• 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.

First George Zimmerman Trial Subpoena Goes Out [W:72]

and it's not unreasonable to be in fear for your life/safety when someone is sitting on top of you pounding your head against the ground :shrug:

Now that is a legal argument, which Zimmerman will use as his defence. Which is why he'll walk.
 
Now that is a legal argument, which Zimmerman will use as his defence. Which is why he'll walk.

No, he's not going to walk. I sympathize with him, and even I would want to find him guilty of something.

But for Zimmerman's actions, Trayvon Martin wouldn't be dead. He, however inadvertently, precipitated Martin's death by his own vigilantism. (I use that term loosely as a adjective and not to say that he was wrong in what he did.)

By Zimmerman's own account, when they finally came face-to-face, Martin said, "Why are you following me?" I don't remember how Zimmerman said he responded, but he did, by his own admission, reach for his cellphone. Martin (or anyone who was being followed) could rightly have been frightened that he was reaching for a gun. He doesn't have to wait for the gun to show itself before he can defend himself...which is what I think he did.

Zimmerman is going to do jail time.
 
No, he's not going to walk. I sympathize with him, and even I would want to find him guilty of something.

But for Zimmerman's actions, Trayvon Martin wouldn't be dead. He, however inadvertently, precipitated Martin's death by his own vigilantism. (I use that term loosely as a adjective and not to say that he was wrong in what he did.)

By Zimmerman's own account, when they finally came face-to-face, Martin said, "Why are you following me?" I don't remember how Zimmerman said he responded, but he did, by his own admission, reach for his cellphone. Martin (or anyone who was being followed) could rightly have been frightened that he was reaching for a gun. He doesn't have to wait for the gun to show itself before he can defend himself...which is what I think he did.

Zimmerman is going to do jail time.

Good points, but I see reasonable doubt all over this. I can kind of picture what happened. There was fear on both sides, and things got out of hand. However, I am not a legal expert and I haven't seen all the evidence.
 
No, he's not going to walk. I sympathize with him, and even I would want to find him guilty of something.

But for Zimmerman's actions, Trayvon Martin wouldn't be dead. He, however inadvertently, precipitated Martin's death by his own vigilantism. (I use that term loosely as a adjective and not to say that he was wrong in what he did.)

By Zimmerman's own account, when they finally came face-to-face, Martin said, "Why are you following me?" I don't remember how Zimmerman said he responded, but he did, by his own admission, reach for his cellphone. Martin (or anyone who was being followed) could rightly have been frightened that he was reaching for a gun. He doesn't have to wait for the gun to show itself before he can defend himself...which is what I think he did.

Zimmerman is going to do jail time.

according to W8, when they came face to face, TM said something along the lines of "do you have a problem with me". to which GZ responded "what are you doing around here"

both perfectly legal actions.

If Trayvon thought GZ was reaching into his pocket for a gun, he was within his rights to defend himself.

GZ, knowing that he was not reaching for a gun, thought that he was attacked for no reason. Once they were on the ground and TM was on top of him, GZ could not reasonably withdraw from the situation (2nd requirement under florida's "use of force by an aggressor" statute) and with TM pounding his head against the ground (after already breaking his nose) it is also reasonable that GZ was in fear of great bodily injury or death (1st requirement under florida's "use of force by an aggressor" statute). and was therefore within his rights to use deadly force to stop the attack.

based purely on the evidence released to date and the way FL statutes are written, GZ has a valid self-defense argument and is not guilty of any crime. (even if he did start the fight)

but none of that will matter and he will be convicted of some lesser charge, simply because he did kill TM and he must be guilty of "something".
 
We are not talking about the law. We are talking about an emotional response triggered by the situation.
If I'm not mistaken the whole point of a thousands threads is whether George is going to get convicted of M11.
 
If I'm not mistaken the whole point of a thousands threads is whether George is going to get convicted of M11.

That may be the point of the thread, but not the point I was discussing.
 
After which, he continued to pursue him.
As already pointed out to you, there was no pursuit.
Following is not pursuing.


He wouldn't have had the balls to 'follow' him if he wasn't packing. And ultimately it turned out that there was no cause to 'follow' him.
:doh
He was trying to keep eyes on the suspicious person that he called the police about.
It doesn't take balls to do so.


What we do know is that Martin wasn't looking for trouble. He was not intent on causing trouble. Trouble found him.
No. We do not know any such thing.
Trayvon came out of hiding to attack another person. That seems to fly in the face of all you have said.


Even if Martin assaulted Zimmerman first, the incident would not have occurred were it not for Zimmerman's actions that night.
No!
A person not intent on harm another, or intent on not being harmed, would have stayed in hiding.
Trayvon brought it all upon himself.
 
JackFrost!! You will become our resident expert!!
What was an incredibly ignorant thing to say.
I am actually embarrassed for you.

No he wont MaggieD.
The fact that he can't get the evidence and what it means straight now, clearly shows that he wont be able to get it straight later.


No, he's not going to walk.
You do not know that.
In accordance with the evidence he should be found not guilty.


I sympathize with him, and even I would want to find him guilty of something.
How sad that you want to find a person who acted in self-defense guilty of something. That is real sad.


But for Zimmerman's actions, Trayvon Martin wouldn't be dead.
Sure, but for Zimmerman acting in self-defense to save his life, Trayvon would not be dead.
But for Trayvon's unprovoked attack, Trayvon would not be dead.


He, however inadvertently, precipitated Martin's death by his own vigilantism. (I use that term loosely as a adjective and not to say that he was wrong in what he did.)
No mater how you intend to use the word, it's use is wrong.
Zimmerman was not acting as a vigilante.


reach for his cellphone. Martin (or anyone who was being followed) could rightly have been frightened that he was reaching for a gun.
There is so much messed up about this opinion, it is pitiful.
Simply reaching into one's front pocket does not look like a person is going for a gun.
Nor is there reason for Trayvon to think a person who he came out of hiding to approach and confront, is reaching for a gun. None.
Trayvon came out of hiding to, and was in the process of his, attack. He clearly intended to hit Zimmerman and did so when he got up to him.
Zimmerman reaching into his pocket meant nothing to Trayvon.


He doesn't have to wait for the gun to show itself before he can defend himself...which is what I think he did.
Coming out of hiding, confronting and immediately striking is not acting in self-dense.
It is an attack. Not defensive.


Zimmerman is going to do jail time.
In accordance with the evidence he should not be.
But with Juries being what they are, it will either be a not-guilty verdict as it should be, or hung in his favor.
 
Wow, Maggie is in deep trouble for not goose-stepping along. LoL.
 
Wow, Maggie is in deep trouble for not goose-stepping along. LoL.
Again showing you are only here to be disruptive.
Figures.
 
What was an incredibly ignorant thing to say.
I am actually embarrassed for you.

No he wont MaggieD.
The fact that he can't get the evidence and what it means straight now, clearly shows that he wont be able to get it straight later.


You do not know that.
In accordance with the evidence he should be found not guilty.



How sad that you want to find a person who acted in self-defense guilty of something. That is real sad.



Sure, but for Zimmerman acting in self-defense to save his life, Trayvon would not be dead.
But for Trayvon's unprovoked attack, Trayvon would not be dead.


No mater how you intend to use the word, it's use is wrong.
Zimmerman was not acting as a vigilante.


There is so much messed up about this opinion, it is pitiful.
Simply reaching into one's front pocket does not look like a person is going for a gun.
Nor is there reason for Trayvon to think a person who he came out of hiding to approach and confront, is reaching for a gun. None.
Trayvon came out of hiding to, and was in the process of his, attack. He clearly intended to hit Zimmerman and did so when he got up to him.
Zimmerman reaching into his pocket meant nothing to Trayvon.


Coming out of hiding, confronting and immediately striking is not acting in self-dense.
It is an attack. Not defensive.


In accordance with the evidence he should not be.
But with Juries being what they are, it will either be a not-guilty verdict as it should be, or hung in his favor.

Wow. Just wow. I've held that opinion for months now. I'm not going to argue with you XFactor, but I really think you should allow for others to disagree. Which.I.do.
 
Wow. Just wow. I've held that opinion for months now. I'm not going to argue with you XFactor, but I really think you should allow for others to disagree. Which.I.do.
This is about debate.
A person uses the evidence to form an opinion.
The evidence in this case does not support your opinion.

So of course I am going to oppose it.
You are only showing that you do not know the evidence.
And I have stated things that do not support your opinion, like what reaching into a front pocket looks like, nor was there any reason for Trayvon to think so.
Or any reason for Trayvon to come out of hiding etc ...
That is up to you to realize and then adjust your opinion.
Or that there was no vigilantism.

You can't support your opinion in light of these, no matter how you try.
So if you wish to remain in the dark, carry on. It matters not to me if you want to go around holding an opinion that is unsupportable.
 
This is about debate.
A person uses the evidence to form an opinion.
The evidence in this case does not support your opinion.

So of course I am going to oppose it.
You are only showing that you do not know the evidence.
And I have stated things that do not support your opinion, like what reaching into a front pocket looks like, nor was there any reason for Trayvon to think so.
Or any reason for Trayvon to come out of hiding etc ...
That is up to you to realize and then adjust your opinion.
Or that there was no vigilantism.

You can't support your opinion in light of these, no matter how you try.
So if you wish to remain in the dark, carry on. It matters not to me if you want to go around holding an opinion that is unsupportable.

ExCon, months of good will cannot undo the good thoughts I have about you, so I'm just going to carry on. I am entitled to my opinion, even if it's dead-assed wrong. You are so sure you're right? Then we'll see, won't we? I think he'll do jail time. You don't think he will. Both of us sympathize with the guy...he just walked into the hornet's nest of a perfect storm, in my opinion.
 
He would not have pursued the 'suspect' unjustly if he wasn't armed. He would have called the police and let them handle it. Like a good watchmen.

And a shooting would not have occurred had Zimmerman not been attacked.
 
ExCon, months of good will cannot undo the good thoughts I have about you, so I'm just going to carry on.
Damn it MaggiD, that is unfair debate tactic. ;)


I am entitled to my opinion, even if it's dead-assed wrong. .
Of course, but do not take issue when the evidence is brought forward to show that you are wrong.


I think he'll do jail time. You don't think he will.
:naughty
I say the evidence says that. And it does.
 
This is about debate.
A person uses the evidence to form an opinion.
The evidence in this case does not support your opinion.

So of course I am going to oppose it.
You are only showing that you do not know the evidence.
And I have stated things that do not support your opinion, like what reaching into a front pocket looks like, nor was there any reason for Trayvon to think so.
Or any reason for Trayvon to come out of hiding etc ...
That is up to you to realize and then adjust your opinion.
Or that there was no vigilantism.

You can't support your opinion in light of these, no matter how you try.
So if you wish to remain in the dark, carry on. It matters not to me if you want to go around holding an opinion that is unsupportable.

It matters enough for you to constantly:

1. Post in the Zimmerman/Martin Forums
2. Personally attack anyone whose opinion differs from yours
3. Send threatening PMs to other users
 
It matters enough for you to constantly:

1. Post in the Zimmerman/Martin Forums
2. Personally attack anyone whose opinion differs from yours
3. Send threatening PMs to other users
:doh
Those goes Jack with his false claims again. Who would of thunk?
 
No, he's not going to walk. I sympathize with him, and even I would want to find him guilty of something.

But for Zimmerman's actions, Trayvon Martin wouldn't be dead. He, however inadvertently, precipitated Martin's death by his own vigilantism. (I use that term loosely as a adjective and not to say that he was wrong in what he did.)

By Zimmerman's own account, when they finally came face-to-face, Martin said, "Why are you following me?" I don't remember how Zimmerman said he responded, but he did, by his own admission,reach for his cellphone. Martin (or anyone who was being followed) could rightly have been frightened that he was reaching for a gun. He doesn't have to wait for the gun to show itself before he can defend himself...which is what I think he did.

Zimmerman is going to do jail time.

You seem confused with the evidence....

1 The state has no evidence that Z was about to attack M

2. Someone reaching into his/her pocket for a cell phone is no indication of an intent to assault

3 You assume M as *frightened*...there's nothing to support such a belief
 
It matters enough for you to constantly:

1. Post in the Zimmerman/Martin Forums
2. Personally attack anyone whose opinion differs from yours
3. Send threatening PMs to other users

Excon and many others *like me* rely on actual evidence instead of delusional speculations put forth by you and your co-horts.

Every theory I've had of this case (as well as Excon) has been supported with evidence and in fact weighed the evidence against alternate possibilities spewed by you and the anti Z crowd.....Z must be guilty because M was an unarmed kid

We prefer discussion of facts while you prefer bull**** speculation
 
It matters enough for you to constantly:

1. Post in the Zimmerman/Martin Forums
2. Personally attack anyone whose opinion differs from yours
3. Send threatening PMs to other users

Sounds like typical beta-male behavior.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's leave the personal attacks out of this, thank you.
 
Back
Top Bottom