• 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!

Another Zimmerman thread.

Funny thing here is that women beat up on men all the time and are still considered "good citizens".
Maybe in your opinion. In my opinion anyone who beats up on someone outside a professional sport setting isn't a good citizen.

iLOL That wasn't opinion, it is fact.
You probably have known a few throughout your life but don't even know it and consider them to be good citizens. Which was one of the points being made.





And this concept we are speaking about could be a very interesting topic. As in -- are they always a bad citizen from that point of the act forward? Or does there come a time after the act, such as after parole that the person can then be considered a "good citizen". Unless you live a in a black and white world, it isn't that simple.
 
Zimmerman was just like this coward in the recent SYG case. A chicken **** that has to hide behind a gun, then go out and start trouble.

Zimmerman instigated this by stalking Trayvon.
Wrong. There was no stalking.
Trying to keep an eye on a suspicious person so you can then point them out to the police when they arrive is not stalking, but it is called following.


the cops told him not to go after him, and he wanted to be big tough guy.
Wrong. On both counts even.
A call-taker said that they did not need Zimmerman to follow Trayvon.
1. That is a suggestion. Nor is it an order. (Even if the call taker had been an Officer an officer could not give an order over the phone.)
2. Zimmerman actually followed the advice given and instead traveled East when Trayvon had disappeared to the South.


Trayvon didn't know why this guy was following him, he could have easily feared for his life, which is why he eventually attacked Zimmerman.
Being followed is not a reason to lay-in-wait and attack.
 
Zimmerman's behavior since the trial has been anything but stellar, but the fact of the matter is he shot Trayvon Martin in self defense that night and did nothing morally or legally wrong.

I watched every single day of that trial and anyone else who did the same, knows the verdict the jury handed down was the correct one. Anyone who says different is either lying, or blinded by their ideological beliefs/partisan political agenda... either that or their just a fool.

.
 
Zimmerman's behavior since the trial has been anything but stellar, but the fact of the matter is he shot Trayvon Martin in self defense that night and did nothing morally or legally wrong.

I watched every single day of that trial and anyone else who did the same, knows the verdict the jury handed down was the correct one. Anyone who says different is either lying, or blinded by their ideological beliefs/partisan political agenda... either that or their just a fool.

.


Absolutely correct.

I was absolutely stunned when I watched the complete trial and had no idea why Angela Corey still had a job.
 
No, but they are alert to thugs that have mayhem in mind. That's the topic here......not subsequent behavior.

When you call them a good citizen you opened the door to his behavior outside the incident, he proved himself to be anything but a good citizen.
 
George Zimmerman is a hero to every wimp who ever started a fight and then got his ass beat.
 
George Zimmerman is a hero to every wimp who ever started a fight and then got his ass beat.

Wrong again calamity, Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Your racialism failed and your lack of facts failed.
 
Wrong again calamity, Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Your racialism failed and your lack of facts failed.
Who followed who?

Zimmerman started a fight he could not finish. And, like all ******s, he had to pull out a gun to save his ass.
 
Who followed who?

Zimmerman started a fight he could not finish. And, like all ******s, he had to pull out a gun to save his ass.

The LAW and the COURT proved you wrong.
 
Who followed who?

Zimmerman started a fight he could not finish. And, like all ******s, he had to pull out a gun to save his ass.

You're still factless, Zimmerman didnt start the fight.
 
There is no evidence to the contrary.
I taught Lance Armstrong how to ride up mountains.


There is no evidence to the contrary.
 
I taught Lance Armstrong how to ride up mountains.


There is no evidence to the contrary.

Fine, produce the evidence, substantiate your claim.
 

The jury's unanimous "not guilty" verdict contradicts you, the same way reality proves your claim that the MSM portrayed Martin as a thug to be absolutely false:

trayvon_bias.jpg
 
What are your respective opinions as to how the news media handled the facts of the case?
 
The LAW and the COURT proved you wrong.

Wrong. The lawyers did. The LAW And the COURT are inanimate objects.
 
My opinion of that incident has changed - although my greater core perspective overall about such incidents in general has not. I threw out most of what is debated.

Martin and Zimmerman were not stellar citizens. However, trying to psycho-analyze predicting their conduct of this it worthless. So their histories - and for Zimmerman before and since is irrelevant.

There was nothing illegal nor justifying violence against Zimmerman because he followed Martin. There was nothing illegal nor justifying violence against Martin because he doubled back to Zimmerman.

So I throw all that debate in the trash as it is worthless on the question of innocence or guilt. Entirely irrelevant.

While there is physical evidence and Zimmerman's side of the story, we don't know what happened in the critical second - literally second - that matters. We only have Zimmerman's story.

The only facts we have is a facial wound to Zimmerman of a nature that sends an intense pain shock wave thru the brain and can be fully temporarily blinding. We also know Zimmerman had a wound on the back of his head - and from the knock-out game know in fact that a single blow causing a person's head to hit concrete - even if young men - has killed dozens of people. One slug can kill. We know Zimmerman shot Martin after that blow and read of head injury. We know law allows a person to use deadly force against an assault that may cause serious injury or death.

For that reason on a presumption of innocence we must find Zimmerman legally not guilty (only meaning it is not certain that he was).

STOP: Does this mean in the true reality it was not murder - only no evidence to prove it? Absolutely it could have been murder. For example, Zimmerman could have said he's making a "citizen's arrest" or Martin may have started to turn away with Zimmerman ordering him not to move and get on the ground to wait for the police - with Zimmerman going for his gun. IF that is the TRUE story, Martin has every right to slam Zimmerman in the face, pound his head into the concrete or anything else to get that gun away from Zimmerman.

BUT there is no evidence that happened. We can not assume possibilities on evidence and find a person guilty by possibilities. We can only assume possibilities and find a person not guilty by those possibilities.

Legally, the jury had no option but to find Zimmerman not guilty. In fact, we will never know if he is or not - because we do not and can not know.
 
Last edited:
My greater core position on these type incidents - two men in a violent confrontation - is from a different direction and more universal. Please consider it.

First, I will clarify that I count Martin as a man, not a child as the media tried to portray. In most wars of world history and most militaries of today, age 17 or younger is the age of enlistment. In a fight between a 17 year old male who is athletic - and Martin was - and a 34 year old, if I had to bet on the outcome I'd bet on the 17 year old. He's faster and more flexible. This said:

No one forced either of these men into any conflict. Both of them went looking for trouble. Both of them were figurative pounding their chests approaching each other proactively and aggressively. Both men were verbally challenging each other. Both obviously were within each other's "first strike" zone - and first strike usually wins a fight. Either one could have walked away at any time until the critical second of the first hit/strike. Neither did. Both were men who went looking for trouble - and both men found it - both having vastly over estimated their maleness powers.

It could have gone either way. Martin could have fatally or in a way to cause permanent brain damage tp Zimmerman or otherwise severely harmed him. Martin possibly could have wrestled Zimmerman's gun away and shot him with it. Without Zimmerman's gun, it is clear that Martin would have won the conflict further as Zimmerman was clearly losing, and once this involved Zimmerman's head hitting concrete it was a lethal potential fight.

But, instead, for the gun, Zimmerman lived and Martin did not. Zimmerman did not "win," given he was run thru jail, a trial, his life all but wrecked - but obviously Martin lost everything.

When to men go looking for trouble in this manner, I have NO sympathy for either one of them. I see no reason why I should try to micro-analyse milli-second by milli-second what happened, because the human brain and human emotions don't go that way. This became a fight to the death such as across human history such male chest pounding has lead to countless times. So I do not lament what happened, do not lament Martin's death, do not lament Zimmerman's troubles, and I leave it at that.

In short, my final opinion is I don't care what happened. You go looking for trouble at that level, you have nothing to sob about if you find what you went looking for. They both went looking for trouble, both of them were entirely out of the league they both thought they were in (like nearly every man is), and what came of it is what often does when two men act like that. Neither of them were forced into this, they both did it on their own. Both were their own victims, they both brought it on themselves. I will not cheer the winner nor sob for the loser.
 
Last edited:
What are your respective opinions as to how the news media handled the facts of the case?

They played the race card by portraying Zimmerman as white and Martin as black, although Zimmerman is exactly as white as President Obama is white - and the media otherwise always portrays someone who is a 50/50 white-non white mix only but the minority 50%. Latino shoots black teen would contradict their political agenda.

Overall, injecting race into this was 100% false. NOTHING demonstrated any racial motive by Zimmerman - and that claim began by one network literally falsely editing the 911 phone call.

The media falsely portrayed Martin as a child - even showing a childhood pictures of him.

By these distortions and initial outright deliberate lies - all because it was an election season and to drum up black votes - Zimmerman was put on trial. Without those distortions and lies by the media and press for partisan political purpose, there never would have been a trial in the first place.
 
I will be glad if Zimmerman gets arrested and sent to prison for the rest of his life. With his actions: has made him not to be the NRA golden boy anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom