down to his expectation of himself. He is on a downward spiral greased by guilt.

What will happen? Either now or in the future the court system will prosecute and convict him as they did OJ.

OJ effing deserved it.
 
Last edited:
I'm more concerned with the antics of people who imagine that innocent people are murderers. They eventually sponsor genocides and pogroms.
 
Risky Thicket said:
My armchair, not worth a nickel, lay opinion is that Zimmerman was/is guilty (No, I didn't follow all the arguments and yada, yada. I'm simply giving my opinion) of murdering Martin on some criminal level. Zimmerman knows this and as a result cannot live with his image of himself, regardless what the courts determined. He is thus living down to his expectation of himself. He is on a downward spiral greased by guilt.

What will happen? Either now or in the future the court system will prosecute and convict him as they did OJ.

OJ offing deserved it.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman is singlehandely proving you are correct. His continued infractions with the law are well known and they will continue. He is a repeat offender.
Within a year he will offend again.
 
Dion said:
Sorry ... Zimmerman got away with murder and I do not think it was racist yet rather a personality disorder and criminal mind with little conscience.

What do you think of his latest antics?

I’d hate to be a former Zimmerman juror today - Salon.com
Click to expand...

I hope you aren't implying that he is guilty of anything, and that any actions in one indicate guilt in the other.
The facts of the Z case were pretty clear-no burden was met indicating murder.
 
Acting in self defense is not Murder.
And that is what the evidence shows he did. Acted in self defense.
 
Dion said:
Sorry ... Zimmerman got away with murder and I do not think it was racist yet rather a personality disorder and criminal mind with little conscience.

What do you think of his latest antics?

I’d hate to be a former Zimmerman juror today - Salon.com
Click to expand...

The evidence pointed to Zimm being innocent in the Trayvon case. The jury got that one right.

On the current situation? I believe he did it, will be found guilty and likely face some serious jail time.

I wonder if the most current situation would have occurred if not for the Trayvon martin killing and subsequent trial.

The GF says he has been very depressed and changed completely after the trial.
 
He was not found "innocent" he was found "not guilty". The difference is substantial. Innocence implies actual, factual innocence. Not guilty means that the state failed to meet the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It puzzles me that some of the same people who oppose the death penalty because "you can never be sure" seem very sure about Zimmerman's guilt.
 
X Factor said:
He was not found "innocent" he was found "not guilty". The difference is substantial. Innocence implies actual, factual innocence. Not guilty means that the state failed to meet the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It puzzles me that some of the same people who oppose the death penalty because "you can never be sure" seem very sure about Zimmerman's guilt.
Click to expand...

The "you can never be sure" axiom applies to a broad view of trials and the death penalty in general. One can still hold to the opinion that someone may in fact be guilty.
 
Cardinal said:
The "you can never be sure" axiom applies to a broad view of trials and the death penalty in general. One can still hold to the opinion that someone may in fact be guilty.
Click to expand...

By "broad view" you mean a composite of non existant cases and it's true, it's difficult to be sure when dealing with anything that's just a hypothetical. Start applying real situations and facts and you start to see that it's possible to be quite sure.
 
X Factor said:
By "broad view" you mean a composite of non existant cases
Click to expand...

What do you mean, "non existent cases?" The "you can never be sure" principle comes from the fact that verdicts have been reversed due to new evidence. It didn't pop out of someone's ass for no reason.
 
Cardinal said:
What do you mean, "non existent cases?" The "you can never be sure" principle comes from the fact that verdicts have been reversed due to new evidence. It didn't pop out of someone's ass for no reason.
Click to expand...
Can you point to any "Not Guilty" verdict being reversed? And if there are, the stats regarding such a reversal?





:doh
iLOL
 
Excon said:
Can you point to any "Not Guilty" verdict being reversed? And if there are, the stats regarding such a reversal?





:doh
iLOL
Click to expand...

Shh. Adults are talking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom