• 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.

Do You Think Zimmerman is Guilty?

What's your Verdict?

  • Total voters
    115
Thunder said:
and Zimmerman had NO right to pursue someone.
Click to expand...
Sorry, following is very much allowed. Pursue , i.e. following urgently, is also allowed. The valid urgency being that Zimmerman thought Martin was a criminal. However, to your point, the pursued may rightly take great offence at being perused. Therefore, the pursuer must be ready for a strong reaction from the perused so that something like a fight doesn't result. That's why, in my opinion, he was advised not to follow. One can question if Zimmerman was standing his ground one he started following, oh, persuing. If this is the case, many of my previous posts on the various threads are incorrect about using the SYGL as a defense, it may not work.
 
Last edited:
OhIsee.Then said:
Sorry, following is very much allowed. Pursue , i.e. follow urgently, is also allowed. The urgency being that Zimmerman thought Martin was a criminal. However, to your point, the pursued may rightly take great offence at being perused. Therefore, the pursuer must be ready for a strong reaction from the perused so that something like a fight doesn't result.
Click to expand...

yes, pursuing someone is legal.

but when you do it, expect the person you are pursuing to feel intimidated, provoked, and even threatened.

and if you it in Florida, and walk right up to them.....the person you are pursuing has the right to knock you out.
 
Thunder said:
yes, pursuing someone is legal.
Click to expand...
Wrong, not simply incorrect but wrong. You have every right to persue and make a citizens arrest of a suspect IF you can prove the necessity to do so. How do you figure that to happen without a pursuit? EDIT - Thought you said illegal, my bad. Scratch this response.

but when you do it, expect the person you are pursuing to feel intimidated, provoked, and even threatened.
Click to expand...
No one claimed otherwise. This is a strawman.

and if you it in Florida, and walk right up to them.....the person you are pursuing has the right to knock you out.
Click to expand...
Nope, SYG applies to unlawful actions. Pursuit is not unlawful.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Wrong, not simply incorrect but wrong. You have every right to persue and make a citizens arrest of a suspect IF you can prove the necessity to do so....
Click to expand...

bull****.

you can ONLY make a citizen's arrest when you actually witness a crime being committed.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Completely agree with the assessment, which is why I don't think it's a good idea for people to proclaim to know one way or another who was the aggressor and what the level of guilt is.
Click to expand...
YES! Over and over again, in various ways I've noted the same.
 
Thunder said:
yes, pursuing someone is legal.

but when you do it, expect the person you are pursuing to feel intimidated, provoked, and even threatened.

and if you it in Florida, and walk right up to them.....the person you are pursuing has the right to knock you out.
Click to expand...

Thanks for essentially agreeing with me. I haven't had much of that with this Zimmerman Martin case.
 
Thunder said:
bull****.

you can ONLY make a citizen's arrest when you actually witness a crime being committed.
Click to expand...
I never said otherwise. That is why I said the person making the arrest must prove the necessity to do so.
 
Thunder said:
yes, pursuing someone is legal.

but when you do it, expect the person you are pursuing to feel intimidated, provoked, and even threatened.

and if you it in Florida, and walk right up to them.....the person you are pursuing has the right to knock you out.
Click to expand...

Let me edit your post that I'm agreeing with so I don't get in trouble. "...and if you it in Florida, and walk right up to them 'in a threatening way'.....the person you are pursuing has the right to knock you out.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Let me edit your post that I'm agreeing with so I don't get in trouble. "...and if you it in Florida, and walk right up to them 'in a threatening way'.....the person you are pursuing has the right to knock you out.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, SYG applies to illegal actions, Zimmerman would have had to actively been engaging in assault or attempted battery for Martin to legally use force, but neither was a lawbreaker here before the altercation which complicates the whole thing. I don't assign guilt to either but I do state firmly that both of them made horrible decisions which ended in a tragedy.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Absolutely, SYG applies to illegal actions, Zimmerman would have had to actively been engaging in assault or attempted battery for Martin to legally use force, but neither was a lawbreaker here before the altercation which complicates the whole thing. I don't assign guilt to either but I do state firmly that both of them made horrible decisions which ended in a tragedy.
Click to expand...
OK. An issue that troubles me is the order of "horrible decisions". Martin was walking, talking on the phone to a friend, carrying some treats he purchased. Zimmerman was thinking Martin was very likely a criminal, ref. the transcript. Who, with plenty of time to think about it, made the first horrible decision? It may be a useful exercise to list out the horrible decisions in the order that they happened.

Let me add: And list the magnitude of the horrible decision.
 
Last edited:
OhIsee.Then said:
OK. An issue that troubles me is the order of "horrible decisions". Martin was walking, talking on the phone to a friend, carrying some treats he purchased. Zimmerman was thinking Martin was very likely a criminal, ref. the transcript. Who, with plenty of time to think about it, made the first horrible decision? It may be a useful exercise to list out the horrible decisions in the order that they happened.

Let me add: And list the magnitude of the horrible decision.
Click to expand...
I'll break down the point. Martin was minding his own business....albeit at a time when criminals typically would be found walking a neighborhood(this is not an indictment of that behavior mind you, but it does seem off to some). The horrible decisions started with Z, he obviously should have just called in the situation and stayed put yet he opted to follow M which I would rate as probably about a 7 of 10. M at some point decided to confront Z for being followed in the time that the call was made, details are sketchy as to the nature of the confrontation but it seems that M may have escalated to violence first, this I would rate at probably about a 9 based on the fact he had no way of knowing what Z was capable of or if he was armed. Z decided his option was to shoot to protect himself, because of the legal ramifications of a court defense I'll rate that a 10 due to the open nature of jury decisions. These three decisions if made a different way could have ended in hurt feelings or a little anger and not two lives ruined.
 
I believe that "I don't know" is the correct answer because we do not know, we were not there and we do not know of all the evidence available. How can we make an informed decision without all the facts?

The problem that we need to worry about is what will happen in society once a judgement is made. Think about the Rodney King incident and Reginold Denny. How much more violence will an acquittal or conviction cause?
 
taxigirl said:
I believe that "I don't know" is the correct answer because we do not know, we were not there and we do not know of all the evidence available. How can we make an informed decision without all the facts?

The problem that we need to worry about is what will happen in society once a judgement is made. Think about the Rodney King incident and Reginold Denny. How much more violence will an acquittal or conviction cause?
Click to expand...
And that is a major problem. People need to accept the decision either way, Zimmerman is entitled to a fair trial and those not on the jury must not convict him without one.
 
LaMidRighter said:
And that is a major problem. People need to accept the decision either way, Zimmerman is entitled to a fair trial and those not on the jury must not convict him without one.
Click to expand...

People think they know better and will always question decisions that are made in high profile cases. I remember the night of the car chase with OJ very clearly, and watched everything that happened, but I still question myself as to what I believe. I just would never engage in violence over it. I think it is so sad that people feel so abandoned by the system that they destroy their own neighborhoods, livelihoods and commit crimes in the name of justice.
 
taxigirl said:
People think they know better and will always question decisions that are made in high profile cases. I remember the night of the car chase with OJ very clearly, and watched everything that happened, but I still question myself as to what I believe. I just would never engage in violence over it. I think it is so sad that people feel so abandoned by the system that they destroy their own neighborhoods, livelihoods and commit crimes in the name of justice.
Click to expand...
Amen to that. The system needs work, but it could be worse.
 
One thing I find Ironic is that some people have been claiming that Zimmerman has been "tried and convicted" in the court of public opinion despite not being privy to all of the information, but these poll results would indicate the opposite is true: more people have tried him and found him not guilty, despite not being privy to all of the information.

13 to 4 so far (only counting the votes of members)

Granted, most people who have voted appear to be in the "need more data" category, indicating that people are mostly being rational. What's ironic, though, is the group making their minds up based on little more than emotion is the "not guilty" group.
 
repeter said:
This article really confirmed what I've been thinking about this whole thing. Zimmerman didn't mean to shoot Martin, he was doing his best to protect his neighbors. I think it's likely that Zimmerman provoked Martin, who lost control, started beating the crap out of Zimmerman, who shot Martin in self-defense.

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting - Yahoo! News

But anyway, do you think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder? Keep in mind, he has to have had a passionnate intent to kill.
Click to expand...

Based on your question and qualifier......no.
 
He is guilty beyond any shadow of doubt.
 
Unable to say.

Currently known public evidence is not adequate to convict, and he is innocent until proven guilty.

Unless the prosecution has something up its sleeve, they will lose. Beyond that, I'm not comfortable having speculative thoughts about what happened.
 
I think he's guilty of manslaughter, not 2nd Degree.
 
JayDubya said:
Unable to say.

Currently known public evidence is not adequate to convict, and he is innocent until proven guilty.

Unless the prosecution has something up its sleeve, they will lose. Beyond that, I'm not comfortable having speculative thoughts about what happened.
Click to expand...

I'm not either and am grateful that some irrational national tensions seem to be simmering down. The doctoring of the 911 audio tape to try to influence opinion was a new low, IMO. I want to hear the court evidence.
 
repeter said:
This article really confirmed what I've been thinking about this whole thing. Zimmerman didn't mean to shoot Martin, he was doing his best to protect his neighbors. I think it's likely that Zimmerman provoked Martin, who lost control, started beating the crap out of Zimmerman, who shot Martin in self-defense.

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting - Yahoo! News

But anyway, do you think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder? Keep in mind, he has to have had a passionnate intent to kill.
Click to expand...
This is clearly a case of self defense.

Zimmerman is 28 years old, 5'9" with a fat gut. Martin was a lean 6'2" 17 year old athlete. I do not think it is possible that Zimmerman could have chased down Martin. It is simply not plausible that Zimmerman started the physical altercation. It couldn't have happened unless Martin wanted it to happen.

I also don't think it's very plausable that a short pudgy dude like Zimmerman would attack somebody who towered over him by that much.

I also don't think it's very plausable that someone would call the police and then go commit a crime when they knew the police were already on their way to the scene.

None of the theories that Zimmerman started the fight make any sense whatsoever.
 
Muhammed said:
This is clearly a case of self defense.

Zimmerman is 28 years old, 5'9" with a fat gut. Martin was a lean 6'2" 17 year old athlete. I do not think it is possible that Zimmerman could have chased down Martin. It is simply not plausible that Zimmerman started the physical altercation. It couldn't have happened unless Martin wanted it to happen.

I also don't think it's very plausable that a short pudgy dude like Zimmerman would attack somebody who towered over him by that much.

I also don't think it's very plausable that someone would call the police and then go commit a crime when they knew the police were already on their way to the scene.

None of the theories that Zimmerman started the fight make any sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I think Zimmerman is culpable because he failed to identify himself.

Its likely that Z reached for his phone or his gun and that's why Trayvlon punched him.

In any case who shoots someone over being punched and knocked down.
 
sharon said:
I think Zimmerman is culpable because he failed to identify himself.

Its likely that Z reached for his phone or his gun and that's why Trayvlon punched him.

In any case who shoots someone over being punched and knocked down.
Click to expand...
He didn't merely knock him down. He was on top of him beating him up as Zimmerman was screaming for help according to the eye witness.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom