• 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.

The jewelry found in Trayvons possession. [W:242]

Compatibilist said:
Obviously before his death- Video shot by Trayvon shows homeless men fighting over bicycle - Orlando Sentinel
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm quite familiar with the mentions of the video found on TM's phone.

More than most: http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimmerman-martin-case/162467-exposed-blatent-lie-omara-told-court.html

1. There is no date attached to the video, so you have no idea when it was filmed, destroying your "in Fight mode" portion.

2. There was no urging of a fight. The boys happened upon the scene and TM turned on his camera, destroying your premise altogether.
 
Compatibilist said:
Someone who video tapes and urges on a fight, was most likely in Fight mode. Otherwise he would have quickly went home. GZ called police, why didn't TM?



Right, if this would have been a black on black killing [or white on white] then we would have never heard about it. The photos posted by the leftist media flamed the fires... and why does Obama even comment on this story? Because he's also an angry black person and had to know his statement would make it even more of a racial issue and the media would follow his lead. I would bet my house Holder and Obama met and decided they could influence the direction of the case.

From WIKI/NEWS- Obama, speaking to reporters on March 23 after federal investigators were deployed to Sanford, said, "When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids, and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this... If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon."

How appropriate is it for Obama to make a PUBLIC statement like this???

It's down right pitiful and outrageous.

A Washington Post/ABC poll shows a gaping racial divide in views of the Martin case. Eight in 10 blacks say they think Martin’s killing was not justified, compared with 38 percent of whites. Most whites say they do not know enough about the shooting to say whether it was justified.

Jury selection will determine the verdict. It will be interesting to see the racial makeup of the jury.

IMO... there's no way GZ will get convicted of murder... the worst possible outcome would be manslaughter. And that would a horrible miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...
Had this not been turned into a circus this would have been resolved in a week or two with a plea agreement. Whatever the legal charge should be, I think Zimmerman was guilty of creating the environment where the kid died. Shouldnt have been packing heat if he was acting as a neighborhood watch member. Shouldnt have followed the kid after the cops told him to stop. Not that difficult to see the situation as it was rather than try to make it something it wasnt (something both sides are doing).
 
VanceMack said:
Had this not been turned into a circus this would have been resolved in a week or two with a plea agreement.
...
Click to expand...

Why would there have been a plea agreement when the SPD had no plans to arrest or charge Zimmerman?

A little reminder of the Timeline:

Feb 26th: Killing occurred.
March 12: SPD Chief stated there would be no arrest.

That's more than two weeks.
 
Paperview said:
Why would there have been a plea agreement when the SPD had no plans to arrest Zimmerman?

A little reminder of the Timeline:

Feb 26th: Killing occurred.
March 12: SPD Chief stated there would be no arrest.

That's more than two weeks.
Click to expand...
Because if you follow the law, he was certainly guilty of creating the environment where a young man died. Had he not been carrying a weapon (something that is verbotten in Neighborhood Watch settings) and had he not stalked the kid, the conflict, however it happened, would not have taken place. His negligent behaviors created the environment.
 
Paperview said:
Oh, I'm quite familiar with the mentions of the video found on TM's phone.

More than most: http://www.debatepolitics.com/zimmerman-martin-case/162467-exposed-blatent-lie-omara-told-court.html

1. There is no date attached to the video, so you have no idea when it was filmed, destroying your "in Fight mode" portion.

2. There was no urging of a fight. The boys happened upon the scene and TM turned on his camera, destroying your premise altogether.
Click to expand...

Videoing, Laughing & Cheering a fight= Urging.
 
Er...no.
He was laughing, and there is no authentication that is even Trayvon talking.

It doesn't even matter - because it will not be entered into evidence and has little evidentiary value, even if it were.

How do you feel about GZ's Martial Arts/ Self Defense Fight Training for nearly two years at a club he paid 105 dollars a month to attend -- one that is billed as the one of the top Fight Gyms in the World?
 
Paperview said:
Why would there have been a plea agreement when the SPD had no plans to arrest or charge Zimmerman?

A little reminder of the Timeline:

Feb 26th: Killing occurred.
March 12: SPD Chief stated there would be no arrest.

That's more than two weeks.
Click to expand...


Hmmm... Ok Timeline

Feb 26: Killing occurred.
March 12: SPD Chief stated there would be no arrest.
March 23: Obama makes public statement...
April 11: Charges filed
 
Compatibilist said:
Hmmm... Ok Timeline

Feb 26: Killing occurred.
March 12: SPD Chief stated there would be no arrest.
March 23: Obama makes public statement...
April 11: Charges filed
Click to expand...

It would seem to me the quote I was using to make my comment on

Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack
Had this not been turned into a circus this would have been resolved in a week or two with a plea agreement.
...
Click to expand...

Would need to be clarified. It appeared to me VM meant from the date of the killing.
 
VanceMack said:
Because if you follow the law, he was certainly guilty of creating the environment where a young man died. Had he not been carrying a weapon (something that is verbotten in Neighborhood Watch settings) and had he not stalked the kid, the conflict, however it happened, would not have taken place. His negligent behaviors created the environment.
Click to expand...
Wrong Vance.
He did not cause ™ to come out of hiding and attack him from behind.
Trayvon is the cause.

Nor can you hold Zimmerman to NW standards as he was not on NW. Nor could you hold him to standards that he is not legally obligated to hold.
 
Excon said:
Wrong Vance.
He did not cause ™ to come out of hiding and attack him from behind.
Trayvon is the cause.

Nor can you hold Zimmerman to NW standards as he was not on NW. Nor could you hold him to standards that he is not legally obligated to hold.
Click to expand...
As I understand it his whole raison d'etre that evening was as a supercop wannabe Neighborhood Watchsta. You can absolutely hold him to such standards. Now...bear with me because I give half a damn about this whole case and havent followed it since oh...14 months or so ago...but...If I was a random person and noticed I was being stalked by a total unannounced stranger for an indeterminate period of time (but certainly long enough a period of time for Zimmerman to have called the cops and been told to STOP ****ING FOLLOWING THE KID) then I might be a bit amped up myself. How do we know Zimmerman created the situation? because it went down ...period. Had it not been for Zimmerman, Martin was a kid walking home. From what? who knows. But what we DO know is that an armed individual took it upon himself to stalk a kid for no apparent reason, the kid got spooked, and a conflict ensued. Not excusing or justifying Martins behavior. Not saying Zimmerman murdered the kid or even should be charged with manslaughter. But some form of contributory negligence? Sure...you bet.
 
Excon said:
Nor can you hold Zimmerman to NW standards as he was not on NW. Nor could you hold him to standards that he is not legally obligated to hold.
Click to expand...

if that was the case...no one who is a member of a NW would ever be able to carry a weapon...ever.
 
OscarB63 said:
if that was the case...no one who is a member of a NW would ever be able to carry a weapon...ever.
Click to expand...

I know. Vance doesn't seem to understand that.
 
VanceMack said:
As I understand it his whole raison d'etre that evening was as a supercop wannabe Neighborhood Watchsta.
Click to expand...
Wrong!

VanceMack said:
You can absolutely hold him to such standards.
Click to expand...
Wrong!


VanceMack said:
How do we know Zimmerman created the situation? because it went down ...period.
Click to expand...
iLOL :lamo
No... that only shows that ™ is responsible. As it was ™ who came out of hiding to attack when there was no reason to do so.
He came at Zimmerman from behind. If anything that shows it was ™ who was following Zimmerman.


VanceMack said:
Had it not been for Zimmerman, Martin was a kid walking home. From what? who knows. But what we DO know is that an armed individual took it upon himself to stalk a kid for no apparent reason, the kid got spooked, and a conflict ensued. Not excusing or justifying Martins behavior. Not saying Zimmerman murdered the kid or even should be charged with manslaughter. But some form of contributory negligence? Sure...you bet.
Click to expand...
You lost the argument as soon as you started using "stalk". There was no stalking. None.
And there was no negligence. He was allowed to follow a suspicious person in his neighborhood.
His actions in doing so, were legal, wise, reasonable and prudent, not negligent.

™ laying in wait and then attacking when the guys back is to him is illegal. Unwise, unreasonable and not prudent.
 
Excon said:
Wrong!

Wrong!


iLOL :lamo
No... that only shows that ™ is responsible. As it was ™ who came out of hiding to attack when there was no reason to do so.
He came at Zimmerman from behind. If anything that shows it was ™ who was following Zimmerman.



You lost the argument as soon as you started using "stalk". There was no stalking. None.
And there was no negligence. He was allowed to follow a suspicious person in his neighborhood.
His actions in doing so, were legal, wise, reasonable and prudent, not negligent.

™ laying in wait and then attacking when the guys back is to him is illegal. Unwise, unreasonable and not prudent.
Click to expand...
Look at you, how cute you are, all spun about this. "wrong!" "wrong" "wrong"

Zimmerman...an armed adult...stalked an unarmed teenager for no reason, even after being told not to. You disagree with that. Now...take a wild guess at how much I give a ****.
 
VanceMack said:
Look at you, how cute you are, all spun about this. "wrong!" "wrong" "wrong"

Zimmerman...an armed adult...stalked an unarmed teenager for no reason, even after being told not to. You disagree with that. Now...take a wild guess at how much I give a ****.
Click to expand...
You care enough to be dishonest about it. That much is clear.

There was no stalking.
Not by the generic definition, or the legal definition for the State of Florida.
Learn the evidence.

And there was reason to keep eyes on the suspicious person.
 
OscarB63 said:
if that was the case...no one who is a member of a NW would ever be able to carry a weapon...ever.
Click to expand...
Id agree with the assessment that he wasnt playing neighborhood watch supercop wannabe if he hadnt been following the kid for several minutes and then spent an additional 6 minutes on the phone with the police. As was indicated in his call to the police, it was obvious the kid knew he was being stalked. Rather than shout out "hey...Im on the phone with the police" he tried to play stealthy covert undercover guy. After all, you know..."These assholes, they always get away". Once the dispatcher learned he was following martin he was told to stop...probably because there was some concern that what ended up happening might actually happen.
 
Excon said:
You did when you claimed stalking when there was none.
Click to expand...
Dood followed him for upwards to 10 minutes with no announced intention. But hey...party on. You in just a few short posts have reminded me of who posts on this subject and why its sometimes best to set it down, and just baaaaack away.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Gentlemen, settle down and cool off...
 
VanceMack said:
Dood followed him for upwards to 10 minutes with no announced intention. But hey...party on. You in just a few short posts have reminded me of who posts on this subject and why its sometimes best to set it down, and just baaaaack away.
Click to expand...
And like I previously stated.
There was no stalking.
Zimmerman's legal actions in trying to keep eyes on the suspicious person until police arrive is not stalking.
His actions do not fit the generic definition or the legal definition. And we are discussing what is legal here.
 
VanceMack said:
As I understand it his whole raison d'etre that evening was as a supercop wannabe Neighborhood Watchsta. You can absolutely hold him to such standards. Now...bear with me because I give half a damn about this whole case and havent followed it since oh...14 months or so ago...but...If I was a random person and noticed I was being stalked by a total unannounced stranger for an indeterminate period of time (but certainly long enough a period of time for Zimmerman to have called the cops and been told to STOP ****ING FOLLOWING THE KID) then I might be a bit amped up myself. How do we know Zimmerman created the situation? because it went down ...period. Had it not been for Zimmerman, Martin was a kid walking home. From what? who knows. But what we DO know is that an armed individual took it upon himself to stalk a kid for no apparent reason, the kid got spooked, and a conflict ensued. Not excusing or justifying Martins behavior. Not saying Zimmerman murdered the kid or even should be charged with manslaughter. But some form of contributory negligence? Sure...you bet.
Click to expand...

1 Did Z break the law by being *allegedly* a "supercop wannabe Neighborhood Watchsta"?

2 Contributory negligence? Give examples and cite a case to support your argument
 
Excon said:
And like I previously stated.
There was no stalking.
Zimmerman's legal actions in trying to keep eyes on the suspicious person until police arrive is not stalking.
His actions do not fit the generic definition or the legal definition. And we are discussing what is legal here.
Click to expand...

And like I previously stated.
There was no assault on Zimmerman.

Trayvon Martin's legal actions of walking home from 7/11, confronting Zimmerman first in his vehicle then on foot on why he was being followed by Zimmerman, then punching Zimmerman on his white nose is not assault but self-defense by Trayvon Martin. His actions do not fit the generic definition or the legal definition. And we are discussing what is legal here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom