• 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.

George Zimmerman will plead guilty to Manslaughter

whysoserious said:
Holy ****... is this allowed? Can you really just make up stuff and post it like that?

Please, prove any and all of those statements.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL.. Have you ever in your life?????????
 
joko104 said:
All except #3 are irrelevant and admitting those into evidence would confirm the court was corrupt.

#3 is false on may levels and you know it. He wasn't just punched in the face. The EMT has already stated Zimmerman had serious injuries. The EMT is not the expert anyway, that is just 100% nonsense. His doctor is the expert. The EMT has testified/stated Zimmerman had blood over 45% of his head. That is all the EMT can testify to. He isn't a doctor.

Nor does it matter if his injuries were serious. It only mattered if he believed he faces imminent serious injury. He didn't have to be injured at all. A woman doesn't have to already be being raped to fight or shoot a rapist. But your logic claims she would because until she is actually being violently raped she hasn't been seriously injured. You view of it. And it is contrary to law.

You always want to point to everything that isn't law and isn't legitimate evidence. And the reasons obvious.

If you were on trial, they could call me to the stand to testify that on dozens and dozens of occasions you make race-baiting statements in which you evaluated and judged people based upon their race. According to you, that would be entirely relevant evidence.

The forum administrator and moderators could then testify that many, many times you broke forum rules over and, indicating that you won't follow rules or laws. Since you wont' follow rules of the forum, obviously you break rules of law.

It is on that type basis you think Zimmerman should be tried and judged. That is as grossly unjust and wrong as I can imagine.

I'm NOT flaming or poking at you. I'm pointing out how wrong your analysis is in terms of relevancy. Zimmerman could be a person who tells N-jokes and sent a F-U! letter to the NW Association, and it would have no relevancy as to whether or not he committed murder. Doesn't matter what an ex-girlfriend thinks of him, whether more co-workers liked or disliked him or any of that.

When there is a good case to prosecute, the prosecution sticks directly to the incident. Because you have to turn away from law trying to replace it with NW Association rules and rather than the incident have to try to slander Zimmerman by digging into his life to try to generate hatred of him, means you really don't have a legitimate case. But, then, this isn't a legitimate case. It is a political case that serves your guy Obama. And that is what this all about.

How many forum members could the call to testify, swearing that you aren't truthful? Thus, no one should believe anything you say in court? That also seems your logic.

So it really isn't that I'm pointing at you, Thunder, under your logic I could be summarily found guilty of any and all possible violent crimes of any kind (except sexual) based upon other people's opinion of me and events in my past.

I mean, really, at least 25 times you have expressed it can be presented that a person was arrested for something, even if never convicted. How extreme a police state do you want? The police can arrest anyone for anything at any time. Arrests are NEVER admissable with out conviction. But it appears you truly believe in a presumption of guilty unless literally proven innocent in trial. The mere arrest proves guilt in your view or so it seems.

A person isn't guilty in the present because of things of their past. Criminal cases - legitimate ones - have to stay directly on point. They don't and can't call in everyone to give their recount or view of every bad or good thing a person ever did in their life. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, this trial would have minimally 3000 witnesses.
Click to expand...

So by your completely subjective criteria, is it possible for a situation to exist where the defendant was fearful out of proportion to the actual danger?

If so, I may have to re-evaluate my very pro-carry stance.

I have seen WAY too many people grossly over-react to situations that weren't really serious. That EVERYBODY else knew weren't really serious. How much worse things may have turned out had those people been armed I can't say, but a couple could have been VERY bad.

If you decide to make it easy and convenient to kill by carrying, I'm gonna hold you to a high standard of behavior and judgement.

"Oops. I created a volatile situation that erupted into violence and I got scared so I shot him." is not good enough.

I think the odds are good that Z will get off. Presumption of innocence demands it barring sufficient evidence.

But its awfully easy to commit murder under the legal structure in Florida currently.

"I called his momma a whore and he punched me. I was scared so I shot him." Just doesn't sit well in the mind.

Sounds like,

"Get a gun and a concealed permit. Then you can say and do whatever you want and if anybody tries to kick your ass just shoot em and say you were scared."

And that's not what carrying is supposed to be about.
 
Jerry said:
Please link to the news article you're quoting.
Click to expand...

This thread is his opinion.

I think OMara is well aware of George's deceptions and will counsel GZ to plead, but George may be too arrogant to listen..

I think that I am an ordinary person.. and I think ordinary people will not believe GZ about Tryvon "circling", or George not knowing his street address . (GZ walked his Rottweiler there every night)

And they certainly don't believe George's account of the altercation.

Sanford detective: Trayvon Martin never used deadly force - KansasCity.com
 
What if...? said:
So by your completely subjective criteria, is it possible for a situation to exist where the defendant was fearful out of proportion to the actual danger?

If so, I may have to re-evaluate my very pro-carry stance.

I have seen WAY too many people grossly over-react to situations that weren't really serious. That EVERYBODY else knew weren't really serious. How much worse things may have turned out had those people been armed I can't say, but a couple could have been VERY bad.

If you decide to make it easy and convenient to kill by carrying, I'm gonna hold you to a high standard of behavior and judgement.

"Oops. I created a volatile situation that erupted into violence and I got scared so I shot him." is not good enough.

I think the odds are good that Z will get off. Presumption of innocence demands it barring sufficient evidence.

But its awfully easy to commit murder under the legal structure in Florida currently.

"I called his momma a whore and he punched me. I was scared so I shot him." Just doesn't sit well in the mind.

Sounds like,

"Get a gun and a concealed permit. Then you can say and do whatever you want and if anybody tries to kick your ass just shoot em and say you were scared."

And that's not what carrying is supposed to be about.
Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of world you live in, but the one I'm in tells me that. if someone punches me in the face, I'm in a fight for my life. If I lived in a RTC state and someone broke my nose, I'm not going to hope I can protect myself in hand-to-hand combat. I'm going to pull out my gun and shoot him.

The law is the law. Unfortunate accidents like this this are the rare consequences of our handgun laws. It's obvious to me that there was a physical altercation. Unless the state can prove that GZ threw the first punch, if I were on the jury, I would vote Not Guilty based on the evidence I've seen so far. If TM threw the first punch, in any court in the land, he would be guilty of assault.

It was a perfect storm. Sometimes perfect storms happen.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't know what kind of world you live in, but the one I'm in tells me that. if someone punches me in the face, I'm in a fight for my life. If I lived in a RTC state and someone broke my nose, I'm not going to hope I can protect myself in hand-to-hand combat. I'm going to pull out my gun and shoot him.

The law is the law. Unfortunate accidents like this this are the rare consequences of our handgun laws. It's obvious to me that there was a physical altercation. Unless the state can prove that GZ threw the first punch, if I were on the jury, I would vote Not Guilty based on the evidence I've seen so far. If TM threw the first punch, in any court in the land, he would be guilty of assault.

It was a perfect storm. Sometimes perfect storms happen.
Click to expand...

The investigators have determined that Trayvon did not use lethal force.. .. and in fact may have done nothing more egregious than pin him.

Wasn't that unsavory Frank Taaffe who called it a "perfect storm"? Well, it wasn't. The storm gathered in George Zimmerman's mind.

We were taught that in a physical altercation or in dealing with a bully.. we were supposed to hit them hard enough that they would think twice about getting up. In other words that first punch or kick should be a blockbuster... as in give all you got.

Lethal force (gunshot) was completely unnecessary in the George-Trayvon story. George had several opportnities to identify himself... and he knew the cops would be there shortly.

Home

The above link has all the witness statements and the 11 interviews George gave investigators.. George is a liar who is trying to make himself as victim instead of predator.
 
Jerry said:
And how much money are you putting on this 'prediction'?
Click to expand...

you are now the third person from your side, wanting to turn this debate into a money-making opportunity.

sorry Jerry, but this debate isn't droven by a profit-motive. At least not for me.
 
Last edited:
sharon said:
The investigators have determined that Trayvon did not use lethal force..
Click to expand...
You are being dishonest.
That isn't what they said.
 
Excon said:
You are being dishonest.
That isn't what they said.
Click to expand...

once again, you are merely calling someone's comment "dishonest", without any attempt whatsoever to support it.

the irony is that such a reply, is itself dishonest.
 
Thunder said:
once again, you are merely calling someone's comment "dishonest", without any attempt whatsoever to support it.

the irony is that such a reply, is itself dishonest.
Click to expand...
WTF? Wrong!
Read it again.
I clearly said that isn't what was said.

All I really have to say to her is prove it.
Since it is her claim.

So stop being ridiculous with all our dishonest, Red Herring, bs, crap.
 
Thunder said:
and are you going to support this..or just call it a lie?
Click to expand...
:doh
It is her claim, not mine.

It is up to her to support it. Not me.
 
Thunder said:
again, what does this debate have to do with money?

this whole discussion about bets & donations, is just a silly red-herring.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about, we do this for every major election and most major SCOTUS decisions. Frankly I'm surprised no one posted a book-keeping thread for ObamaCare.

You wanted to post an opinion and assert an argument on a debate forum without offering a single shred of supporting evidence to back up your thoughts. So, for the sake of your own personal credibility, how much money are you willing to donate? We also bet our avatar and signatures, typically for the period of a month.
 
Jerry said:
...You wanted to post an opinion and assert an argument on a debate forum without offering a single shred of supporting evidence to back up your thoughts.....
Click to expand...

I haven't supported my opinion with evidence?

that is a lie.

I have indeed provided evidence to support my opinion, in the OP.

And I have provided MORE evidence, that supports my opinion in the OP.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
I haven't supported my opinion with evidence?

that is a lie.

I have indeed provided evidence to support my opinion, in the OP.

And I have provided MORE evidence, that supports my opinion in the OP.
Click to expand...
The act of providing evidence is placing working links to credible 3rd party sources outside of DebatePolitics.com. There were no links of any kind in your OP, thus you did not provide any evidence at all.

We're just supposed to believe 1. you have any idea what you're talking about, 2. you're representing the facts accurately, and 3. you aren't leaving anything out. Since we're just supposed to trust your character, you need to prove your sincerity by putting up something personal as collateral: your avatar for a month, and/or your signature for a month, and/or a donation to debatepolitics.com to be placed in your opponent's name.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
The act of providing evidence is placing working links to credible 3rd party sources outside of DebatePolitics.com. There were no links of any kind in your OP, thus you did not provide any evidence at all.
Click to expand...

which claim specifically would you like me to support to your satisfaction?
 
Thunder said:
which claim specifically would you like me to support to your satisfaction?
Click to expand...
I would like you to take a quick look at Wikipedia.com. Any page will do, any topic. Note the format. Every time a claim is made, there is a link at the end of the sentence bringing the reader directly to the reference material used in making that claim or reporting a stated fact.

That is how you need to make your posts look. Each and every single time you state an opinion, report something you believe to be a fact, or make a prediction, you need to post a link to your source material each time. Your posts, especially an OP for God's sake, should be peppered with as much relevant source material as humanly possible.

Every claim you make should be immediately followed by a working link to the supporting evidence. If you want to say Pant's was stalking Hoodie, then you need to show how the State of Florida has a history of prosecuting exactly what Pants was doing. If you want to say Pant's injuries weren't severe, then you need to quote and link directly to the medical report. If you want to say some girlfriend has evidence, then you need to link directly to that evidence; not the girlfriend saying there's evidence, but directly to the evidence itself.

In short, don't even breath without posting a link for it.

So far, you can't even be bothered to try and use proper grammar and punctuation, so expecting your source material may be a bit much.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
...In short, don't even breath without posting a link for it.
Click to expand...

first of all, you need to drop the rude attitude towards me.

secondly, some things have been established, that don't need evidence to be provided for it. If you are at all familiar with this case, then you will know what is established and what is not.

thirdly, I'll provide you with evidence for my claims in the OP. But only after you agree to be civil.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
GZ's doctor says no head trauma:

Medical records: George Zimmerman had black eyes, painful broken nose but no head trauma - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

the claim about the EMTs was from Sharon, so I'll just go by the doctor's report instead
Click to expand...
Let us dispatch with this one immediately.

But the physician’s assistant who treated him determined he neither needed X-rays nor had he suffered head trauma, newly released medical records show.​



Did you get that?

Good.

Next!
 
Thunder said:
first of all, you need to drop the rude attitude towards me.
Click to expand...

Begin your sentences with a capitol letter and I'll think about it.

Thunder said:
secondly, some things have been established, that don't need evidence to be provided for it. If you are at all familiar with this case, then you will know what is established and what is not.
Click to expand...

See that's a problem everyone, in any issue, faces: there are always new people who aren't up-to-speed with the story. If you make 1 well sourced statement on a point, save it on a word doc so you don't have to go through all the trouble the next time it comes up, and it will come up again. You simply open the doc, look for the statement, and paste it into a post. I do this all the time with abortion and gun control. Captain Courtesy I believe has the largest single saved response of all of us, as he has a 4-post long comprehensive report on gays raising children. This is a common tool used in online debate.

Go through the effort to make a well sourced point, and then save it. Do this for each point, and save them all for repeat use.

Thunder said:
thirdly, I'll provide you with evidence for my claims in the OP. But only after you agree to be civil.
Click to expand...

Or what? You'll stomp your foot and refuse to prove your argument? Your debate opponent's job is to falsify everything you say one way or another, so if you don't step up and defend your statements you're just doing our job for us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom