• 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.

Did Zimmerman begin following Martin at a gas station?

Buckworth said:
I repeat, winning a fight doesn't mean you started a fight. Read: Being a bad fighter doesn't excuse you from responsibility.

I believe in your link you are trying to trump (2) with (a), since neither (1) or ,(b) apply. What I still said still stands: without corroborating evidence we cannot assume that the specifics of (a) were met.

You are convicting Trayvon based on the practised testimony of his killer, and therefore excusing Zimmerman of the only evidence we have: that he was the aggressor.

I find Zimmermans testimony far too 'gift wrapped' to be believable.
Click to expand...

I am not relying on Zimmerman's statement at all (which was introduced by the state only, not the defense). I simply asserted that evidence (physical and other witness statements) indicated that Martin had pinnned and was seriously beating Zimmerman prior to the gunshot - what led up to that is not all that important, as Floriduh law allows the use of deadly force in self defense under too many different circumstances, even for the initial aggressor (which I find to be stupid). What you, personally, find credible is not important at all, it is only what the jury found to be credible that matters.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I am not relying on Zimmerman's statement at all (which was introduced by the state only, not the defense). I simply asserted that evidence (physical and other witness statements) indicated that Martin had pinnned and was seriously beating Zimmerman prior to the gunshot - what led up to that is not all that important, as Floriduh law allows the use of deadly force in self defense under too many different circumstances, even for the initial aggressor (which I find to be stupid). What you, personally, find credible is not important at all, it is only what the jury found to be credible that matters.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this: If Zimmerman pulled his gun, and only grazed Trayvon or missed, then Trayvon beat Zimmerman to death - would that also satisfy the same 'imminent danger of death' to acquit Trayvon?

In essence, you are saying that the law says that when two people are in a hypothetical fight to the death, the victor is automatically innocent?

Not buying that that's what the spirit of the law is for a second.
 
Buckworth said:
Let me ask you this: If Zimmerman pulled his gun, and only grazed Trayvon or missed, then Trayvon beat Zimmerman to death - would that also satisfy the same 'imminent danger of death' to acquit Trayvon?

In essence, you are saying that the law says that when two people are in a hypothetical fight to the death, the victor is automatically innocent?

Not buying that that's what the spirit of the law is for a second.
Click to expand...

I am not saying anything of the sort. I merely showed you the goofy Floriduh law, pointed out that the jury, after having heard all of the evidence presented and given 27 pages of intructions returned a not guity verdict. That is what serves as justice in Floriduh.

Under Texas law the initial aggressor is limitted to use only non-lethal force even in their self defense, making it much more important to decide if that was the case. I showed you that under Floriduh law that even the initial aggressor may use deadly force if certain conditions are met - no means of escape and reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm fit that bill.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I am not saying anything of the sort. I merely showed you the goofy Floriduh law, pointed out that the jury, after having heard all of the evidence presented and given 27 pages of intructions returned a not guity verdict. That is what serves as justice in Floriduh.

Under Texas law the initial aggressor is limitted to use only non-lethal force even in their self defense, making it much more important to decide if that was the case. I showed you that under Floriduh law that even the initial aggressor may use deadly force if certain conditions are met - no means of escape and reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm fit that bill.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. I'll ask you again: in the hypothetical case where Trayvon killed Zimmerman after Zimmerman pulled his gun, do you think the same law that protected Zimmerman, would protect Trayvon?

Basically what I'm arguing is that it isn't Florida law that acquitted Zimmerman, it is 6 people. The law is the law, but different outcomes come from different juries, and that is why these conversations are worthwhile. The problem in Florida is that they have laws that obfuscate the spirit of the law, and I don't believe the law intends to protect guilty people. The big problem was that the jury took Zimmerman at his word, and that's why they acquitted.
 
Buckworth said:
I'm pretty sure your founding fathers didn't intend to protect the rights of vigilantes who accidentally kill kids on their way home from the store.
Click to expand...

Maybe he wouldn't have "accidentally" killed Martin, if Martin hadn't "accidentally" punched him in the face, "accidentally" broken his nose, "accidentally" got on top of him and beat the living hell out of him, and accidentally ignored his cries for help for more than 40 seconds and continued the beating.

Which is what happened. In about half of the USA, it would have been open and shut manslaughter because he would have been legally required to stay in his vehicle - and a measure of justice would have been served.
Click to expand...

Really? Which states prohibit people from getting out of there vehicle and walking in a place they have every right to do so in?

Let me ask you this: If Zimmerman pulled his gun, and only grazed Trayvon or missed, then Trayvon beat Zimmerman to death - would that also satisfy the same 'imminent danger of death' to acquit Trayvon?
Click to expand...

Probably... It depends of his story, the evidence and the witnesses.


In essence, you (and mostly ttwtt78640) are saying that the law says "to the victor go the spoils"?
Click to expand...

Not at all... If that were the case, hardly anyone would ever be convicted of murder.
 
Buckworth said:
I understand what you're saying. I'll ask you again: in the hypothetical case where Trayvon killed Zimmerman after Zimmerman pulled his gun, do you think the same law that protected Zimmerman, would protect Trayvon?

Basically what I'm arguing is that it isn't Florida law that acquitted Zimmerman, it is 6 people. The law is the law, but different outcomes come from different juries, and that is why these conversations are worthwhile. The problem in Florida is that they have laws that obfuscate the spirit of the law, and I don't believe the law intends to protect guilty people. The big problem was that the jury took Zimmerman at his word, and that's why they acquitted.
Click to expand...

A Floriduh jury acquitted Casey Anthony too. I don't live in (or travel to) Floriduh so I really don't care how messed up their laws are or how stupid their juries are. You seem to get all worked up about things that do not affect you, I do not.
 
Grim17 said:
Maybe he wouldn't have "accidentally" killed Martin, if Martin hadn't "accidentally" punched him in the face, "accidentally" broken his nose, "accidentally" got on top of him and beat the living hell out of him, and accidentally ignored his cries for help for more than 40 seconds and continued the beating.
Click to expand...

My entire point is that none of us know what lead to Trayvon ending up on top of Zimmerman, specifically if Trayvon was acting in his legally protected right to self-defence.

Grim17 said:
Really? Which states prohibit people from getting out of there vehicle and walking in a place they have every right to do so in?
Click to expand...

About half the states require you to retreat when you perceive a threat. It is reasonable to assume that if you have profiled somebody as a criminal (incorrectly or not), you perceive them as a threat. Even though 'stand your ground' wasn't used as a defence in the Zimmerman trial, this law abdicates him from his requirement to withdraw from the encounter at any point.

As ttwtt78640 was saying above, he would have likely be found guilty of manslaughter if some of the 'stand your ground' states, because they have watered down versions.

Grim17 said:
Not at all... If that were the case, hardly anyone would ever be convicted of murder.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Successful self-defence claims have skyrocketed in Florida since 'stand your ground' became a statute, therefore it is harder to prosecute murders.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
A Floriduh jury acquitted Casey Anthony too. I don't live in (or travel to) Floriduh so I really don't care how messed up their laws are or how stupid their juries are. You seem to get all worked up about things that do not affect you, I do not.
Click to expand...

Well, I live in Canada and I would never go to any part of the USA. I love these conversations. I love getting worked up. I assure you I appreciate and learn from every response, I'm not here to spike a football or call people names.

And we're both here gabbling about it...so ;). Thanks for your input, seriously.
 
Buckworth said:
Let me ask you this: If Zimmerman pulled his gun, and only grazed Trayvon or missed, then Trayvon beat Zimmerman to death - would that also satisfy the same 'imminent danger of death' to acquit Trayvon?
Click to expand...

Pretty much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom