• 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.

First George Zimmerman Trial Subpoena Goes Out [W:72]

Amadeus said:
Thank you for admitting that. I am not arguing that people don't have a right to bear arms and defend themselves, but such power can lead to poor decision-making. In my personal opinion, Zimmerman was a little man who felt empowered by his gun.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't have a clue on self defense issues

There's no evidence of Z provoking M's attack.
 
ric27 said:
Apparently, you don't have a clue on self defense issues

There's no evidence of Z provoking M's attack.
Click to expand...

Of course. Stand your ground only applies to the guy with the gun.
 
Amadeus said:
Why do you assume in the opposite direction?

What we do know is that Martin wasn't looking for trouble. He was not intent on causing trouble. Trouble found him. Even if Martin assaulted Zimmerman first, the incident would not have occurred were it not for Zimmerman's actions that night.

Legally? Zimmerman walks.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what was or wasn't on T's mind that night. You "know" nothing. Is DD lying when she swore under oath that T told her he was going to go "beat[George's ass"?] That doesn't sound like someone who was not intent on causing trouble.
Why do you suppose that T's cell tower map shows him "a significant distance" 'off-course' from any reasonably direct route from the store back to the complex. (Like an eighth of a mile). Don't try to tell me T was just out at night in the dark in the rain practicing for his 'Gene Kelly' role in the upcoming MIT musical production club of 'Singing In The Rain'. I don't buy it.
 
niff said:
You have no idea what was or wasn't on T's mind that night. You "know" nothing.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume malicious intent other than out of bias?

Is DD lying when she swore under oath that T told her he was going to go "beat[George's ass"?] That doesn't sound like someone who was not intent on causing trouble.
Click to expand...

If someone was blatantly following me for no reason, I would assume an aggressive-defensive posture. There are a lot of crazies out there.

Why do you suppose that T's cell tower map shows him "a significant distance" 'off-course' from any reasonably direct route from the store back to the complex. (Like an eighth of a mile). Don't try to tell me T was just out at night in the dark in the rain practicing for his 'Gene Kelly' role in the upcoming MIT musical production club of 'Singing In The Rain'. I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

Why does he have to have a motive other than passing through the neighbourhood? Seems like the only person with an agenda was Zimmerman.
 
Amadeus said:
Why would you assume malicious intent other than out of bias?



If someone was blatantly following me for no reason, I would assume an aggressive-defensive posture. There are a lot of crazies out there.



Why does he have to have a motive other than passing through the neighbourhood? Seems like the only person with an agenda was Zimmerman.
Click to expand...
If some one was "blatantly" following me and I was a few yards from where I was staying the only posture I would assume is on the effing couch.
 
niff said:
If some one was "blatantly" following me and I was a few yards from where I was staying the only posture I would assume is on the effing couch.
Click to expand...

Whatever that means.
 
niff said:
If some one was "blatantly" following me and I was a few yards from where I was staying the only posture I would assume is on the effing couch.
Click to expand...
Why would you claim to "know" what was on T's mind if not to conform with your own bias/agenda? Works both ways my friend.
 
niff said:
Why would you claim to "know" what was on T's mind if not to conform with your own bias/agenda? Works both ways my friend.
Click to expand...

Because I don't assume that people are malicious by their outward appearance. The burden is on you to prove that someone is a bad guy.
 
Amadeus said:
Whatever that means.
Click to expand...

Too tough for you? I'll try again: YOU used the words "Aggressive-defensive posture". Whatever the hell that means. Is it like some Karate move? Anyway. I suggested that if some one was "blatantly" following me and all I had to do was walk a couple of yards and go into where I was staying and lock the door then assume a 'sitting on the couch posture' that would have been the more sensible thing to do rather than, as DD swore under oath T told her he was going to go "beat [George's ass]. Which decision do you think you'd advise a young Black man to make....in the dark....in the rain......in a neighborhood he did not normally live in?
If you're still having trouble understanding my post I'll be happy to rephrase it for you. We all need to 'follow the bouncing ball' right.
 
niff said:
I suggested that if some one was "blatantly" following me and all I had to do was walk a couple of yards and go into where I was staying and lock the door then assume a 'sitting on the couch posture' that would have been the more sensible thing to do rather than, as DD swore under oath T told her he was going to go "beat [George's ass]. Which decision do you think you'd advise a young Black man to make....in the dark....in the rain......in a neighborhood he did not normally live in?
Click to expand...

Once again, stand your ground only applies to the non-black guy carrying a gun. Funny how that works out.
 
Amadeus said:
Because I don't assume that people are malicious by their outward appearance. The burden is on you to prove that someone is a bad guy.
Click to expand...

And you are completely missing to germane point: Whatever/whoever T/George were or were not is irrelevant in a court of law. The ONLY relevant issue is did T violently attack a stranger by first 'sucker-punching' the stranger and then 'climbed aboard' when George hit the ground and proceed to bang George's head against the concrete which caused George to fear for his life and in response George shot his attacker causing T to 'get dead'.
All the evidence points to the affirmative.
You and the other 'T-Boners' here can WANT/cry/scream/beg/plead/assume/lie/make **** up all you want to but your little Black cherub 'got dead' because he committed a felony assault against a stranger with a gun.
 
niff said:
And you are completely missing to germane point: Whatever/whoever T/George were or were not is irrelevant in a court of law.
Click to expand...

I already said that Zimmerman walks, so your legal argument is not with me.
 
niff said:
If some one was "blatantly" following me and I was a few yards from where I was staying the only posture I would assume is on the effing couch.
Click to expand...

Of course! No reasonable person would think to ask the person following them "Why are you following me."

It just doesn't make sense:lamo
 
JackFrost said:
Of course! No reasonable person would think to ask the person following them "Why are you following me."

It just doesn't make sense:lamo
Click to expand...


*1* Asking someone and *2* beating the **** outta someone without adequate provocation are 2 different scenarios

M went with option 2....his fatal option
 
ric27 said:
*1* Asking someone and *2* beating the **** outta someone without adequate provocation are 2 different scenarios

M went with option 2....his fatal option
Click to expand...

Are you claiming he did not ask something along those lines before a physical altercation took place?
 
JackFrost said:
Of course! No reasonable person would think to ask the person following them "Why are you following me."
Click to expand...

It's not unreasonable to assume malicious intent when being followed at night.
 
JackFrost said:
Are you claiming he did not ask something along those lines before a physical altercation took place?
Click to expand...


M could ask whatever, he wanted *even shout obscenities*.....all perfectly legal but, the minute he laid hands on Z without adequate provocation....M became a criminal (felonious A/B)
 
Amadeus said:
It's not unreasonable to assume malicious intent when being followed at night.
Click to expand...

That's where you are in complete error

You need evidence not assumptions of malicious intent
 
ric27 said:
That's where you are in complete error

You need evidence not assumptions of malicious intent
Click to expand...

We are not talking about the law. We are talking about an emotional response triggered by the situation.
 
Amadeus said:
We are not talking about the law. We are talking about an emotional response triggered by the situation.
Click to expand...

If that's what you think...then, you are on the wrong forum

Criminal cases are about clear and convincing evidence
 
ric27 said:
If that's what you think...then, you are on the wrong forum

Criminal cases are about clear and convincing evidence
Click to expand...

No, I'm in the right forum. I'm just not making a legal argument.
 
Amadeus said:
Why do you assume in the opposite direction?

What we do know is that Martin wasn't looking for trouble. He was not intent on causing trouble.
.
Click to expand...

we don't "know" that. just another assumption. only Martin himself "knew" whether or not he was looking for trouble
 
JackFrost said:
Are you claiming he did not ask something along those lines before a physical altercation took place?
Click to expand...

no, W8 is making that claim.
 
Amadeus said:
It's not unreasonable to assume malicious intent when being followed at night.
Click to expand...

and it's not unreasonable to be in fear for your life/safety when someone is sitting on top of you pounding your head against the ground :shrug:
 
JackFrost said:
George Zimmerman trial subpoena - OrlandoSentinel.com

Oh yeah, can't wait for it to start, so exited.

Anyone else going to use up vacation time? I got a little over three weeks left, so I can use at least two for trial. It will be like paradise in my living room. Me, DP peeps, and the George Zimmerman trial live.

It looks like Jeffrey Morales, custodian of records at the Seminole County Jail, may have heard or seen George Zimmerman do something naughty:lol:
Click to expand...

JackFrost!! You will become our resident expert!!

The only trial I ever sat through was OJ Simpson's -- saw most of it on TV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom