• 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.

What Happened?

bunch of biased idiocy taking place here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

That is probably the most unbiased and complete account of what we know in one spot.

You want to know what happened look it up. If you are basing anything on summaries from people who use opinionated tellings like you see above you will become as uneducated and ignorant as the ones who posted it.
 
bunch of biased idiocy taking place here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

That is probably the most unbiased and complete account of what we know in one spot.

You want to know what happened look it up. If you are basing anything on summaries from people who use opinionated tellings like you see above you will become as uneducated and ignorant as the ones who posted it.

Wiki is a notoriously uncredible source for anything. That is why higher education all but outlaws it as a source for any research.
 
that man stalked him in a car and on foot.

he then refused to tell him why he was following him.

he then reached into his pocket.

Florida has LOTS of gun-owners, and Martin reasaobly feared that the strange man who was stalking him, was reaching for a weapon.

turns out..he indeed had a deadly weapon in his possession, and used it to kill Martin.

For a minute, let's assume everything you said is factual and relevant, and Martin resonably feared for his life, that's why he assaulted Zimmerman, therefore Martin's actions were in self defense.

Even with all of that true, Zimmerman's shooting of Martin is still justified under Florida law because of the fact that Zimmerman clearly "gave up" and wanted the altercation to end, as his repeated cries for help indicated. When a person does that, Florida law states that the aggressor (Martin at that point) no longer has the right to continue the assault. If he does continue, which in this case he did, Zimmerman now becomes the victim who has the right to defend himself, and do so with deadly force if he is in fear for his life or of suffering great bodily harm.
 
Wiki is a notoriously uncredible source for anything. That is why higher education all but outlaws it as a source for any research.

Are you able to find a more complete unbiased account of the entire case in one place? Wiki may not be perfect but it is the best we have on this. everything else is scattered and heavily opinioned.
 
For the record, I read about the case in the Plain Dealer -- who most likely reprinted AP articles.
 
For a minute, let's assume everything you said is factual and relevant, and Martin resonably feared for his life, that's why he assaulted Zimmerman, therefore Martin's actions were in self defense.

Even with all of that true, Zimmerman's shooting of Martin is still justified under Florida law because of the fact that Zimmerman clearly "gave up" and wanted the altercation to end, as his repeated cries for help indicated. When a person does that, Florida law states that the aggressor (Martin at that point) no longer has the right to continue the assault. If he does continue, which in this case he did, Zimmerman now becomes the victim who has the right to defend himself, and do so with deadly force if he is in fear for his life or of suffering great bodily harm.

This is only true if Martin perceived that Zimmerman had retreated and was not in fear for his life. Given that Martin died, this will not be easy to prove.

This stupidity of this situation should be obvious -- two law-abiding people end up in a deadly confrontation because one believed he had the right to control the movements of the other within his neighborhood.
 
This is only true if Martin perceived that Zimmerman had retreated and was not in fear for his life. Given that Martin died, this will not be easy to prove.

Sure it will... The closest eye witness confirms this, as does the audio from a 911 call which Zimmerman's cries can clearly be heard.

This stupidity of this situation should be obvious -- two law-abiding people end up in a deadly confrontation because one believed he had the right to control the movements of the other within his neighborhood.

Assuming you are talking about Zimmerman, what evidence have you uncovered that supports that statement?
 
Are you able to find a more complete unbiased account of the entire case in one place? Wiki may not be perfect but it is the best we have on this. everything else is scattered and heavily opinioned.

I havent researched it. I'm waiting for the trial. Wiki is the easiest, not the best out there. I'm sure that if you plunk in "timeline" or "summary" you'll find what you're looking for.
 
For the record, I read about the case in the Plain Dealer -- who most likely reprinted AP articles.

I strongly recomend Wikipedia on this one... Even thunder, one of the most steadfast and unwaivering Martin supporters agrees that their page on this incident is the best out there.

What you may not know is, nearly every single news article that came out prior to mid-June, was riddled with misinformation, which the wiki page has removed.
 
I'll wait for the trial.

All I can conclude thus far is (1) it was a regrettable and avoidable loss of life and (2) "stand your ground" is a bad law.
 
Normally, I would tend to agree with you, but not in this case. The proof is in the pudding, so why don't you take a look for yourself.

Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I have looked at it. The article is loaded with biased opinion. Here are a few examples:

George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old multi-racial Hispanic American

While in his vehicle on a private errand, Zimmerman noticed Martin walking inside the community. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's behavior as suspicious, largely he says because Martin was "cutting in-between houses, and he was walking very leisurely for the [rainy] weather."
The source for that last statement: Zimmerman tells Hannity: ‘No regrets’ over his actions in Trayvon Martin shooting | theGrio

Zimmerman tells Hannity: ‘No regrets’ over his actions in Trayvon Martin shooting
Nowhere is Zimmerman quoted for that in the wiki article. That part of the article is given as a second person account when in fact it came from Zimmerman on right-wing radio. The second source is Fox News.

When police arrived on the scene, Zimmerman told them that Martin had attacked him and that he had shot Martin in self-defense.[2]
Nowhere in the source does that line appear.

Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and from two vertical lacerations on the back of his head.
Again, an allegation made by Zimmerman and not a fact of the incident.

Yeah, wiki is a horrible source for anything. So I avoid it like a snake.
 
I have looked at it. The article is loaded with biased opinion. Here are a few examples:

George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old multi-racial Hispanic American

While in his vehicle on a private errand, Zimmerman noticed Martin walking inside the community. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's behavior as suspicious, largely he says because Martin was "cutting in-between houses, and he was walking very leisurely for the [rainy] weather."

The source for that last statement: Zimmerman tells Hannity: ‘No regrets’ over his actions in Trayvon Martin shooting | theGrio

What in the hell is biased or opinionated about that? Those were George Zimmerman's stated reasons for why he felt the need to call police.

Nowhere is Zimmerman quoted for that in the wiki article. That part of the article is given as a second person account when in fact it came from Zimmerman on right-wing radio. The second source is Fox News.

What is opinionate or biased about it?

Nowhere in the source does that line appear.

Why should it? The wiki article is stating the known facts and events in the case, not compiling sound bites.


Again, an allegation made by Zimmerman and not a fact of the incident.

Are you joking?

This from ABC News:

Two police officers reported that when they arrived at the scene of the shooting, Zimmerman seemed to have a battered nose and bloodied face. One wrote that his "facial area was bloodied," and the back of his clothing was soiled with wet grass.

"Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head," Officer Ricardo Ayala wrote.

Another officer wrote, "I saw that Zimmerman's face was bloodied and it appeared to me that his nose was broken."​

I don't know what in the hell you are trying to pull here, or why... All I know is you're full of crap.
 
What in the hell is biased or opinionated about that? Those were George Zimmerman's stated reasons for why he felt the need to call police.



What is opinionate or biased about it?



Why should it? The wiki article is stating the known facts and events in the case, not compiling sound bites.




Are you joking?

This from ABC News:

Two police officers reported that when they arrived at the scene of the shooting, Zimmerman seemed to have a battered nose and bloodied face. One wrote that his "facial area was bloodied," and the back of his clothing was soiled with wet grass.

"Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head," Officer Ricardo Ayala wrote.

Another officer wrote, "I saw that Zimmerman's face was bloodied and it appeared to me that his nose was broken."​

I don't know what in the hell you are trying to pull here, or why... All I know is you're full of crap.

(chuckle)

Uh, slow down. Please reread my post: objectively and carefully. Look at the lines in the article and actually click on the little numbers that are links to the bibliography. The injury that were fund on Zimmerman are "alledged" to have come from Martin; I've seen nothing that proves that they were indeed inflicted by Martin, so . . .

No, you asked me about the wiki article, so I went through it and pointed out its weaknesses.
 
(chuckle)

Uh, slow down. Please reread my post: objectively and carefully. Look at the lines in the article and actually click on the little numbers that are links to the bibliography. The injury that were fund on Zimmerman are "alledged" to have come from Martin; I've seen nothing that proves that they were indeed inflicted by Martin, so . . .

No, you asked me about the wiki article, so I went through it and pointed out its weaknesses.

From a legal standpoint doesn't the word "alledged" have to be used because certain points have not been proven/ruled in a court of law.
The Tucson shooter is alledged to have shot Giffords and others, the Colorado shooter has alledgedly shot people.
Even killers caught in the act are alledged to have committed the crime till they court case is finalized and they are found guilty.
 
(chuckle)

Uh, slow down. Please reread my post: objectively and carefully. Look at the lines in the article and actually click on the little numbers that are links to the bibliography. The injury that were fund on Zimmerman are "alledged" to have come from Martin; I've seen nothing that proves that they were indeed inflicted by Martin, so . .

You must be joking?
 
From a legal standpoint doesn't the word "alledged" have to be used because certain points have not been proven/ruled in a court of law.
The Tucson shooter is alledged to have shot Giffords and others, the Colorado shooter has alledgedly shot people.
Even killers caught in the act are alledged to have committed the crime till they court case is finalized and they are found guilty.



Yes, and in objective reporting the world "alleged" is also used: it's proper and keeps the story onbjective. In the wiki article however, you don't find that, but you do find sources like Hannity and Fox News, adn you find Zimmerman's story of "alleged" actions being reported as though they were second person reproting sme kinds of facts. No, wiki delivers an instant "F" in higher education. The story that we're talking bout is only the tip of the iceberg.
 
GZ was not supposed to be packing OR approaching possible subjects, according to the guidelines, for watch-persons, of his type, per their national organization. But GZ was a self-appointed watch-captain, which may have played a part, in the decision to fire former SPD Chief Bill Lee.

"We don't need you to do that," said Dee Dee the dispatcher, but GZ got out of his car, followed Martin, failed to identify himself, TWICE, failed to defuse the situation, shot Martin, DEAD, without wounding or warning Martin, with the fatal instrument, and then GZ LIED, to SPD and anybody else he talked to, in any several interviews.

GZ LIED, since he has to explain, why Martin had no wounds on his hands and why Martin's body was found face down, partly on the sidewalk, partly on the grass, and NO GUNSHOT RESIDUE WAS FOUND, on GZ's red jacket.

This is problematic, since GZ variously claims he was attacked, sometimes by a blow, sometimes by a lot of blows, sometimes with head-smashing, which the SPD lead detective didn't believe, since GZ's wounds look fabricated and superficial.

According to inference, from GZ's stories, he should have shot Martin, while Martin was on top of him, but this couldn't have happened, with the gun at an odd angle, and GZ being under Martin, WITHOUT A WHOLE LOT OF GSR GETTING ON GZ's RED JACKET.

So GZ lies, and lies, and LIES, trying to figure out a way, he should have not waited, for the SPD, to come interview Martin, whom GZ approached and shot dead, as a clear violation, of Martin's civil rights, by holding his gun, at arm's length, to shoot Martin, right up against his chest, while holding his flashlight-keychain, which was found right by Martin's body.

This is a sound murder-2 case, complicated by general negligence and a cover-up, by SPD and by former Chief Lee.
 
GZ was not supposed to be packing OR approaching possible subjects, according to the guidelines, for watch-persons, of his type, per their national organization. But GZ was a self-appointed watch-captain, which may have played a part, in the decision to fire former SPD Chief Bill Lee.

"We don't need you to do that," said Dee Dee the dispatcher, but GZ got out of his car, followed Martin, failed to identify himself, TWICE, failed to defuse the situation, shot Martin, DEAD, without wounding or warning Martin, with the fatal instrument, and then GZ LIED, to SPD and anybody else he talked to, in any several interviews.

GZ LIED, since he has to explain, why Martin had no wounds on his hands and why Martin's body was found face down, partly on the sidewalk, partly on the grass, and NO GUNSHOT RESIDUE WAS FOUND, on GZ's red jacket.

This is problematic, since GZ variously claims he was attacked, sometimes by a blow, sometimes by a lot of blows, sometimes with head-smashing, which the SPD lead detective didn't believe, since GZ's wounds look fabricated and superficial.

According to inference, from GZ's stories, he should have shot Martin, while Martin was on top of him, but this couldn't have happened, with the gun at an odd angle, and GZ being under Martin, WITHOUT A WHOLE LOT OF GSR GETTING ON GZ's RED JACKET.

So GZ lies, and lies, and LIES, trying to figure out a way, he should have not waited, for the SPD, to come interview Martin, whom GZ approached and shot dead, as a clear violation, of Martin's civil rights, by holding his gun, at arm's length, to shoot Martin, right up against his chest, while holding his flashlight-keychain, which was found right by Martin's body.

This is a sound murder-2 case, complicated by general negligence and a cover-up, by SPD and by former Chief Lee.


^ If you read the threads on these topics they show how inaccurate and off you are.

There is one other member on the forum who believes that the police, EMTs and his doctor all used stage makeup for fake injuries. Everyone else understands the extreme desperation and irrationality of such a claim.
 
I just, can't understand, why some people, can't do, a little reading, on the topic. Why, are they, afraid of, a more unbiased, look at the, evidence, from, a place like wikipedia?
 
Back
Top Bottom