• 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.

Zimmerman jury may consider lesser charge of manslaughter: judge [W:87]

Z's nose should have been back in his vehicle, and Martin would be alive today and we would be discussing something else.
ttwtt78640 said:
Since when did following/observing from a distance become harassment? Harassment is not a violent act warranting any self defense. Martin's right to swing his arm freely ends where Zimmerman's nose begins.
Click to expand...
 
What if...? said:
This is an interesting bit.

The whole "following from a safe distance" thing.

Once you lose sight of someone you are no longer "following" them. You are searching of attempting to reacquire or some other thing.

And it is impossible to know how far away someone is who you can no longer see, so you are therefore incapable of maintaining a "safe distance" as you have no idea how far away they are.

Hence, when Z exited his vehicle, he was no longer following OR maintaining a safe distance.
Click to expand...

nonsense. I like to track animals. I'm following them....or atleast hoping to be following them, but I do not have sight of them.
 
mak2 said:
Z's nose should have been back in his vehicle, and Martin would be alive today and we would be discussing something else.
Click to expand...

Or maybe TM should have assaulted him. I know crazy thinking.
 
ecofarm said:
There's not gonna be any riots. When the case is decided, the mainstream media talking heads will all spew about how the prosecution had no case at all. There's not going to be anyone still willing to shout "Whoa! Rachel the Hut said she heard him say 'get off'".

It's over. Everyone knew he didn't need to testify a long time ago. The defense has fought against a lesser charge being optional - this means they honestly believe there is no chance of a M2 conviction.

This case was an embarrassment for pretty much everyone except the SPD, who made the right call from the getgo and would have saved taxpayers a million dollars, judicial effort and countless hours of Reality TV.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, however I don't think the prosecution or the judge do. The system is dressed for a party that it now looks like isn't going to happen.
 
If it was self defense. As a resonsible adult and gun owner it is my respomsiblity to avoid killing anyone tonight. It is possible someday I might have to, but I pray to God it aint an unarmed minor. Z at some point should have avoided this situation. The short skirt and the mindless obama hate jab is getting kinda boring. I think the Obamahate is why the logic from my fellow pro gun people has become so twisted.
ARealConservative said:
self defense isn't a crime either.

who knows, maybe if the rapist looked like Obama's son, the state would of filed prostitution charges against the girl in the short skirt.
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Since when did following/observing from a distance become harassment? Harassment is not a violent act warranting any self defense. Martin's right to swing his arm freely ends where Zimmerman's nose begins.
Click to expand...

What "distance"?

How far away was the guy Z could no longer see?

This may sound trivial, but its not.

You cannot follow someone you have lost sight of, nor is it possible to determine "distance" from them.
 
mak2 said:
Z's nose should have been back in his vehicle, and Martin would be alive today and we would be discussing something else.
Click to expand...

thank god you are not in charge of protecting our rights.
 
Yea, maybe he had every right to. It appears to me it is just as likley Z instigated the confrontation. Course he killed the witness so...
Black Manta said:
Or maybe TM should have assaulted him. I know crazy thinking.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
Yea, maybe he had every right to. It appears to me it is just as likley Z instigated the confrontation. Course he killed the witness so...
Click to expand...

it might be just a likely, but since zero evidence backs it up, this should not of went to trial.
 
mak2 said:
Yea, maybe he had every right to. It appears to me it is just as likley Z instigated the confrontation. Course he killed the witness so...
Click to expand...

Evidence says different. I know again crazy to actually follow the evidence.
 
mak2 said:
What rights? To demonstrate poor judgement?
Click to expand...

in this case the right to get out of my car in the public sphere.

for you, Zimmerman is guilty simply for using his natural born rights.

as I have said for months, those on your side are not interested in the law, you are interested in your ideology winning out even as it violates the law.
 
ARealConservative said:
nonsense. I like to track animals. I'm following them....or atleast hoping to be following them, but I do not have sight of them.
Click to expand...

Was Z following Ms footprints on the ground now?

Do you know what distance away the animals you track are when you can't see them?

Wouldn't the semantically accurate thing to say is you are "hunting" or "stalking" and not "following" these animals you can't see?
 
It's funny every cop I know including myself was at one time a "wannabe" cop. He tries to make it sound like somehow this makes you an asshole.
 
mak2 said:
Z's nose should have been back in his vehicle, and Martin would be alive today and we would be discussing something else.
Click to expand...

Here is part of what the NEN police dispatcher said to Zimmerman:

Dispatcher

Just let me know if he does anything, ok?

Zimmerman

(unclear) See if you can get an officer over here.

Dispatcher

Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Click to expand...

Does this not imply that the dispatcher is instructing Zimmerman to keep an eye on Martin? Much attention (and undo weight) seems to be given the NEN dispatcher's later comment that it was not necessary for Zimmerman to follow Martin, yet that was not, by any means, instructions not to do so, only reminding Zimmerman that following Martin was not required.

Transcript of George Zimmerman 911 Call - by Oliver Closoff - Newsvine
 
No it comes to a point the decision to get out of your car is a poor one. Just like getting all loaded up and wandering around a very bad nighborhood with my rolex and and c notes in my shirt pocket. Sure I have every right to, but should I? I dont think there is enough evidence to convict him either, but it amazes me how twisted the logic from the right has gotten over this case. Before this case I would never have had to argue this point, of course responsible people who carry guns have the responsiblity to try to avoid situation that they might have to kill someone. For some reason, not anymore. Obamahate?
ARealConservative said:
in this case the right to get out of my car in the public sphere.

for you, Zimmerman is guilty simply for using his natural born rights.

as I have said for months, those on your side are not interested in the law, you are interested in your ideology winning out even as it violates the law.
Click to expand...
 
I am not talking about what the dispatcher said. I am talking about sound decision making. Z's was definately not.
ttwtt78640 said:
Here is part of what the NEN police dispatcher said to Zimmerman:



Does this not imply that the dispatcher is instructing Zimmerman to keep an eye on Martin? Much attention (and undo weight) seems to be given the NEN dispatcher's later comment that it was not necessary for Zimmerman to follow Martin, yet that was not, by any means, instructions not to do so, only reminding Zimmerman that following Martin was not required.

Transcript of George Zimmerman 911 Call - by Oliver Closoff - Newsvine
Click to expand...
 
Well I can say from personal experience that comment was bull****. I have lived here for 7 years and I know only my streets name, lol.
 
What if...? said:
Was Z following Ms footprints on the ground now?

Do you know what distance away the animals you track are when you can't see them?

Wouldn't the semantically accurate thing to say is you are "hunting" or "stalking" and not "following" these animals you can't see?
Click to expand...

you made a general statement that pertains to the word following. you claimed losing sight of someone means you are not following. that is ignorant and wrong.
 
WTF? It was still raring and he was still bleeding? How is that an exaggeration? I wish I could give the defense summation, lol.
 
mak2 said:
I am not talking about what the dispatcher said. I am talking about sound decision making. Z's was definately not.
Click to expand...

Yet Martin's decision to physically attack Zimmerman was sound decision making? You do not bring Skittles and an attitude to a gunfight twice.
 
Martin was an unarmed minor. See the difference there? Martin might have had every right to stand his ground at that point. Course he is dead so well we will never know and Z will probably walk. I am just pointing out the twisted logic from the right since this case surfaced. Seriously years ago I would never had to even discuss this, it is part of being a responisble adult.
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet Martin's decision to physically attack Zimmerman was sound decision making? You do not bring Skittles and an attitude to a gunfight twice.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom