• 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 decided this case for you?

Zimmerman didn't disobey the dispatcher, he was already out of the car and at the the east end of the complex, answered "okay" and was headed back to his truck when confronted by TM.

ah no he was still on the phone for another minute, maybe longer.
 
I agree with a lot of what you've stated above... in general. It would be hard for me (5"9' 200lb, trained in Muay Thai) to claim self-defense when all I suffered was a broken nose and a few scrapes on my scalp. Zimmerman was a bouncers wasn't he? Doesn't that weaken his claim to self-defense, same as it would us?

Here's a question... when does the defendants claim generate doubt for you? What would have to be proven false for you to doubt Zimmerman's claims to how the events took place?


He claimed the fight took place somewhere it could not have. Martin has none of Zimmerman's DNA on him. Zimmerman has no defensive wounds. Half a dozen witness and no one saw Martin "raining punches MMA style". Is that not enough to doubt Zimmerman's claim of how the encounter took place?

Just to note, no defensive wounds and the only damage Zimmerman's face really sustained was a broken nose after have more than a dozen punches coming down on his face. As someone who's been in a lot of fights, you must admit that doesn't jive. No additional swelling? No where? Really? The kid broke his nose with one punch, but couldn't even swell up his eye or bust his lip with more than dozen uncontested punches from a full mount? Come on bro...

It would indeed bring doubt to anyone's claim of self defense living on the planet Earth...with the exception of George Zimmerman. When you are working under God's Plan, reasonable stuff like that goes out the window. Just ask any Zimmer-supporter:lol:
 
I agree with a lot of what you've stated above... in general. It would be hard for me (5"9' 200lb, trained in Muay Thai) to claim self-defense when all I suffered was a broken nose and a few scrapes on my scalp. Zimmerman was a bouncers wasn't he? Doesn't that weaken his claim to self-defense, same as it would us?

Here's a question... when does the defendants claim generate doubt for you? What would have to be proven false for you to doubt Zimmerman's claims to how the events took place?

He claimed the fight took place somewhere it could not have. Martin has none of Zimmerman's DNA on him. Zimmerman has no defensive wounds. Half a dozen witness and no one saw Martin "raining punches MMA style". Is that not enough to doubt Zimmerman's claim of how the encounter took place?

Just to note, no defensive wounds and the only damage Zimmerman's face really sustained was a broken nose after have more than a dozen punches coming down on his face. As someone who's been in a lot of fights, you must admit that doesn't jive. No additional swelling? No where? Really? The kid broke his nose with one punch, but couldn't even swell up his eye or bust his lip with more than dozen uncontested punches from a full mount? Come on bro...

The early media twisted things as much as possible. GZ was never a bouncer. He was a guy who stood at the door at a couple block parties.

The line "no defense wounds?" I don't even know what that means. Few men I broke up would had any "defensive" wounds. I think the facts show that from the start of slamming him into the nose knocking him down, from that point TM continued to kick GZ's ass.

You are sort of new in here so what I write is redundant. Before any autopsy or forensics, I speculated that by the injuries TM was not slugging GZ, but slamming him with the palm of his hand and that in wrestling with GZ on the ground his head hitting the ground would lead him to believe he was hit, when he mabye wasn't.

I'm not just arguing to argue. Not since my youth - that was more violent and in ways that no one would likely even believe - did anyone ever get me on the ground and on top of me. If anyone ever had, was was still on me, were I to have a gun I absolutely would have shot because I would know that person truly powerful enough to kill me and quickly do so.

It is an interesting question you ask, though. Really. "What fact would convince me GZ was guilty?" I suppose I should then ask you want "fact" would convince you there is not enough evidence for a guilty verdict?

Within known facts? I suppose if it could be shown that TM was shouting "let me go!" and GZ was holding his shirt while going for his gun. While there IS some evidence to suggest something like that may have happened, there is no evidence that it certainly did. IF that evidence existed, I would go with manslaughter, not murder, as I would figure GZ acted in emotional panic defensively not to really kill. But that action would fall outside of reasonableness.

IF it could be shown, with the above proven too, that GZ also threw the first punch, then M2.

Again, you're new so this a repeat statement and perspective:

I've seen SO much unlimited and sadistic motivated violence against totally innocent victims by every measure and fully helpless and targets for that violent only for sadistic reasons, that I've often stated that if two men (and I count TM as a "man") both deliberately or stupidly proactively walk into potential conflict that then evolves to a fight - and somehow a gun enters that picture legally - it now is entirely between them. However it ends, it ends. I won't cry for either. Such is how it is between men. I would feel the same way about this if with the same known facts TM had gotten the gun and shot GZ. The few moments before that, it all but certain one or the other would be shot. Just a question of who. That is a lofty way for me to say by the time it reached that point, I don't give a damn if either or both died because it was just between them - and BOTH of them could have avoided it by just going on their way.

To spend millions and millions of dollars to try to micro figure what happened when TMs, GZs, nor anyone elses brain operates at that micro calculations level particularly in the extreme stress of violence is absurd in that doing so is fully detached from the realities of what it is to be human.

"Dead men tell no tales." That's just how it is. All the pscyho-analysis, proving GZ's memory isn't as accurate as a video camera, or that he's hedging his story to cover his ass - which virtually every person on earth would do in my opinion - does not change the fact that we don't know what happened. I think facts show a plausible - thus beyond reasonable doubt - claim of self defense. Therefore, that should lead to a verdict of not-guilty because there is not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is. Would that mean a murderer walks? Very possibly. That's how it works. A finding of not-guilty does not prove he's not guilty at all, just that it could not be proven he is.

I acknowledge that my indifferent to the outcome of violent conflicts between men who proactively entered into that conflict may taint my analysis. If as a man you enter into a conflict that may lead to violence, don't cry for others sympathy if it doesn't go your way. That's just how I "feel" about it.

I appreciate the reasoning of your messages, though in disagreement. They are thoughtful and real - increasingly rare on these topics.
 
Last edited:
I'll probably never agree with joko104, but at least he had something interesting to say. You're saying nothing and acting as if it's worthwhile commentary.

Apparently, your understand of self defense is severely lacking. Just because you're afraid you're going to be killed does not automatically give you the right to kill someone else. Once you understand that, you'll see why my points are valid.

Your points are useless because you don't know what, the central issue is....

Its not about whether Z could have done something or said something to prevent M from physically assaulting Z.

Again, whats the pivotal point in a self defense case?
 
It's self defense just based on what the witness John said. There's no doubt his "MMA style punches" testimony is the truth. When John told detective Serino what he saw, everything was fresh on his mind because the assault happened merely a few hours before. John also mentions that the "concrete hurts" meaning he saw Martin pounding Zimmerman on the concrete, which is consistent with what Zimmerman said.

Here's a good video comparing what John told Fox News and what Zimmerman said in his reenactment:

Notice how both stories are an exact match.

As for Zimmerman being the aggressor, there's no evidence of this. According to "Dee Dee" Martin was right by his house. Guy should have just went inside. If not, he should have went to a neighbors house and asked for help. If not, he should have called the police from his cell. He did none of those things. The evidence shows he went back to confront Zimmerman, which makes him the aggressor.

All that said, even if you could prove GZ was the aggressor based on Florida Statute 776.041 he could regain his right to self defense provided he tried to extricate himself from the altercation, was not able to do so, and felt he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Based on what witness John said, GZ was struggling to free himself just prior to the shot being fired, it appears that GZ would meet the requirements in this statute and be justified in his use of force.
 
Yes, GZ did state TM started running before he left his vehicle...then he said TM was not running but skipping...then he said TM was just walking...

I am certain the defense will not propose a scenario which will help the prosecution:lol:

We must be viewing two separate incidents.
 
Most of the discussion on this thread is minutia, the pross won't deny that TM approached GZ, was first to swing, decked GZ to the ground nor that he got on top of him and pounded his head in the cement.

It's not central to their case.
 
Parts of Zimmerman's statements at times were confusing and contradictory and won't help him at trial. Particularly since the def will never call him to the stand so he won't get a chance to clarify them. But nothing will change the fact that from the evidence we have seen Martin failed to return to the safety of the Green house when he had the chance, he approached Z first and then threw the first punch.
 
Parts of Zimmerman's statements at times were confusing and contradictory and won't help him at trial. Particularly since the def will never call him to the stand so he won't get a chance to clarify them. But nothing will change the fact that from the evidence we have seen Martin failed to return to the safety of the Green house when he had the chance, he approached Z first and then threw the first punch.

Not according to DeeDee's account and the police investigation never came to that conclusion. But since it does not help GZ's case, you disregard it.

Why is GZ's account of what happened so infallible to his congregation? Is the power of God that strong within him? Am I going to hell if I do not convert?
 
I view this whole thing is a terry schiavo moment. The nation got interested in a local issue and should have minded their own business.
 
Not according to DeeDee's account and the police investigation never came to that conclusion. But since it does not help GZ's case, you disregard it.

Why is GZ's account of what happened so infallible to his congregation? Is the power of God that strong within him? Am I going to hell if I do not convert?

You are all over the page with this nonsense plus, you don't have a clue

Makes you look foolish....Give it a rest

Just for the record...based on the factual evidence *thats what you should focus on*

DeeDee wasn't there so her insight or judgment of M's state of mind mean SQUAT from the facts as seen and heard by witnesses who were there.
 
Not according to DeeDee's account and the police investigation never came to that conclusion. But since it does not help GZ's case, you disregard it.

Why is GZ's account of what happened so infallible to his congregation? Is the power of God that strong within him? Am I going to hell if I do not convert?

That is completely false. Dee first time concluding TM's phone went silence because GZ must have shoved TM is nothing. Just as much speculation as any of us could speculate. But apparently you believe if you post 100 times as a truism, then somehow what she heard converts to eye sight.

Yes, anti-GZ people like to sneer at religious people because you are convinced you are superior to 80+% of the population as their intellectual superiors. But, then, I suppose some religious people share your bigotries against them against you.
 
Dee Dee's account will hurt the pross as she confirms it was TM who first confronted Zimm via "Why you following me?"...or something like that. In fact, Dee Dee could not have known who threw the first punch, she just assumed it was Zimm because she was reading between the blunts and/or it fits the Martin family meme.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand Dee Dee's testimony will be effective in solidifying that the actions of Zimm made TM nervous, then fearful and that was the reason he ran.

Seriously, he was an obese (physicians statement) hispanic sitting in a car with a cell phone. WTF is there to be fearful of? Oh ya, blunts and cops.
 
On the other hand Dee Dee's testimony will be effective in solidifying that the actions of Zimm made TM nervous, then fearful and that was the reason he ran.

Seriously, he was an obese (physicians statement) hispanic sitting in a car with a cell phone. WTF is there to be fearful of? Oh ya, blunts and cops.

Clearly an exaggeration, or was this back in 2005?

Link to statement?

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4fe35bf369bedd3155000004-400-300/george-zimmerman-reenactment-video.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom