• 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.

Marijuana, fights, guns: Zimmerman loses key pretrial battles

ric27 said:
Just like the rest of us....to defend ourselves against criminals aka felonious assault
Click to expand...

There was no felonious assault. If Zimmerman did not murder him, Martin would have entered a...pretrial diversion program (or equivalent):cool:
 
JackFrost said:
There was no felonious assault. If Zimmerman did not murder him, Martin would have entered a...pretrial diversion program (or equivalent):cool:
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue
 
sharon said:
You can't hold George accountable for creating the situation, can you?
Click to expand...

In order for that to happen, you must have evidence that demonstrates...Z was/is the aggressor. That Z provoked M's use of force against him.

Do you have....such evidence?
 
sharon said:
You can't hold George accountable for creating the situation, can you?
Click to expand...

please describe the situation you insist zimmerman created
 
ric27 said:
In order for that to happen, you must have evidence that demonstrates...Z was/is the aggressor. That Z provoked M's use of force against him.

Do you have....such evidence?
Click to expand...
If I thought that I was being followed in the dark where I would not expect to be followed I would, and have, walked in a loop to confirm the potential aggressive situation. If my follower had decided who I was, as Z has informed us, as some kind of target, my follower has asked for a response from me. My follower better have not decided that I'm one of those that always get away, and better address me in a non-threating way. In the M & Z situation, Z ended up with minor injuries in an incident that Z initiated. If he shot M as they were struggling, powder burns on both, and his gun was pulled out during the fight with both on the ground I would think minor charges against Z would be appropriate. But, if M was shot when standing over Z it's a murder case.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
If I thought that I was being followed in the dark where I would not expect to be followed I would, and have, walked in a loop to confirm the potential aggressive situation. If my follower had decided who I was, as Z has informed us, as some kind of target, my follower has asked for a response from me. My follower better have not decided that I'm one of those that always get away, and better address me in a non-threating way. In the M & Z situation, Z ended up with minor injuries in an incident that Z initiated. If he shot M as they were struggling, powder burns on both, and his gun was pulled out during the fight with both on the ground I would think minor charges against Z would be appropriate. But, if M was shot when standing over Z it's a murder case.
Click to expand...

what needs to be shown is why would anyone (GZ) intent on killing someone first call the police?
why would anyone (GZ) allow someone to get close to them, get in a struggle before shooting if the intent was murder?

If anyone (GZ) had skills in fighting, LE, weapons, why would they let a smaller opponent get the best of them/
 
mike2810 said:
what needs to be shown is why would anyone (GZ) intent on killing someone first call the police?
Click to expand...
Because there was real premeditation. I'm not thinking it was premeditated murder. Just preparation, i.e. carry a gun so when he followed the ones that always get away he be able to protect himself.
why would anyone (GZ) allow someone to get close to them, get in a struggle before shooting if the intent was murder?
Click to expand...
Because there was no real premeditation. There is no reason yet to think that the intent was premeditated murder.
If anyone (GZ) had skills in fighting, LE, weapons, why would they let a smaller opponent get the best of them/
Click to expand...
Because they were stupid about what they were doing. When you follow someone, that you think is up to no good, in the dark, in a way that will make the person you are following defensive, you are stupid and not properly prepared (carrying a gun is not sufficient preparation), if you get yourself knocked down.
 
Last edited:
OhIsee.Then said:
Because there was real premeditation. I'm not thinking it was premeditated murder. Just preparation, i.e. carry a gun so when he followed the ones that always get away he be able to protect himself.

Because there was no real premeditation. There is no reason yet to think that the intent was premeditated murder.

Because they were stupid about what they were doing. When you follow someone, that you think is up to no good, in the dark, in a way that will make the person you are following defensive, you are stupid and not properly prepared (carrying a gun is not sufficient preparation) if you get yourself knocked down.
Click to expand...
i have seen this line of 'reasoning' in a number of incarnations
that zimmerman was wrong for monitoring the location of martin, the person identified to the police by zimmerman as a suspicious person
and the presentations intimate that zimmerman was wrong to monitor martin's whereabouts while awaiting the polices' arrival
there is a double standard at play
there is no one who insists martin was not entitled to travel at will anywhere that evening
yet those same forum members will insist that zimmerman was wrong to also travel in that community
why should zimmerman have been criticized for exercising his own opportunity to travel as he pleased that evening
 
justabubba said:
i have seen this line of 'reasoning' in a number of incarnations
that zimmerman was wrong for monitoring the location of martin, the person identified to the police by zimmerman as a suspicious person
and the presentations intimate that zimmerman was wrong to monitor martin's whereabouts while awaiting the polices' arrival
there is a double standard at play
there is no one who insists martin was not entitled to travel at will anywhere that evening
yet those same forum members will insist that zimmerman was wrong to also travel in that community
why should zimmerman have been criticized for exercising his own opportunity to travel as he pleased that evening
Click to expand...
False equate. Traveling is not following. Z was following one of the ones that always get away.
Have you ever been followed by someone in the dark? How did you react?

(As a retired engineer I'm well aware that reasoning in often hampered by false equates. I've seen it many times. I try to avoid it.)
 
Last edited:
OhIsee.Then said:
False equate. Traveling is not following. Z was following one of the ones that always get away.
Have you ever been followed by someone in the dark? How did you react?
Click to expand...
i did not assault them, breaking their nose
i did not repeatedly slam their head into the ground

i did realize they had every right to be walking around, just like me

(As a retired engineer I'm well aware that reasoning in often hampered by false equates. I've seen it many times. I try to avoid it.)
Click to expand...
then i look forward to seeing your analysis explaining for us why martin was entitled to roam the community while zimmerman was not. hope retirement has not weakened your ability to perform such engineering gymnastics
 
OhIsee.Then said:
False equate. Traveling is not following. Z was following one of the ones that always get away.
Have you ever been followed by someone in the dark? How did you react?

(As a retired engineer I'm well aware that reasoning in often hampered by false equates. I've seen it many times. I try to avoid it.)
Click to expand...

Read the aggressor statute and case law a little more closely because, you simply don't have a clue of what you are talking about

Z had to contemporaneously (btw look the word up in a dictionary) provoke M's use of force against him and this alleged *following* bit happened when?

The provocation cannot be the result of something Z did earlier, like, the *alleged* following bit
 
sharon said:
You can't hold George accountable for creating the situation, can you?
Click to expand...

This is what I have been saying all along.

He created the situation.

I am not saying he is criminally responsible. That is for the court to decide.

But for me, I just think he was just stuck on stupid for following someone - let alone following someone walking alone in the dark.
 
year2late said:
He created the situation.
Click to expand...

Not! ™, did as he approached from behind and made contact, in the form of an attack, when he did not need to.
 
Excon said:
Not! ™, did as he approached from behind and made contact, in the form of an attack, when he did not need to.
Click to expand...

You keep telling yourself that.
 
"these *******s always get away..."

...
they don't always get away, do they George?

GZ: No.
 
This conversation grows tiresome. If both of these men were white or both were black, it would have never made the news, other than how it might have contributed to an overall statistic. The prosecution of this case is racially motivated. All the facts are not being presented. If the shooter was black, it would not be a feather in the cap of the prosecution to proceed. This is all bull-dung.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom