• 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 not guilty.

Removable Mind said:
Mike...

Prior to the trial, I never really formed any opinions as to guilt or innocence because the public isn't privy to all the possible facts.

However my only real question, regarding this case...why did the DA file 2nd Degree charge on Zimmerman? The DA would have had to known some evidence that was not publically released.

In hind sight and seeing how the jury was instructed and the judge allowing a verdict of manslaughter....even a manslaughter verdict have mostly likely not handed down.

If the DA had gone for "aggravated assault with a deadly weapon"...with the ability of the jury to choose a lesser charge, it probably wouldn't have sustained in the media as it did. It probably wouldn't have been televised. But it might have been possible that lesser charge might have prevailed and a punitive sentence handed down.

But then again...not. Who knows, its a crazy worlds.
Click to expand...

Basically, it was a tragic incident. Just like many others that occur every day. I have said all along that TM and GZ made bad decisions that night. Those decisions led to the tragic death.
 
opendebate said:
Thank you and that makes sense. I felt from the beginning that the charges filed were way too much. Whether that was from public pressure or just an overzealous prosecution I don't know. I have heard however, that it is not uncommon. An interesting point here is that your answer is really a common ground between people on the other side of the issue. The difference is that I do feel that the greater injustice was served to Trayvon. It is my hope that understanding that as a common ground would allow both people to be tolerant and maybe a little compassionate towards those who disagree with them. It is a very similar emotion on both sides that is driving this discussion.

Up for another? Would you have felt differently if different charges had been filed?
Click to expand...
I think if the original District Attorney had referred this to a Grand Jury without charges,
and the Grand jury had come back with a non felony charge, I might have felt different.
After the Special Prosecutor got involved, the process became tainted.
Both parties made poor decisions that night, but I think this was just a tragic accident.
Imagine a traffic accident where someone was killed, yet neither party was negligent.
 
From what I understand the prosecutions 'star witness', has had many recent interviews, there was one today or yesterday where she was asked who initiated things, and said that Martin threw the first punch. FWIW.
 
mike2810 said:
inititating the struggle.

This is all mute. The jury based on the evidence allowed found GZ not guilty. It is time to move on. Playing what if (just like a conspiracy theory), leads to endless speculation.
Click to expand...

We don't actually know that. All we have is Zimmerman's testimony as "proof". The jury found reasonable doubt and Zimmerman got off. In my mind that means he got off, not that he's innocent.
 
mike2810 said:
For me personally,
if the State had filed for manslaughter the trial would have made more sense based on what evidence was available before the trial started.

No matter what charges the State filed, I support the not guilty verdict based on the evidence presented in court.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. For me however, I am still uncertain whether or not the manslaughter charge should have stuck. I need to read the definition for the various kinds. I am uncomfortable with the idea of someone killing a 17yr old boy and getting of completely free but I am more uncomfortable with existing being bent to suit a single case.

Thank you for a thoughtful response.
 
longview said:
I think if the original District Attorney had referred this to a Grand Jury without charges,
and the Grand jury had come back with a non felony charge, I might have felt different.
After the Special Prosecutor got involved, the process became tainted.
Both parties made poor decisions that night, but I think this was just a tragic accident.
Imagine a traffic accident where someone was killed, yet neither party was negligent.
Click to expand...

I completely understand your point and I get that analogy. In the case of a drunk driver however, if they made the choice to drive while drunk and killed someone, while it ws unintentional, they are responsible for being reckless and negligent anything else would seem unjust to me. I would feel compassion for the drunk driver having made one mistake that ruined his or her life, truly, but at least they would have a life to return to. I would want to take some action that would help to assure the he/she never drove drunk again. I have a little sister that had multiple drunk driving tickets but it wasn't until she struck a van full of children that action was taken. Luckily, no one in the van was seriously injured but she was forced to 6 months in a recovery and alcoholic recovery center. This forced treatment saved and changed her life and probably the life of others.

I am encouraged when I hear people on either side acknowledge that both people made mistakes. Because, let's face it, in real life that is most often the case. The sticking point for me is when I think about what, and I recognize this is speculation, what most likely provoked or motivated those bad choices. In my opinion Georges' first mistake was tracking someone, against the advice of the emergency operator, with a firearm. I can't help but think....what motivated that? I realize in part it was the recent robberies however, if Trayvon was in fact walking through the neighbor on his way home it seems as Z had to have preconceived ideas about this person specifically before he would interpret such seemingly innocent behavior as "suspicious". Whereas Trayvon, saw someone following him and clearly (based on his exchange with Rachel) concerned about and nervous about why he was being followed. You see there is a clear act with G, he WAS following Trayvon and he DID get out of his car and intensify the pursuit. Trayvon reacted to a real event, GZ followed Trayvon based on false assumptions.

What do you think of that point?
 
opendebate said:
I don't disagree with that. For me however, I am still uncertain whether or not the manslaughter charge should have stuck. I need to read the definition for the various kinds. I am uncomfortable with the idea of someone killing a 17yr old boy and getting of completely free but I am more uncomfortable with existing being bent to suit a single case.

Thank you for a thoughtful response.
Click to expand...
I think many people are caught up with the gun issue.
There seems to be a parallel between gun control people and anti Zimmerman people.
Accidents happen all the time where 17 year olds are killed,
some of those accidents are brought about by their own recklessness.
Just because someone is dead, does not necessarily mean someone else is at fault.

If no gun was involved, but the outcome the same, would you feel different?
All events are the same up till TM attacks GZ.
After the initial set of hits, TM slips on the wet grass and hits his head on the dog station
and dies.
GZ is still beat up and bloodied, TM is still dead as a result of his attack.
 
longview said:
I think many people are caught up with the gun issue.
There seems to be a parallel between gun control people and anti Zimmerman people.
Accidents happen all the time where 17 year olds are killed,
some of those accidents are brought about by their own recklessness.
Just because someone is dead, does not necessarily mean someone else is at fault.

If no gun was involved, but the outcome the same, would you feel different?
All events are the same up till TM attacks GZ.
After the initial set of hits, TM slips on the wet grass and hits his head on the dog station
and dies.
GZ is still beat up and bloodied, TM is still dead as a result of his attack.
Click to expand...


Again, I understand your point. It does seem a little more like an "accident" if you slip and fall during a fight and a blow to the head kills you.

BTW, I sincerely appreciate the civility with which you present your views. Thank you again. I guess we can just agree to disagree at this point.
 
longview said:
I think many people are caught up with the gun issue.
There seems to be a parallel between gun control people and anti Zimmerman people.
Accidents happen all the time where 17 year olds are killed,
some of those accidents are brought about by their own recklessness.
Just because someone is dead, does not necessarily mean someone else is at fault.

If no gun was involved, but the outcome the same, would you feel different?
All events are the same up till TM attacks GZ.
After the initial set of hits, TM slips on the wet grass and hits his head on the dog station
and dies.
GZ is still beat up and bloodied, TM is still dead as a result of his attack.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman is STILL at fault. Because he instigated a pursuit that Martin perceived as a threat.

That's the whole point.

Zimmerman doesn't stalk Martin, Martin doesn't feel threatened. Nothing happens. Life goes on for all of them.

Zimmerman's bad judgment led to the loss of someone's life. In the real world, that's called manslaughter. In certain fantasy world's, it apparently makes you a hero.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Zimmerman is STILL at fault. Because he instigated a pursuit that Martin perceived as a threat.
Click to expand...

This shows you know nothing about the case or facts of the case.
 
mac said:
We don't actually know that. All we have is Zimmerman's testimony as "proof". The jury found reasonable doubt and Zimmerman got off. In my mind that means he got off, not that he's innocent.
Click to expand...

ok.
basically your word smithing. by law and the court, he was found not guilty. Doesn't matter what we think.
 
mike2810 said:
ok.
basically your word smithing. by law and the court, he was found not guilty. Doesn't matter what we think.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he wasn't found not guilty, and it always matters what I think. If it didn't matter what we think, Holder wouldn't be wasting time blowing smoke up our skirts about how he's pretending to look into it.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Zimmerman is STILL at fault. Because he instigated a pursuit that Martin perceived as a threat.

That's the whole point.

Zimmerman doesn't stalk Martin, Martin doesn't feel threatened. Nothing happens. Life goes on for all of them.

Zimmerman's bad judgment led to the loss of someone's life. In the real world, that's called manslaughter. In certain fantasy world's, it apparently makes you a hero.
Click to expand...
You think Zimmerman is at fault criminally , I think he had an error in judgment.
(the error was following a person he thought was up to no good, not killing the person
assaulting him.)
The difference between our points of view was the subject of the trial.
Our legal system sets the bar high on removing a person's freedom,
and the state failed to prove Zimmerman was criminally at fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom