• 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!

Is he lying?

Your instinct ... is Zimmerman lying about what took place?

  • Total voters
    57
haymarket said:
We know that Zimmerman took the life of an unarmed minor after he was advised by a professional not to approach him. While that in no way changes the legal assumption of innocence - it does warrant a thorough and complete investigation to determine if Z is telling the truth.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that Haymarket. What it doesn't warrant, is making Zimmerman prove he's innocent.
 
haymarket said:
We know that Zimmerman took the life of an unarmed minor after he was advised by a professional not to approach him. While that in no way changes the legal assumption of innocence - it does warrant a thorough and complete investigation to determine if Z is telling the truth.
Click to expand...

I think this is where the problem is. Had the police completed a thorough investigation and concluded there was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges, the situation would have been considerably different than it is now. As a consequence of failing to investigate, the current situation beckons speculation. There is something I find rather repugnant about people choosing sides on this issue. Everyone should be outraged that this was not investigated like it should have been, but instead people seem to be more interested in going with their initial emotional reactions and personal intuitions about the events.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't disagree with that Haymarket. What it doesn't warrant, is making Zimmerman prove he's innocent.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman admits shooting and killing someone. You must have a reason for doing that, so yes, he must prove his 'innocence' in that respect (that his use of force was justified).

Now if there were zero witnesses, and if Zimmerman had not admitted (via 911) that he was following Martin, and if Zimmerman really did show physical evidence of a serious beating, then Zimmerman could probably get away scott free on his version of events alone.

However, that is not the case, and in a non-SYG state Zimmerman would have already been charged -- for his actions precipitated the shooting. It is the peculiarities of the SYG law that allow him to pursue, get in an altercation, then kill without penalty. Again, the pursuit is the key -- he set events in motion.
 
CriticalThought said:
I think this is where the problem is. Had the police completed a thorough investigation and concluded there was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges, the situation would have been considerably different than it is now. As a consequence of failing to investigate, the current situation beckons speculation. There is something I find rather repugnant about people choosing sides on this issue. Everyone should be outraged that this was not investigated like it should have been [...]
Click to expand...
I think it has already been investigated to the extent possible (edit: well, to the extent that it will make any difference). Zimmerman will walk due to the SYG law, barring a purely political prosecution, or a surprise witness.

Even if no aggressive wounds were found on Martin's hands, that still does not obviate Zimmerman's claimed fear of great bodily harm (head allegedly being bashed into the sidewalk).
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
Who requested the analysis?

I have hard time believing an "expert" if the "news" organization was the ones who requested it. I mean... just look at all the advertising that guy's firm got in that story......
Click to expand...

I agree with you reservedly, but it is good of you to point it out. I really don't believe that news institutions (for the most part) go out seeking to press a specific point of view, and will generally present evidence like this regardless of the outcome. First of all, news organizations are more biased toward the sensational than anything else, including over liberal or conservative. Related: This would have been news everyone wanted to read regardless of the outcome. Second, the Sentinel is accused of being liberal by conservatives, and conservative by liberals, so they are probably doing a better job than MSNBC or Fox news of truly being 'fair and balanced'. Third, the guy's firm would have gotten the free advertising regardless of his conclusions: This is a hot issue on both sides. Finally, would the analysts stake their reputations on conclusions that they felt were likely to be different than the official ones?

That said, reading the way it is written, it looks like the Orlando Sentinel requested the analysis. The effect of what the paper has done here is to force the hand of prosecutors. They will be forced (and should be forced) to have their own expert analysis done. They may have already been planning to, but the newspaper has made certain that it will now happen.

And in the end, you are right that this is not the conclusion of the official investigation. I concede that we should all bear these things in mind when looking at the 'evidence'.
 
CriticalThought said:
I think this is where the problem is. Had the police completed a thorough investigation and concluded there was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges, the situation would have been considerably different than it is now. As a consequence of failing to investigate, the current situation beckons speculation. There is something I find rather repugnant about people choosing sides on this issue. Everyone should be outraged that this was not investigated like it should have been, but instead people seem to be more interested in going with their initial emotional reactions and personal intuitions about the events.
Click to expand...

Why does everyone keep saying that the police did not complete a thorough investigation?
Do you have any idea what is in that case file that the State Attorney has, that was put together by the Sandford PD?

Can you please tell us how it "should have been" investigated? Or for that matter, How it WAS investigated?
 
Dezaad said:
I agree with you reservedly, but it is good of you to point it out. I really don't believe that news institutions (for the most part) go out seeking to press a specific point of view, and will generally present evidence like this regardless of the outcome. First of all, news organizations are more biased toward the sensational than anything else, including over liberal or conservative. Related: This would have been news everyone wanted to read regardless of the outcome. Second, the Sentinel is accused of being liberal by conservatives, and conservative by liberals, so they are probably doing a better job than MSNBC or Fox news of truly being 'fair and balanced'. Third, the guy's firm would have gotten the free advertising regardless of his conclusions: This is a hot issue on both sides. Finally, would the analysts stake their reputations on conclusions that they felt were likely to be different than the official ones?

That said, reading the way it is written, it looks like the Orlando Sentinel requested the analysis. The effect of what the paper has done here is to force the hand of prosecutors. They will be forced (and should be forced) to have their own expert analysis done. They may have already been planning to, but the newspaper has made certain that it will now happen.

And in the end, you are right that this is not the conclusion of the official investigation. I concede that we should all bear these things in mind when looking at the 'evidence'.
Click to expand...

And the State may not have done an analysis because the results cannot be accurate due to him SCREAMING as compared to just Talking.


In as far as news institutions don't go seeking a specific point of view....

NBC Deceptively Edits Zimmerman 911 Call; Implies Racist Motive
 
Caine said:
And the State may not have done an analysis because the results cannot be accurate due to him SCREAMING as compared to just Talking.


In as far as news institutions don't go seeking a specific point of view....

NBC Deceptively Edits Zimmerman 911 Call; Implies Racist Motive
Click to expand...

Yes, as I granted through implication, I do think it does happen. I think Fox and MSNBC are the ones that typically do this sort of thing on occasion. I just don't agree that it generally happens. We are talking about the Orlando Sentinel, not MSNBC.
 
Dezaad said:
Yes, as I granted through implication, I do think it does happen. I think Fox and MSNBC are the ones that typically do this sort of thing on occasion. I just don't agree that it generally happens. We are talking about the Orlando Sentinel, not MSNBC.
Click to expand...

Oh I know.... its just hard to trust any of them.

Like ABC getting that grainy ass video and screaming YO There ain't no wounds here!
And then someone else coming along and releasing the higher definition video.

Or what not. I haven't really seen much of what Fox has released on the matter. Maybe I'll find some overly supportive crap on there.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't disagree with that Haymarket. What it doesn't warrant, is making Zimmerman prove he's innocent.
Click to expand...
You're correct. So if the bullet came form Zimmerman's gun and Zimmerman told police what he did, and we all think this is correct then Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. So the proof is needed by the government to prove that Zimmerman didn't follow all provisions in the SYGL that allow Zimmerman to kill Martin.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
You're correct. So if the bullet came form Zimmerman's gun and Zimmerman told police what he did, and we all think this is correct then Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. So the proof is needed by the government to prove that Zimmerman didn't follow all provisions in the SYGL that allow Zimmerman to kill Martin.
Click to expand...

Not even necessarily SYG law.

This incident is covered under regular ass self-defense.
 
Caine said:
Not even necessarily SYG law.

This incident is covered under regular ass self-defense.
Click to expand...
Yes, Zimmerman's defense attorney can use any law on the books he thinks will work.
But, then no, because if Martin was several feet away form Zimmerman when shot and if Zimmerman pursued Martin at all, the regular self-defense law probably won't be sufficient. Read it.
 
i believe in divine justice ,if he is lying ,he will face it sooner or later
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Yes, Zimmerman's defense attorney can use any law on the books he thinks will work.
But, then no, because if Martin was several feet away form Zimmerman when shot and if Zimmerman pursued Martin at all, the regular self-defense law probably won't be sufficient. Read it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if. There is no reason to even speculate such nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom