• 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.

Zimmerman Jury Race Demographics

Mathematician said:
My error, it was Turtle who agreed. In any case, clear difference in polls and reaction to the verdict implies racial distribution affects the likelihood of a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...

I agree with that.
 
ric27 said:
Point blank *of several*-

Do you have a witness who can state that Z had an opportunity to free himself and avoid using deadly force, the night of the shooting?
Click to expand...
Again, you are working on the false assumption that what george said was the absolute truth.


The forensic evidence and george's own contradictory accounts clearly showed that george's claim cannot be accepted at face value. Even if we do accept his stories, his own accounts clearly showed that Trayvon was inept in causing him any harm and had actually de-escalated, and not escalated, the alleged violence by the time george drew his gun and shot at Trayvon's chest.


You can't justify the shooting to kill an unarmed person for simply trying to silence your screams when the imminent threat is no longer present. To do so would be murder 2.
 
Excon said:
Not by you, or those on your side of the coin.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel the need to lie, Excon? People can simply click on the handles of any posters and go to the personal pages to read through all the posts on this topic, don't you know?
 
dolphinocean said:
Again, you are working on the false assumption that what george said was the absolute truth.


The forensic evidence and george's own contradictory accounts clearly showed that george's claim cannot be accepted at face value. Even if we do accept his stories, his own accounts clearly showed that Trayvon was inept in causing him any harm and had actually de-escalated, and not escalated, the alleged violence by the time george drew his gun and shot at Trayvon's chest.


You can't justify the shooting to kill an unarmed person for simply trying to silence your screams when the imminent threat is no longer present. To do so would be murder 2.
Click to expand...

I clearly said....evidence

You clearly do not understand what this entails

You must prove with credible evidence the "false assumption that what george said was the absolute truth" is false

None of what you have stated resembles *evidence*

I'll give you hint....in what you need to get a M2 conviction

1 You have to prove that it was M's voice * in a way that's clear and unambiguous*

2 You have to prove M was begging for his life before being shot and killed by Z
 
dolphinocean said:
Why do you feel the need to lie, Excon? People can simply click on the handles of any posters and go to the personal pages to read through all the posts on this topic, don't you know?
Click to expand...
That wasn't a lie.
You do not provide facts and evidence.
All you provide is your spin, and mischaracterizations of the facts and evidence. Which is not the same thing.
They can click through all your posts to see just that.
 
windowdressing said:
trust me ... I'm taken much more seriously than you are comp ... but you go ahead and stay bunkered where you are ... it makes the rest of us feel much safer ....
Click to expand...

I had to LOL when I read this nonsense. I'm "seriously" trying to figure out how you reached that conclusion. However, if self serving statements make you feel better about yourself, then continue on. Perhaps you'll become self actualized in your own mind.

dolphinocean said:
Again, you are working on the false assumption that what george said was the absolute truth.

The forensic evidence and george's own contradictory accounts clearly showed that george's claim cannot be accepted at face value. Even if we do accept his stories, his own accounts clearly showed that Trayvon was inept in causing him any harm and had actually de-escalated, and not escalated, the alleged violence by the time george drew his gun and shot at Trayvon's chest.

You can't justify the shooting to kill an unarmed person for simply trying to silence your screams when the imminent threat is no longer present. To do so would be murder 2.
Click to expand...

Untrue... he's using the overall facts/evidence and how they fit together consistently. You should try that yourself and quit muttering about "forensic evidence" without posting of what you speak. GZ can justify his actions [of defending himself] when some young thug sucker punches him resulting in a broken nose... then getting on top of him and banging his head on concrete.

I think any reasonable person would use anything/everything available to stop this kind of attack... including the use of a lethal weapon.
 
Compatibilist said:
I had to LOL when I read this nonsense. I'm "seriously" trying to figure out how you reached that conclusion. However, if self serving statements make you feel better about yourself, then continue on. Perhaps you'll become self actualized in your own mind.

Self-actualized? Let me guess ... you just took Psych 101 at some community college ... Am I right?

As far as the conclusion I reached goes, if you read your posts and you're honest with yourself, you'll reach the same conclusion Comp ...

I got a good LOL from your post as well ... it was almost cute ...
Click to expand...
 
ric27 said:
Your position or opinion based on the evidence

It's really quite simple
Click to expand...

I don't particularly have an opinion. I think Z acted in self-defense, though I refuse to brand him a hero for getting himself in a bad situation. Frankly, I think if M had been armed, Z would be dead and M could conceivably call self-defense since he knew Z was armed. And there would be no evidence to counteract his version of events.

Personally, I think you had the unfortunate situation of 2 people playing "tough guy" and nobody playing it smart.

Two people knew what happened and one is dead. So we only have one side of the story, which is very hard to plausibly contradict. What it really comes down to, is whether it is self-defense when a person had the opportunity to avoid the situation in the first place.
 
Compatibilist said:
Nope graduated Cal State Fullerton 1978... however, I did take Psych-101 freshman year. ;)
Click to expand...

I KNEW IT! :2razz: Most students forget the material minutes after the exam, so you are to be commended ... I'm still working on actualizing myself ... I had to take a break to actualize my kids ...
 
rocket88 said:
I don't particularly have an opinion. I think Z acted in self-defense, though I refuse to brand him a hero for getting himself in a bad situation. Frankly, I think if M had been armed, Z would be dead and M could conceivably call self-defense since he knew Z was armed. And there would be no evidence to counteract his version of events.

Personally, I think you had the unfortunate situation of 2 people playing "tough guy" and nobody playing it smart.

Two people knew what happened and one is dead. So we only have one side of the story, which is very hard to plausibly contradict. What it really comes down to, is whether it is self-defense when a person had the opportunity to avoid the situation in the first place.
Click to expand...

Dude, I commend you on a level headed post...kudos

Everything was ok until the last sentence

There's nothing in Florida's SD/SYG laws about *avoiding the situation in the first place*

Avoidance is just a theory..a prosecution theory
 
ric27 said:
Dude, I commend you on a level headed post...kudos

Everything was ok until the last sentence

There's nothing in Florida's SD/SYG laws about *avoiding the situation in the first place*

Avoidance is just a theory..a prosecution theory
Click to expand...

That's true, apparently there is nothing in the law. So legally, he can have the defense. It's hard to fault him on the law.

Dig a little deeper into whether or not it's appropriate for self-defense, and you start getting into a problem. So while I agree that legally he had no requirement to avoid the situation, morally is another question. Obviously, the best self-defense is to not get into the situation in the first place.
 
rocket88 said:
That's true, apparently there is nothing in the law. So legally, he can have the defense. It's hard to fault him on the law.
Click to expand...

Agreed

Dig a little deeper into whether or not it's appropriate for self-defense, and you start getting into a problem. So while I agree that legally he had no requirement to avoid the situation, morally is another question. Obviously, the best self-defense is to not get into the situation in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't see his actions as morally wrong, or something that anyone should have expected would likely lead to a physical confrontation. It seems to me from the 911 call, his intentions were to keep an eye on where Martin in order to assist police in locating him when they got there... I see nothing malicious or reckless about that.
 
rocket88 said:
That's true, apparently there is nothing in the law. So legally, he can have the defense. It's hard to fault him on the law.

Dig a little deeper into whether or not it's appropriate for self-defense, and you start getting into a problem. So while I agree that legally he had no requirement to avoid the situation, morally is another question. Obviously, the best self-defense is to not get into the situation in the first place.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that TM could have also avoided the situation. I will agree that he was legally required to do so.

Your right, best defense, don't allow yourself to be put in the situation in the first place. It applies to TM and GZ.

Both made dumb decisions that night.
 
ric27 said:
I clearly said....evidence

You clearly do not understand what this entails

You must prove with credible evidence the "false assumption that what george said was the absolute truth" is false

None of what you have stated resembles *evidence*

I'll give you hint....in what you need to get a M2 conviction

1 You have to prove that it was M's voice * in a way that's clear and unambiguous*

2 You have to prove M was begging for his life before being shot and killed by Z
Click to expand...
Yes, you clearly said evidence. And I also said forensic evidence and george's own contradictory accounts. Are they not evidence? If they are, then what's your problem?


Your assumption that george was unable "to free himself and avoid using deadly force" on the night of the shooting is clearly not supported by any evidence except from the horse mouth. So, to present your assumption as if it is the absolute truth and fact by itself is clearly a false assumption. And that's the proof.


So, in defeat now you want to shift the focus to proving Trayvon's voice being the one screaming in the 911 tape? I'm sure if the judge allowed that would be presented by the prosecutor using the forensic voice experts and the defense team will smear them with their own voice experts. The jury then got to hear the scream for themselves and decide who was the one screaming.


But, this murder case doesn't just hang on the screaming in the 911 tape. There are many other evidence that can hang zimmerman too.
 
dolphinocean said:
Yes, you clearly said evidence. And I also said forensic evidence and george's own contradictory accounts. Are they not evidence? If they are, then what's your problem?


Your assumption that george was unable "to free himself and avoid using deadly force" on the night of the shooting is clearly not supported by any evidence except from the horse mouth. So, to present your assumption as if it is the absolute truth and fact by itself is clearly a false assumption. And that's the proof.


So, in defeat now you want to shift the focus to proving Trayvon's voice being the one screaming in the 911 tape? I'm sure if the judge allowed that would be presented by the prosecutor using the forensic voice experts and the defense team will smear them with their own voice experts. The jury then got to hear the scream for themselves and decide who was the one screaming.


But, this murder case doesn't just hang on the screaming in the 911 tape. There are many other evidence that can hang zimmerman too.
Click to expand...

I've told you umpteen times know the difference between a variation and a contradiction

These variations are in no way *credible evidence* nor does it affect the totality of Z's account

You have shown nothing to disprove Z's self defense claim
 
mike2810 said:
Don't you think that TM could have also avoided the situation. I will agree that he was legally required to do so.

Your right, best defense, don't allow yourself to be put in the situation in the first place. It applies to TM and GZ.

Both made dumb decisions that night.
Click to expand...

I definitely think M could have made different and better decisions. No disagreement there.
 
Grim17 said:
Agreed



I don't see his actions as morally wrong, or something that anyone should have expected would likely lead to a physical confrontation. It seems to me from the 911 call, his intentions were to keep an eye on where Martin in order to assist police in locating him when they got there... I see nothing malicious or reckless about that.
Click to expand...

Morally may not have been the best choice of words. It just makes sense to me that if you invite the situation, it's very hard to call it "self-defense," and whatever Z's intentions were, his actions helped to create the situation. The only reason Z is alive instead of M is that M wasn't armed. If he thought, "Here's a criminal who's all high," you might make the logical leap that he may be armed. And if M was armed, he could have easily claimed self-defense because he knew Z was armed.
 
rocket88 said:
Morally may not have been the best choice of words. It just makes sense to me that if you invite the situation, it's very hard to call it "self-defense," and whatever Z's intentions were, his actions helped to create the situation. The only reason Z is alive instead of M is that M wasn't armed. If he thought, "Here's a criminal who's all high," you might make the logical leap that he may be armed. And if M was armed, he could have easily claimed self-defense because he knew Z was armed.
Click to expand...

Under common law self-defense, the initial aggressor can never claim the benefit.
 
ric27 said:
I've told you umpteen times know the difference between a variation and a contradiction

These variations are in no way *credible evidence* nor does it affect the totality of Z's account

You have shown nothing to disprove Z's self defense claim
Click to expand...
You are being dishonest to keep on and on about me or anyone else having "shown nothing to disprove Z's self-defense claim". We have shown for over a year already not only the forensic and physical evidence that dispute z.s accounts but also pointing out zimmerman's own contradiction in his own accounts that disproved his self-defense claim. The latest I put out was about Trayvon's de-escalation of the alleged attack per zimmerman's own story. So, please stop being so dishonest with your flaming and trolling. Do you need me to report it in order to get you to stop?


Your umpteen times are your continuous desperate denial and total dismissal no matter what the evidence show. This isn't gonna wash with people with reasonable and logical mind.


You don't get to claim being punched and fell backward into the grass the first time and then the next day on reenactment changed it to after being punched he was stumbling and pushing Trayvon away down the dogwalk onto the concrete in an attempt to fit the crime scene, after realizing the blunder when glancing yonder southward, to then get as close as possible to where Trayvon's body was found but yet not quite able to make it there to avoid being anymore ridiculous as he already was.


What Happened at the "T"?


first interview 26 FEB part one

"I fell to the ground when he punched me the first time"


"as soon as he punched me i fell backwards into the grass."


"and he punched me in the nose. At that point, I fell down…"


[Video Reenactment on Feb 27, 2012:]


Investigator...where was he at, about

Zimmerman...he was about there, but he was walking towards me

Investigator...So he was coming from this direction here (investigator is motioning with his arm back to front, back being the direction of Brandy's townhouse while standing a little way down on the sidewalk)

Zimmerman....Yes, sir. Like I said I was already past that so I didn't see exactly where he came from but he was about where...(tape cut out again a bit) And I said I don't have a problem and I went to go grab my cell phone but my.... I left it in a different pocket. I went...I looked down at my pant pocket and he said, you got a problem now and then he was here (motions that he was right there next to him) and he punched me in the face

Investigator...right here (investigator moves up to the sidewalk away from the "t")

Zimmerman...right up around here, to be honest I don't remember exactly

Investigator....that's fine

Zimmerman... I think... I stumbled, and I fell down he pushed me down, somehow he got on top of me

Investigator...on the grass or on the cement?

Zimmerman: It was more over towards here (Zimmerman walks down into the dog path) I was trying to push hime away from me and then he got on top of me somewhere around here (he looks around) and, ah, that's where I started screaming for help.

[Emphasis mine]​


This is just one major significant contraction among many other blunders the killer made. So, this is yet another zimmerman's own evidence that disprove his own evidence. So, don't ever cry baseless foul again.

But, nation wide there were probably hundred of thousands of past criminal trial cases, if not more, of criminals being convicted by the jury who simply didn't buy the defense story that didn't add up. Some, such as Amalia Mirasola's murder trial, didn't even have any contradiction whatsoever in her claim of self-defense.


Amalia who was in a wheelchair due to multiple sclerosis, was accused of shooting her 6' 2" "huge angry" husband to death in his bedroom. She claimed her husband called her to his bedroom to argue about some financial issue amid their pending divorce. She claimed her husband became angry and went at her and threatened to kill her. Amalia had maintained only one version of account throughout the whole case and no variation whatsoever let alone contradiction.


The prosecutor had no evidence to disprove Amalia's story but simply made the argument based on discrediting her story for being "less likely" and "unlikely". The prosecutor claimed that it was unlikely the the husband would call her into her bedroom to argue about financial isssue at 3 a.m and "waits while she gets out of her recliner, gets in the walker and goes over there.” The prosecutor also argue that "parents with three young children don’t routinely carry a loaded pistol in their sweatpants," while ignoring the fact that she felt her life was threatened since the day their marriage fell apart in bad blood. Another argument the prosecutor made was that their daughter was awoken by the gunshot and did not hear any argument between her mother and her father. But, how did that prove there was no argument prior to the gunshot before the daughter woke up?


Prosecutor: Butler woman's self-defense argument 'doesn't add up' | NJ.com


Jury didn't buy Butler woman's self-defense claim in murder trial | NJ.com


So, you see, zimmerman's mountains of contradiction in his various versions of story alone, let alone the physical and forensic evidence, is going to do him in if the same jury in Amalia's case were to sit in the jury panel of zimmerman's trial.


But, this case is now about the type of jury being selected and not about the evidence or justice. If the selected jurors are cut from the same cloth as you, buck, Excon and the majority of zimmerman's hardcore supporters as we have seen here, then zimmerman is going to walk.


That's the way our system works, especially in the state of Florida.


Would you gloat over a killer beating the justice system despite giving many major inconsistencies or variations after claiming he shot and killed an unarmed person, a teenager no less, in self-defense after a chase on someone doing nothing wrong, if it happens to your child?
 
Last edited:
dolphinocean said:
Yes, you clearly said evidence. And I also said forensic evidence and george's own contradictory accounts. Are they not evidence? If they are, then what's your problem?


Your assumption that george was unable "to free himself and avoid using deadly force" on the night of the shooting is clearly not supported by any evidence except from the horse mouth. So, to present your assumption as if it is the absolute truth and fact by itself is clearly a false assumption. And that's the proof.


So, in defeat now you want to shift the focus to proving Trayvon's voice being the one screaming in the 911 tape? I'm sure if the judge allowed that would be presented by the prosecutor using the forensic voice experts and the defense team will smear them with their own voice experts. The jury then got to hear the scream for themselves and decide who was the one screaming.


But, this murder case doesn't just hang on the screaming in the 911 tape. There are many other evidence that can hang zimmerman too.
Click to expand...

If George could yell help 14 times... he could have identified himself as NW.
 
dolphinocean said:
We have shown for over a year already not only the forensic and physical evidence that dispute z.s accounts but also pointing out zimmerman's own contradiction in his own accounts that disproved his self-defense claim.
Click to expand...
iLOL
No, you haven't.


dolphinocean said:
The latest I put out was about Trayvon's de-escalation of the alleged attack per zimmerman's own story.
Click to expand...
And you were wrong again as usual.


dolphinocean said:
Your umpteen times are your continuous desperate denial and total dismissal no matter what the evidence show. This isn't gonna wash with people with reasonable and logical mind.
Click to expand...
The desperation, denial and lack of reasonable and logical thought has been all yours for over a year now.
Which is exactly why your assertion get dismissed. That are not rational or founded in reality.


dolphinocean said:
You don't get to claim being punched and fell backward into the grass ...
Click to expand...
Give it up. It is the same damn thing.
Your refusal to see that is beyond illogical.


dolphinocean said:
This is just one major significant contraction among many ...
Click to expand...
No it is not a significant contradiction.
It is an idiotic assertion. Nothing more.


dolphinocean said:
So, you see, zimmerman's mountains of contradiction ...
Click to expand...
The problem is that you don't see.

Even Serino said the there were some inconsistencies that didn't amount to much.
But here you are. Instead of it dawning on your that you actually have nothing, you keep prodding along.
It is a very sad thing to see.




sharon said:
If George could yell help 14 times... he could have identified himself as NW.
Click to expand...
:doh:doh:doh

I seriously doubt you see just how ridiculous your statement is.

As was already attacking Zimmerman it is highly unlikely that he would stop doing what he was doing had he said that.
Because, as we already know, he didn't stop when Zimmerman was calling/yelling/screaming for help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom