• 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.

Objectivity & the Martin/Zimmerman Incident

How objective are you on the Martin/Zimmerman Incident?


  • Total voters
    19
I think the Stand Your Ground law is the larger problem than the parties involved. This type of incident was going to happen sooner or later. In my opinion.

While I entirely agree that the SYG law is problematic, it really bothers me how many people act like just because they don't like the SYG law, they can throw it out the window and prosecute Zimmerman as if the SYG law wasn't in place at the time the incident went down. Like it or not, it was, Zimmerman was either innocent or guilty under the SYG law and if you want to change the SYG law down the road, feel free, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this particular case.
 
I don't think the law needs changing at all. I am going by the evidence we do have and that is that Martin attacked Zimmerman and was smashing his head in the pavement. He could not have retreated even if he wanted too.

The law is not a just shoot anyone law. It just means if someone if assaulting you, you can shoot. You can't just shoot someone because you feel threatened. There has to be a clear and present danger unlike the castle law.
 
I don't think the law needs changing at all. I am going by the evidence we do have and that is that Martin attacked Zimmerman and was smashing his head in the pavement. He could not have retreated even if he wanted too.

The law is not a just shoot anyone law. It just means if someone if assaulting you, you can shoot. You can't just shoot someone because you feel threatened. There has to be a clear and present danger unlike the castle law.

I don't think we have any real evidence on who attacked who. Winning the fight isn't equal to being the aggressor.
 
I don't think we have any real evidence on who attacked who. Winning the fight isn't equal to being the aggressor.

Yes we do. We have testimony from Zimmerman. You may not like it, but it is evidence, and it is real.
 
I don't see the rallys supporting Zimmerman like I do for Martin.........

The far right prefers internet message boards for their missionary work.
 
Yes we do. We have testimony from Zimmerman. You may not like it, but it is evidence, and it is real.
Then I guess the Martin's girlfriend, who said Zimmerman approached Martin, is evidence as well. That means you have two conflicting accounts. Why have you decided to go by the killer's account?
 
Then I guess the Martin's girlfriend, who said Zimmerman approached Martin, is evidence as well. That means you have two conflicting accounts. Why have you decided to go by the killer's account?

That makes it no less evidence. It is also irrelevant to what I said. If Martin confronted him or not does not mean he physically assaulted Martin. Confronting someone does not give you the right to beat on them. If Martin instigated the fight physically, he still needed to defend himself if he was getting his head smashed in as 2 witnesses testified to. Considering Martins youth and size, I would be willing to bet money he started the fight physically. That is just my opinion based on what we know though.

It does not make what Zimmerman did right, but the jury will decide based on the evidence. I am good with that.

You can keep your snide "siding with the killer" bull**** to yourself.
 
Last edited:
That makes it no less evidence. It is also irrelevant to what I said. If Martin confronted him or not does not mean he physically assaulted Martin. Confronting someone does not give you the right to beat on them. If Martin instigated the fight physically, he still needed to defend himself if he was getting his head smashed in as 2 witnesses testified to. Considering Martins youth and size, I would be willing to bet money he started the fight physically. That is just my opinion based on what we know though.

It does not make what Zimmerman did right, but the jury will decide based on the evidence. I am good with that.
None of this has anything to do with my specific criticism of what you specifically said.

You said, "I am going by the evidence we do have and that is that Martin attacked Zimmerman and was smashing his head in the pavement." According to you, the "evidence we do have" is Zimmerman's account - period. However, Zimmerman's account is not the only evidence we do have. On the contrary, Martin's girlfriend's account is also evidence we do have. I'm curious as to why you only include Zimmerman's account as evidence and not the girlfriend when both are, in fact, evidence.

You can keep your snide "siding with the killer" bull**** to yourself.
You seem sensitive.
 
None of this has anything to do with my specific criticism of what you specifically said.

You said, "I am going by the evidence we do have and that is that Martin attacked Zimmerman and was smashing his head in the pavement." According to you, the "evidence we do have" is Zimmerman's account - period. However, Zimmerman's account is not the only evidence we do have. On the contrary, Martin's girlfriend's account is also evidence we do have. I'm curious as to why you only include Zimmerman's account as evidence and not the girlfriend when both are, in fact, evidence.


You seem sensitive.

Not sensitive, just sick of bull**** assumptions.

Zimmerman followed Martin. We know Martin knew he was being followed (I’m giving his girlfriend’s testimony 100% credibility until it is proven I should not). There was a verbal confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman, partially witnessed via the girlfriend via audio before the line went dead. Other witnesses–none of which actually say they saw the confrontation–say they heard yelling… then cried for help.

The one witness to actually see any part of the conflict and identify those involved, a 13-year-old boy named Brown, identified George Zimmerman as being on the ground crying for help.

Brown’s claim most closely coincided with the exact turn of events described by George Zimmerman, which most closely coincides with all forensic evidence recovered at the scene.
- Two more minutes « Bob Owens

This is accurate and how I see it.
 
Back
Top Bottom