• 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.

Trayvon Martin acted in self-defense

rocket88 said:
It wasn't Martin's gun though. How was he reaching for it if he didn't know it was there?
Click to expand...

Because when you're in a fight with someone on the ground, there's lots of moving around. He saw the gun while he was on top of Zimmerman because Z's jacket moved and the gun became visible.
 
Zyphlin said:
Technically, EVERYONE'S own actions caused what happened. There's blame regarding bad decisions to go around that night.

Had Martin stuck to the the side of streets and/or sidewalks instead of cutting through yards then Zimmerman would likely never have began to tail him.

Had Zimmerman listed to dispatch and not followed Trayvon he likely wouldn't have been attacked.

Had Martin not physically assaulted Zimmerman, he likely would've never been shot.

Had Zimmerman not shot Trayvon, he likely would've never been thrown into this circus.

Both individuals poor decisions avalanched together to form this unfortunate situation. No one "deserves" to die for poor decisions, but the fact one did and that one may go to jail for quite some time doesn't magically make it a situation where we can't or shouldn't speak honestly about the poor decisions on both.
Click to expand...

When you are beating someone's head into the ground and reaching for their gun during a fight, you very well may actually deserve to die. Just saying.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The person punching one that was armed. The gun was not used until the fight was well underway. GZ was walking around armed many times, what made the TM "incident" special was that TM decided to teach that "creepy ass cracker" what following and "disrespecting" a good boy, simply walking home, should feel like. I note that you will not tell us just how many armed folks that you, personally, have beaten up.
Click to expand...

So because I don't run around hitting people that are armed means that St. George was justified?
 
Have you even watched the trial, rocket?
 
Zyphlin said:
Definitely have, but there are a few issues with it:

1) Do we have any evidence that he knew Zimmerman was armed at the time the confrontation began? (honest question, I don't know what's came out concerning this)

2) Had there been any indication from Zimmerman regarding his potential use of deadly force? Had there not been then it does get into a situation where it comes into question the amount of force one can use legally to "defend" ones self against what would be a passive threat before it turns from you being the defender to the aggressor.

It also comes down to a thought between a belief as to whether or not following someone is starting an altercation, or if actually performing an assault and/or battery is what is the technical start. I believe that largely seems to be coming down to peoples opinions. My general take on it is that while I generally won't begrudge an individuals judgement of what they think they need to do to protect themselves, I believe it's in general far more reasonable to suggest that responding with force is appropriate when force is used against you but is NOT appropriate simply as a result of being followed by an individual unless there is clear and evident factors to lead you to believe that they plan to be physical once catching up to you.

It's a case that the Martin prosecution could've attempted to make, but I'm honestly not sure how strong of a case they could've made for it based on the little bit of evidence I saw discussed during the trial.
Click to expand...

The only person alive who knows those points did not take the stand. So not everything it wrapped up neat and tidy for people to view. This often happens in criminal cases where a lack of evidence or good third party witnesses the state can't convict.

I feel sorry for that jury.
 
rocket88 said:
Yes, Martin did attack Zimmerman. He did what any reasonable person would do when being followed by someone who is armed.

Betcha never thought of it along those lines.
Click to expand...

That's nothing new. It's actually been my contention very early on.

That very well may have been why Trayvon Martin decked him, jumped on him and banged his head into the concrete. George Zimmerman, however, still acted in self-defense.
 
rocket88 said:
So up until then his actions weren't justified? See, we agree.

Though I think shooting someone for throwing a punch is a bit extreme.
Click to expand...

Now it appears clear that you're not seeking any kind of honest and forth right discussion, but you have a particular bias and prejudice already regarding this case and are simply here to whinge on about your particular bone to pick with it.

"Shooting someone for throwing a punch is a bit extreme". However, that's not what's being discussed in this case or trial at all...but it doesn't fit your narrative and your desire to deal singularly within the particular view point you see with your blinders on.

Shooting someone because you were punched once is a bit extreme. What's being alledged, and seems to have been backed up with witness AND expert testimony, has been that there were multiple punches thrown, the potential for head slams onto concrete, some of which coming from a position of an individual on top of another. This scenario is not "a punch".

Shooting someone when one reasonably feels ones life is in danger based on an attack, not a single punch? Extreme perhaps, but legal.
 
Josie said:
He was reaching for the gun. I believe Zimmerman didn't want to use his gun which is why he just kept yelling for help instead of getting his gun. When he saw Trayvon going for his gun, he knew he had to use it to save his life.
Click to expand...

That is just a little far fetched. How would Martin know he had a gun in his pants?
 
My problem is I can easily imagine both these guys thinking they were acting in self defense.
 
rocket88 said:
If Martin had been armed, Zimmerman would be dead. And it would have been self-defense if we was followed by an armed person.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't...and now you're just making it plain for everyone to see that there's no reason to take you seriously.

Based on the scenario you've described and available in the trial...no, it is NOT self defense to shoot a person whose following you simply because they have a gun on their body somewhere, especially if you are not aware of said weapon at the time you shoot them. This entire post is one of the most asinine claims I've seen in this section, and that's saying something....
 
Crosscheck said:
That is just a little far fetched. How would Martin know he had a gun in his pants?
Click to expand...

Josie said:
Because when you're in a fight with someone on the ground, there's lots of moving around. He saw the gun while he was on top of Zimmerman because Z's jacket moved and the gun became visible.
Click to expand...

......
 
Zyphlin said:
Technically, EVERYONE'S own actions caused what happened. There's blame regarding bad decisions to go around that night.

Had Martin stuck to the the side of streets and/or sidewalks instead of cutting through yards then Zimmerman would likely never have began to tail him.

Had Zimmerman listed to dispatch and not followed Trayvon he likely wouldn't have been attacked.

Had Martin not physically assaulted Zimmerman, he likely would've never been shot.

Had Zimmerman not shot Trayvon, he likely would've never been thrown into this circus.

Both individuals poor decisions avalanched together to form this unfortunate situation. No one "deserves" to die for poor decisions, but the fact one did and that one may go to jail for quite some time doesn't magically make it a situation where we can't or shouldn't speak honestly about the poor decisions on both.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I agree that there's a bunch of stupid decisions on both sides. It's good to see someone can look beyond pure partisanship and think for themselves.


I agree that in the end during the fight, it was self-defense. However, I have a problem giving someone a free pass for their actions. The situation could not have been created but for Zimmerman's actions in the first place. He makes better decisions (and Martin also), this doesn't happen. Why does George not have take responsibility for his actions?
 
MaggieD said:
That's nothing new. It's actually been my contention very early on.

That very well may have been why Trayvon Martin decked him, jumped on him and banged his head into the concrete. George Zimmerman, however, still acted in self-defense.
Click to expand...

It is interesing how you use the words: Decked him, Jumped on him, and Banged his head into the contrete. Which are still specualtion. But use the words Acted in self-defense in describing Zimmerman shooting a bullet into Martin's chest. Not a little bias are we?
 
Sarcogito said:
My problem is I can easily imagine both these guys thinking they were acting in self defense.
Click to expand...

Except Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground. Martin had ZERO injuries on him (sans the gunshot wound that came later). He wasn't in danger at all from Zimmerman. So why continue to punch him and knock his head against concrete? Why not yell for someone to call 911 so they can arrest this "creepy ass cracker" who was following him?
 
rocket88 said:
Exactly. I agree that there's a bunch of stupid decisions on both sides. It's good to see someone can look beyond pure partisanship and think for themselves.


I agree that in the end during the fight, it was self-defense. However, I have a problem giving someone a free pass for their actions. The situation could not have been created but for Zimmerman's actions in the first place. He makes better decisions (and Martin also), this doesn't happen. Why does George not have take responsibility for his actions?
Click to expand...

What illegal action does George need to take responsibility for exactly? That is where your argument wins or loses.
 
Crosscheck said:
It is interesing how you use the words: Decked him, Jumped on him, and Banged his head into the contrete. Which are still specualtion. But use the words Acted in self-defense in describing Zimmerman shooting a bullet into Martin's chest. Not a little bias are we?
Click to expand...

It's been proven to my satisfaction that Trayvon Martin punched Zimmerman. That Zimmerman fell down. That Trayvon Martin straddled him. And that he banged his head at least a few times into the concrete. Zimmerman's neck muscles probably prevented very serious life-threatening injuries.

As for my perjorative language? I'm still pissed about wanna-be cop. ;)
 
rocket88 said:
Yes, Martin did attack Zimmerman. He did what any reasonable person would do when being followed by someone who is armed.




Betcha never thought of it along those lines.
Click to expand...

You can't think in those lines because of lack of evidence

You have no evidence to support that Z was about to attack M in order for M to respond to Z with force

You sound like BDLR....all assumptions and no evidence thus creating *indirectly* doubt....reasonable doubt
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Except he quit just going home and jumped Zimmerman. Small detail you left out there.
Click to expand...

Which he wouldn't have done if Zimmerman wasn't following him. It's not like he was sitting in a lawnchair sipping a lemonade when some punk jumped him.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
What illegal action does George need to take responsibility for exactly? That is where your argument wins or loses.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if it's illegal or not. Personal responsibility, right?
 
rocket88 said:
Which he wouldn't have done if Zimmerman wasn't following him. It's not like he was sitting in a lawnchair sipping a lemonade when some punk jumped him.
Click to expand...

Which once again, is not against the law.
 
Josie said:
......
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Josie

Because when you're in a fight with someone on the ground, there's lots of moving around. He saw the gun while he was on top of Zimmerman because Z's jacket moved and the gun became visible.
Click to expand...

That explains why they didn't find any of Martin's DNA on the gun.
 
rocket88 said:
So because I don't run around hitting people that are armed means that St. George was justified?
Click to expand...

No, it means that you possess both common sense and a good survival instinct. What would justify the use of deadly force, in self defense, if not being punched, having your nose broken, being knocked to the ground, being mounted and taking a further beating by an attacker that you believe is "up to no good"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom