• 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!

Trayvon Martin: Special prosecutor appointed in Trayvon Martin shooting case

Zimmerman's attorney is not claiming SYG applies. His client killed Martin in self defense.



Zimmerman's lawyer: 'Stand your ground' doesn't apply in Trayvon Martin case - CNN.com

You can't get a better indication that Zimmerman wasn't "standing his ground." As far as his use of deadly force to defend himself, according to Florida law, it would have been required that he reasonably believed at that moment that Martin was about to kill him or inflict great bodily harm.

I have two problems with this.

First and foremost, Martin also had a right to defend himself and given the to circumstances of the two individuals involved, one being an unarmed minor heading to the home he was staying following a candy run to 7-11, the other being an armed self-proclaimed adult watchman who found Martin's trek homeward "suspicious" and worthy of "tailing"; I posit that Martin had the right to defend himself from someone following him for no apparent reason; whereas Zimmerman did not have the right to defend himself with deadly force against an unarmed person defending himself from Zimmerman. Which is the second issue I have with this -- that being that Zimmerman is the one to blame for their encounter. He was the one who wrongly assumed Martin was up to no good and possibly on drugs and he is the one who, against neighborhood watch procedures, pursued and confronted a "suspect." I don't believe the law justifies an indiviual to kill someone out of self-defense in a situation they themselves create.

No matter how this turns out, it's tragic for all involved. I have no doubt Zimmerman didn't seek to kill Martin when he first spotted him and in his prejudiced mind, believed he was performing a service for the neighborhood. And I do feel Trayvon was stupid for not simply getting himself out of that predicament when he had the chance. I know he never imagined it would turn out as horribly as it did, but he had already escaped Zimmerman's watch.

All he had to do was to go home.
 
Honestly, with all the media hype and race issues that have been made out of it (and the presidents involvement as well) I have a hard time believing that unbiased justice will be served or sought out.

The President has made it impossible.
 
You can't get a better indication that Zimmerman wasn't "standing his ground." As far as his use of deadly force to defend himself, according to Florida law, it would have been required that he reasonably believed at that moment that Martin was about to kill him or inflict great bodily harm.

I have two problems with this.

First and foremost, Martin also had a right to defend himself and given the to circumstances of the two individuals involved, one being an unarmed minor heading to the home he was staying following a candy run to 7-11, the other being an armed self-proclaimed adult watchman who found Martin's trek homeward "suspicious" and worthy of "tailing"; I posit that Martin had the right to defend himself from someone following him for no apparent reason; whereas Zimmerman did not have the right to defend himself with deadly force against an unarmed person defending himself from Zimmerman. Which is the second issue I have with this -- that being that Zimmerman is the one to blame for their encounter. He was the one who wrongly assumed Martin was up to no good and possibly on drugs and he is the one who, against neighborhood watch procedures, pursued and confronted a "suspect." I don't believe the law justifies an indiviual to kill someone out of self-defense in a situation they themselves create.

No matter how this turns out, it's tragic for all involved. I have no doubt Zimmerman didn't seek to kill Martin when he first spotted him and in his prejudiced mind, believed he was performing a service for the neighborhood. And I do feel Trayvon was stupid for not simply getting himself out of that predicament when he had the chance. I know he never imagined it would turn out as horribly as it did, but he had already escaped Zimmerman's watch.

All he had to do was to go home.

Yes, some people want to kill anyone who calls the police on him. You have made it clear you are one such person. And because you would want to, you declare you have the right to. You've posted this what, 50 times? Of the right to violently assault someone who calls the police on you.
 
isn't it true they never checked TM's cell phone and his parents had him reported as a missing person for 3 days because they didn't even try to identify the body?

if that is true, which I believe it is, that is horrible police work.
I do not know if that is true or not or if such allegation has been confirmed.
It just isn't part of the known evidence.
 
Martin is dead and there's only one to tell the story.

Zimmerman must articulate his reasons for shooting. Zimmerman must say that he was in immediate fear of his life or great bodily harm and he shot to stop his attacker. Period

He must stick with his story. Practice it. Repeat it, over and over again until, he becomes what he is practicing and he is home free

And that's exactly what he's been given all the time in the world to do. If he is taken to trial, it will all hinge upon whether or not the jury believes Trayvon was afraid when Zimmerman approached him. (If one is afraid, I am certain the SYG law would allow him to punch Zimmerman in the face a few times. And, after all, he had tried to run by Zimmerman's own conversation with the dispatcher.) The last one standing doesn't prove innocence.

Now, let's see. Would MaggieD be afraid?? After dark...man watching me from his car...man gets out of the car and chases me when I start running...am I afraid for my life?? YoudamnbetchaIam!

This guy said whatever he had to say to "prove" his innocence when questioned by the police at the scene. He knew what he had to say. He'd have been stupid to say anything else. If not for the 911 call, he'd simply walk. But, wait just a minute. The 911 call tells a different story.

Kid starts to approach car. Then kid is running and Zimmerman's chasing. WTF? Who the hell did he think he was?

It doesn't pass the MaggieD test that Zimmerman headed back to his car -- that the kid had a big enough lead so that he would head back to his car -- and that then (with that big-enough lead) Trayvon came back and attacked from behind. It just doesn't make sense. Nope. Didn't happen that way.

Did Zimmerman set the deadly event into motion? If he set the event in motion, if he was the aggressor, in my opinion, he cannot use self-defense. "Who started it" is crucial. And I know damn well Zimmerman did...since had he simply stayed in his freakin' car, Trayvon would be alive today.
 
Yes, some people want to kill anyone who calls the police on him.
I'm still waiting for your proof that Trayvon knew Zimmerman called the police on him???

Either you can prove that or you can consider it proven that you're making **** up again.

The choice is yours.
 
Every witness backs up Zimmerman's story.
Including Zimmerman who confessed he went after Martin. That was what led to Martin's murder. If Zimmerman is found to be guilty of a crime, it will likely stem from that. Had he just called police and left it to the police to handle, as he was supposed to do, none of this would have happened.
 
Including Zimmerman who confessed he went after Martin. That was what led to Martin's murder. If Zimmerman is found to be guilty of a crime, it will likely stem from that. Had he just called police and left it to the police to handle, as he was supposed to do, none of this would have happened.


And that is the part I can't get past....Police were on their way, and Zimmerman continued to pursue after being told by the dispatcher that he didn't need to do that...I think if anything damning during a trial would mitigate this as being avoidable, it will be that.

j-mac
 
This guy said whatever he had to say to "prove" his innocence when questioned by the police at the scene. He knew what he had to say. He'd have been stupid to say anything else. If not for the 911 call, he'd simply walk.
Zimmerman had just gone through an extremely traumatic experience, and arrested for it, which is in itself another traumatic experience.
He was then immediately questioned at the station.
He could not have been of the mind or even had the time to concoct some lie that would stand up the peppering of questions.
Your scenario is unfounded.


But, wait just a minute. The 911 call tells a different story.
No, they don't.


Kid starts to approach car. Then kid is running and Zimmerman's chasing. WTF? Who the hell did he think he was?
Someone operating in the capacity of NW and keeping a suspicious person under observation until the police arrive.
There is nothing wrong about that conduct.


It doesn't pass the MaggieD test ...
So that is what it is, "The MaggieD test". lol


that Zimmerman headed back to his car -- that the kid had a big enough lead so that he would head back to his car -- and that then (with that big-enough lead) Trayvon came back and attacked from behind. It just doesn't make sense. Nope. Didn't happen that way.
Yes it does.
You would have to ignore the evidence that Trayvon's girlfriend has provided to say something like this.


Did Zimmerman set the deadly event into motion? If he set the event in motion, if he was the aggressor, in my opinion, he cannot use self-defense.
Zimmermon acting in the capacity of NW and trying to keep Trayvon under observation is not wrong, and therefore can not be used as the impetus for wrong doing. Trayvon Martin attacking, or just confronting Zimmerman from behind in such a tense situation, can.


"Who started it" is crucial. And I know damn well Zimmerman did...since had he simply stayed in his freakin' car, Trayvon would be alive today.
The evidence does not contradict Zimmerman's statement. Trayvon started it by attacking Zimmerman who was on his way back to his truck.
 
Including Zimmerman who confessed he went after Martin. That was what led to Martin's murder. If Zimmerman is found to be guilty of a crime, it will likely stem from that. Had he just called police and left it to the police to handle, as he was supposed to do, none of this would have happened.
Going after someone as in following to keep them under observation is not wrong.
 
Also, he wasn't under any obligation to follow the dispatchers advise.
Good luck explaining to a jury that he should be entitled to get off on self-defense after ignoring the advice he received from calling 911.
 
Going after someone as in following to keep them under observation is not wrong.


"You don't need to do that sir..." That will be played over, and over, and over.


j-mac
 
Could this be a case of ''waving the bloody shirt?and who attacked first?that's what counts isn't it?

That is what the defense for Zimmerman is counting on, however, what is causing such confusion is that those defending Zimmerman are making out Martin to be some thug kid, that attacked Zimmerman, when there isn't one of us that wouldn't be spooked by some stranger following us, and hell might even confront that person to see who they are, and why they are following...

Bottom line at this moment is an old saying, "when two bad decisions meet, nothing good happens."


j-mac
 
True...but shooting them may be.
If he shoot after being attacked he's only guilty of being nosy.on a side note ,most of the pics I found on the msm show the victim at a much earlier age.I wonder why?
 
If he shoot after being attacked he's only guilty of being nosy.on a side note ,most of the pics I found on the msm show the victim at a much earlier age.I wonder why?


It goes beyond nosy when you take a gun with you and use it disproportionately to any level of attack coming at you, even if there was a witness, that witness said nothing about Martin having a gun.


j-mac
 
Martin is dead and there's only one to tell the story.

Zimmerman must articulate his reasons for shooting. Zimmerman must say that he was in immediate fear of his life or great bodily harm and he shot to stop his attacker. Period

He must stick with his story. Practice it. Repeat it, over and over again until, he becomes what he is practicing and he is home free

There's nothing that will keep Zimmerman out of the pen. He's screwed.
 
Zimmerman's attorney is not claiming SYG applies. His client killed Martin in self defense.

"In my legal opinion, that's not really applicable to this case. The statute on 'stand your ground' is primarily when you're in your house," said Craig Sonner, attorney for George Zimmerman. "This is self-defense, and that's been around for forever -- that you have a right to defend yourself. So the next issue (that) is going to come up is, was he justified in using the amount of force he did?"

Zimmerman's lawyer: 'Stand your ground' doesn't apply in Trayvon Martin case - CNN.com

I read this again ... Sounds like Zimmerman's attorney ain't the brightest. The whole controversy over the stand your ground law was that it was extended beyond the walls of one's house. Particularly paragraph #3 ...


(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
 
There's nothing that will keep Zimmerman out of the pen. He's screwed.


I think that is true, but the speculation orgy going on now is far too titillating to pass up...

j-mac
 
True...but shooting them may be.
That may be, but if he acted in self-defense as claimed and not contradicted by the evidence.
Then he should be fine if they actually follow the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom