• 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.

Question for M's supporters....

sharon said:
If your head was forcefully and repeatedly pounded against concrete, it would be life threatening and at minimum put you in the hospital under the care of a neurologist and/or neurosurgeon.
Click to expand...


See! Sharon is one of those who claims that GZ, the police, GZ and the doctor all used stage make up to fake the injuries and that GZ was not hurt at all.
 
Gladiator said:
Zim says Trayvon did not run from Zim in Fear, in his TV interview . Zim says he did not speak to Trayvon in a beligerant manner. Zim says he had no idea that Trayvon would be agitated with Zim until it was too late to continue back toward his truck. Do you believe that Zim really did intentionally not put Trayvon in fear?


I beleive Zim is a liar and was trying to jam Trayvon around from the start. At what point did Zim's beligerance become Assault? Zim had a duty to retreat, but did not.


The question of the situation when Zim shot Trayvon, ignores the reality of the start of the situation.

//
Click to expand...


There is no duty to retreat not is that even relevant.

Who we know is LIED is TM, who told the girl on the phone he was walking home fast - when that was 100% a lie.
TM = LIAR!
 
sharon said:
ACCOST

1.Approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.
2.Approach (someone) with hostility or harmful intent.
Click to expand...

You posted dozens of messages that YOU would have directly confronted TM demanding he tell you what address he was going to - and criticize GZ for not doing so. You would be far more aggressive than GZ was.
 
Das Sozialist said:
I would.

Now, may I ask, would you be afraid if an unknown person was following you?
Click to expand...

Possibly, but certainly would not see it as reason to violently assault that person.

Obviously TM wasn't afraid or there would never have been any face to face confrontation.
 
Das Sozialist said:
I would.

Now, may I ask, would you be afraid if an unknown person was following you?
Click to expand...

Fear of serious bodily harm or death is eminently reasonable at the point in time that it matters....Its very specific

Someone following you is NOT fear of serious bodily harm or death....You have an option of retreat.
 
joko104 said:
See! Sharon is one of those who claims that GZ, the police, GZ and the doctor all used stage make up to fake the injuries and that GZ was not hurt at all.
Click to expand...

That's absurd.. George's injuries and George's doctor examed his injuries.. They will testify to their "severity".
 
joko104 said:
You posted dozens of messages that YOU would have directly confronted TM demanding he tell you what address he was going to - and criticize GZ for not doing so. You would be far more aggressive than GZ was.
Click to expand...

A friendly question or offer to help is NOT aggressive or confrontational ... Only an idiot like George could screw that up.
 
I don't support either party, but in answer to your question:

Yeah, probably.

However...Z was not minding his own business, making good decisions, completely unaware of M prior to ending up on the ground. In fact, even his own statements don't corroborate the idea that M came out of nowhere and attacked him from behind w/o warning. Z made several bad decisions, directly ignored the safety-related suggestions of the 911 operator, and took an aggressive tone with M (from his own account/the account of the girl M was on the phone with). He invited a confrontation with M and took a huge risk in doing so. If he didn't anticipate the possibility of a physical confrontation after the decisions he made then he's either stupid or delusional.

That said: Z was probably justified in defending himself in the exact moment he had to do so. He wouldn't have ended up in that position had he not decided to seek out vigilante justice for previous crime in his neighborhood, choosing to track and scare a young man in the process.
 
Corey Dade, another board member, added for NPR: “Parks said his firm has obtained documentation from the homeowners association where the shooting occurred that establishes Zimmerman as neighborhood watch captain.

” He said language in the document advises residents to direct any concerns about crime to Zimmerman. For that reason, he said, the family is preparing to file a civil lawsuit against the homeowners association.

” ‘The close nature of the working relationship [between Zimmerman and the homeowners association] is as clear as it can be,’ Parks said .

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. The Retreat At Twin Lakes Homeowners' Association, Inc. et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings

Way to go George........
 
Kal'Stang said:
Would you or would you not be afraid for your life if someone was pounding your head onto something hard? Its a simple yes or not question. I've asked it in a couple of threads and I have yet to recieve a reply. This way I can definitely rule out the "excuse" that they just didn't see it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely I would be afraid. And if Martin had attacked Zimmerman out of the blue and started pounding his head on the pavement, I doubt you'd hear any debate over it at all.

But if Martin is knocking my head on the ground because I was chasing him with gun drawn, that changes the circumstances significantly.

We don't know what happened and likely never will. Because of this, I don't know how anybody can take "sides" on this issue. To me, the "guilt" for the situation likely rests on one of the two individuals, but it is 50-50 which one it falls on. As Zimmerman is the one who could have avoided the entire encounter, and Martin is the one who paid with his life, I am hardest on the former, but I don't consider myself be a "supporter" or on the "side" of either.
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
But if Martin is knocking my head on the ground because I was chasing him with gun drawn, that changes the circumstances significantly.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you on this. Had Z been chasing M with his gun drawn, then Z deserved what he got and should be found guilt yof m2. However, that is not what occured. Z did not have his gun out, as evidenced by all the information available, including witness statements.
 
Das Sozialist said:
I would.

Now, may I ask, would you be afraid if an unknown person was following you?
Click to expand...

Actually no I wouldn't be. I've been followed before and all I did was the moment I noticed it I turned around and asked the person why they were following me. Turned out it was some one that I had known at a previous work place. I just didn't realize it until we started talking.
 
sharon said:
That's absurd.. George's injuries and George's doctor examed his injuries.. They will testify to their "severity".
Click to expand...

And no doubt pictures of the injuries will be displayed to the jurors so that they can see for themselves the severity also.
 
buck said:
That is why Zimm's claim that he was returning to his truck is rather important. If he was returning to his truck, he did not instigate the confrontation. Sadly, for some, the investigator has already stated they can not disprove that he was returning to his truck.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a whole string of poor actions on Z's part, but that's all negated if he went back to his truck. :roll:

Just keep defending him at any cost, lil buckaroo.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
I don't support either party, but in answer to your question:

Yeah, probably.

However...Z was not minding his own business, making good decisions, completely unaware of M prior to ending up on the ground. In fact, even his own statements don't corroborate the idea that M came out of nowhere and attacked him from behind w/o warning. Z made several bad decisions, directly ignored the safety-related suggestions of the 911 operator, and took an aggressive tone with M (from his own account/the account of the girl M was on the phone with). He invited a confrontation with M and took a huge risk in doing so. If he didn't anticipate the possibility of a physical confrontation after the decisions he made then he's either stupid or delusional.

That said: Z was probably justified in defending himself in the exact moment he had to do so. He wouldn't have ended up in that position had he not decided to seek out vigilante justice for previous crime in his neighborhood, choosing to track and scare a young man in the process.
Click to expand...

100% agree, Tess. Exactly my take as well.
 
Krhazy said:
Absolutely I would be afraid. And if Martin had attacked Zimmerman out of the blue and started pounding his head on the pavement, I doubt you'd hear any debate over it at all.
Click to expand...

Buck answered the rest of your post just fine for my taste but I wanted to address this.

This is basically what happened. From the evidence that is available Zimmerman lost sight of Martin during Z's 911 call. And during the re-enactment Z tells the story of him going back to his truck after getting the address. On his way back to his truck Martin came up to him and asked Z if he had a problem. After Z's answer Martin attacked him.

Now if Z had never lost sight of M I would agree with M's supporters that Z should be held responsible. But Z lost sight of M until the moment M came back and asked Z what his problem was, at that point it fell to M to who was at fault for M's resulting death. Martin should never have gone back and confronted Zimmerman. He should have remained hidden until Z was gone.
 
tessaesque said:
I don't support either party, but in answer to your question:

Yeah, probably.

However...Z was not minding his own business, making good decisions, completely unaware of M prior to ending up on the ground. In fact, even his own statements don't corroborate the idea that M came out of nowhere and attacked him from behind w/o warning. Z made several bad decisions, directly ignored the safety-related suggestions of the 911 operator, and took an aggressive tone with M (from his own account/the account of the girl M was on the phone with). He invited a confrontation with M and took a huge risk in doing so. If he didn't anticipate the possibility of a physical confrontation after the decisions he made then he's either stupid or delusional.

That said: Z was probably justified in defending himself in the exact moment he had to do so. He wouldn't have ended up in that position had he not decided to seek out vigilante justice for previous crime in his neighborhood, choosing to track and scare a young man in the process.
Click to expand...

It actually was kind of his buisness. It was his neighborhood after all and there had been lots of burglaries lately. As a concerned citizen aware of whats been going on I see no problem with a person trying to watch out for his/her neighbors.

Did Z make some bad decisions? Thats kind of subjective.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Yeah, a whole string of poor actions on Z's part, but that's all negated if he went back to his truck. :roll:

Just keep defending him at any cost, lil buckaroo.
Click to expand...

Actually what negated the responsibility was when Martin hid from Z and Z had no idea where he was. From that point on the ball was in Martins court.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Yeah, a whole string of poor actions on Z's part, but that's all negated if he went back to his truck. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, once Z lost sight of M and was returning to his truck, he is no longer the instigator. It then becomes T who instigated the encounter by approaching Z. If the state can disprove that Z was returning to his truck, this may change. I've read multiple legal experts that have stated this.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It actually was kind of his buisness. It was his neighborhood after all and there had been lots of burglaries lately. As a concerned citizen aware of whats been going on I see no problem with a person trying to watch out for his/her neighbors.

Did Z make some bad decisions? Thats kind of subjective.
Click to expand...

A logical concerned citizen calls 9-1-1, reports what he's seen, and goes about his business. In fact, in most NW organizations, that is SOP. Z admittedly tracked M, made himself visible while tracking M (to the point that M was supposedly scared/concerned for his safety according to one witness), and left his vehicle to look for an address (and probably regain site of M). He went directly against the advice of the 9-1-1 operator by tracking M and by exiting his truck. The fact that he carried a gun while on watch duty (or was he not..because I've heard varying accounts) suggests he was prepared for and expected the possibility of a confrontation.

The behavior that Z describes in and of itself sounds wreckless, stupid, and inappropriate. He created that situation through his behavior. Had he gone by SOP and filed a report (which is all that's expected of NW reps, generally speaking) there wouldn't have been a scared, paranoid kid and an eventual shooting death.

So you can talk about subjectivity all day, but it seems pretty obvious that Z acted less than intelligently the minute he disobeyed the 9-1-1 operated and began following M.
 
buck said:
I actually agree with you on this. Had Z been chasing M with his gun drawn, then Z deserved what he got and should be found guilt yof m2. However, that is not what occured. Z did not have his gun out, as evidenced by all the information available, including witness statements.
Click to expand...

But we only have Zs word that he didnt go for the gun (or appear to) at the crucial moment. Just as they came together.

I wish there was more support for the rule of law and less for a k ucklehead whose actio s resulted in a 17 year olds death.

I'm comfortable with Z getting off due to reasonable doubt.

What i dont get is the hero worship.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually what negated the responsibility was when Martin hid from Z and Z had no idea where he was. From that point on the ball was in Martins court.
Click to expand...

Sure did take Z a LONG time to walk a distance covered in 26 seco ds in the reenactment.

So its entirely possible that Z WASN'T walki g straight back to his truck.

So its also entirely possible Z came up on M in the dark and THEN the interaction occurred.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Buck answered the rest of your post just fine for my taste but I wanted to address this.

This is basically what happened. From the evidence that is available Zimmerman lost sight of Martin during Z's 911 call. And during the re-enactment Z tells the story of him going back to his truck after getting the address. On his way back to his truck Martin came up to him and asked Z if he had a problem. After Z's answer Martin attacked him.

Now if Z had never lost sight of M I would agree with M's supporters that Z should be held responsible. But Z lost sight of M until the moment M came back and asked Z what his problem was, at that point it fell to M to who was at fault for M's resulting death. Martin should never have gone back and confronted Zimmerman. He should have remained hidden until Z was gone.
Click to expand...
You are simply adopting in whole Z's version of events. The girlfriend has a story as well that conflicts significantly with the above. Witnesses have corroborated Z's version of who was on top and that Z was being attacked, and that is important, but I do not think it is the key issue of the case.

One of the things I find most important about the full 911 call is that, at the very end, Z changes his mind and, instead of agreeing to meet the officer by the mailboxes, tells the dispatcher to have the officer call him so Z can tell him where he is. That to me is extremely good proof that Z was not finished pursuing Martin. Yes, perhaps he lost site of Martin (although some commentators have made the point that there was little place for Martin to hide in the area where the incident occurred), but I do not think that is determinative. The key is what happened toward the end of the phone call and immediately before the scuffle began. And I don't think we will ever know the answer.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Buck answered the rest of your post just fine for my taste but I wanted to address this.

This is basically what happened. From the evidence that is available Zimmerman lost sight of Martin during Z's 911 call. And during the re-enactment Z tells the story of him going back to his truck after getting the address. On his way back to his truck Martin came up to him and asked Z if he had a problem. After Z's answer Martin attacked him.

Now if Z had never lost sight of M I would agree with M's supporters that Z should be held responsible. But Z lost sight of M until the moment M came back and asked Z what his problem was, at that point it fell to M to who was at fault for M's resulting death. Martin should never have gone back and confronted Zimmerman. He should have remained hidden until Z was gone.
Click to expand...

Why was George running after Trayvon? Unless GZ can clear 10 feet per second at a walk, he's lying.

How do you know Trayvn went back if you don't know where he went in the first place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom