• 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.

And no, I am not kidding you. However I should add that following someone that is suspicious should only be done when you are in your immediate local community. Not the whole town, city, country, whatever. The reason for this is that if you are a conscientious neighbor you know your immediate neighbors (at the very least thier faces) and who generally comes and goes. You however do not know who belongs and doesn't belong in any other part of the town, city, country, whatever.

That makes sense. I know my two block long block and who lives where and what cars are generally parked there. Can't imagine driving to a part of town I was not familiar with and start patrolling their neighborhood as would become a suspect myself.
 
i'm 26 and live in Pennsylvania

I didn't write or have anything to do with the laws in place in florida nor the climate of racial tension there

so I ask politely, why should I share any of the blame at all for this?




I am far older than you, but when I was about your age, there was a fairly popular saying that Went something if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the cause.

What did you do to solve this?

Another reference that has been important to me over the years is from the Prophet, by Kahlil Gibran.
<snip>
"Yea, the guilty is oftentimes the victim of the injured,
And still more often the condemned is the burden-bearer for the guiltless and unblamed.
You cannot separate the just from the unjust and the good from the wicked;
For they stand together before the face of the sun even as the black thread and the white are woven together.
And when the black thread breaks, the weaver shall look into the whole cloth, and he shall examine the loom also.
<snip>
And let him who would lash the offender look unto the spirit of the offended.
And if any of you would punish in the name of righteousness and lay the ax unto the evil tree, let him see to its roots;
And verily he will find the roots of the good and the bad, the fruitful and the fruitless, all entwined together in the silent heart of the earth."
<snip>

And finally, I'm sure you have already heard that no man is an island.
 
Following is not a crime
Calling police thinking TM is a criminal is not a crime
wanting to be a cop is not a crime
nothing he did is a crime.


Smashing face and head is a crime and great bodly harm and so justifies deadly force.

OPPS. So much for your fantasy land.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

READ IT - you might LEARN something
 
George Zimmerman found not guilty

I still think that Zimmerman created the situation and Trayvon died as a result of that situation.

Creating the situation would be more like Zimmerman held up a store, Martin started beating him and Zimmerman then shot him. This was more, Zimmerman was a douche, Martin started beating him, Zimmerman shot him. Yes, Zimmerman was a douche, but that's no excuse for violence. Zimmerman even showed great restraint in not using his weapon until it was clear his life was in jeopardy.

Get over it. He's not guilty.
 
I was happy when the verdict was announced. He never should have been prosecuted in the first place, and he used self defense to protect himself. The jurors did the right thing by acquitting him...
 
Well, if I'm walking home at night, and a guy starts following me...I'd get pretty defensive. :Shrug:

My guess, Zimmerman is back in the news in less than a year.
 
Well, if I'm walking home at night, and a guy starts following me...I'd get pretty defensive. :Shrug:

My guess, Zimmerman is back in the news in less than a year.

Yeah, and if I'm walking home at night, baked outta my gourd, and a guy starts following me I sure as hell won't turn around and confront the dude. I'd get my ass home and safe most riki tik.

And I hope he's back in the news suing the hell out of the state, the POTUS, MSNBC, Al Sharpton and the rest of the greedy asshats who effectively made this guy a pariah for their own gain.
 
If TM had killed GZ in self-defense and was acquitted, you would not be hearing anything about a federal civil-rights case. In fact, you would not have heard of the case at all, unless you followed police stats as a hobby.
 
Or we could say it is the fault of the contractor who built the condo complex. If he hadn't have built it, this would have never have happened either.
 
:lol: :doh How quickly we forget the GZ trial situation. :roll: What did TM do to justify the use of deadly force by GZ, beyond giving GZ typical fist fight injuries?

Perhaps a lesson in the laws of physics... two objects of solid matter cannot occupy the same space. Skull vs concrete is the case in point. THAT is the justification, along with TM telling GZ, "... you're gonna die tonight..."
 
There is nothing illegal in "creating a situation."

In your logic, every man is responsible for unwanted pregnancies and abortions - because the man "created the situation." Without the action of the man, there would be no pregnancy and could be then no abortion.
 
Are people still going on about this? No wonder the nation is going down the crapper.
 
He absolutely did create the situation. When he decided to keep eyes on Trayvon Martin, a series of events unfolded that caused Martin's death. There is no question about that. As others have posted ad nauseum, had George Zimmerman not gotten out of his car? Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

What is so hard about understanding that:

#1 - It's not against the law to get out of your car.
#2 - It's not against the law to follow someone.
#3 - The circumstantial evidence showed that Trayvon Martin struck the first blow -- in fact, the ONLY blows.
#4 - George Martin was in a fight for his life.
#5 - He shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

Other than, "It may have..." "It could have..." "There's a possibility that..." what evidence do you have that it happened any other way.

and if Martin walked the 30 seconds to his dad's house he be alive as well.
 
He absolutely did create the situation. When he decided to keep eyes on Trayvon Martin, a series of events unfolded that caused Martin's death. There is no question about that. As others have posted ad nauseum, had George Zimmerman not gotten out of his car? Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

What is so hard about understanding that:

#1 - It's not against the law to get out of your car.
#2 - It's not against the law to follow someone.
#3 - The circumstantial evidence showed that Trayvon Martin struck the first blow -- in fact, the ONLY blows.
#4 - George Martin was in a fight for his life.
#5 - He shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

Other than, "It may have..." "It could have..." "There's a possibility that..." what evidence do you have that it happened any other way.
...........say whaaaat?
 
That pretty much sums it up. Of course many here suggest that Martin should have just stayed in the house that day and in retrospect that is true because there was an idiot loose in the neighborhood.

What he had done was no different than a man who walks by a fence yard and teases a dog inside the yard. One day he walks by and teases the dog before realizing the gate is open. The two meet and of course the dog attacks him. Luckily the man has a gun and shoots and kills the dog and becomes a hero for people afraid of dogs.

George Zimmerman is not the hero people are parading him to be.
There's nothing heroic about George Zimmerman...he's just not a murderer. He's a normal dude with normal problems, nothing exceptionally evil or righteous about him at all.
 
Yeah yeah, and if Z had stayed home he never would have seen TM.... nothing would have happened. If TM had not gone to the store for skittles Z never would have seen him and nothing would have happened. We can even take it as far as if either TM or Z had not been born then nothing would have happened. We can go round and round on this but in the end all those "if's" are just plain D irrelevent. Z getting out of his car to follow TM was NOT illegal no matter how anyone tries to spin it as some sort of act of stupidity or aggression. I personally know several people, including myself that would have followed someone they considered suspicious in order to find out if they are up to no good or not. (and I have on a few occasions done that)

And no matter what anyone says no one will ever convince me that it is not something valid to do. IMO people have an obligation and are honor bound to not only attempt to help protect our communities but to do so actively by following suspicious people. Too many people hide behind closed doors because they are either chicken **** or simply just do not want to get involved. The best way to combat crime is for the whole community to willing to help out in any way possible.

The problem with this is how does the person being followed know that its innocuous and not an assailant?

When do they decide its worth calling the cops? And will they have time to do so when they do?

What happens if the follower is suddenly "RIGHT THERE!"?

There HAS to be SOME limit to following others around. Its weird and threatening and usually perfectly legal.

It seems something like a proximity limit or a following while armed prohibition would be appropriate.

I think most of us would be upset and angry at Z if he had simply followed one of our kids like he did and they had just run home.

But at the end of the day I'm a "better that a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned" guy.

So while I think he ****ed up and knows it and lied about it, I'm good with the outcome.

(The sentences for the lesser charges were so ridiculous that I kinda changed preferred verdict to not guilty even though I think he is.)
 
The problem with this is how does the person being followed know that its innocuous and not an assailant?

When do they decide its worth calling the cops? And will they have time to do so when they do?

What happens if the follower is suddenly "RIGHT THERE!"?

There HAS to be SOME limit to following others around. Its weird and threatening and usually perfectly legal.

It seems something like a proximity limit or a following while armed prohibition would be appropriate.

Following someone around doesn't harm anyone and therefore there is no reason to limit it by law.
 
He absolutely did create the situation. When he decided to keep eyes on Trayvon Martin, a series of events unfolded that caused Martin's death. There is no question about that.
No MaggieD.
It was created when attacked. Had he not attacked, Zimmerman would have continued back to his vehicle unmolested, and nothing would have occurred.
 
I don't think anyone really truely believes that TM wasn't afraid, or at the least HIGHLY concerned about what Z was doing. What is however most peoples problem is that TM struck Z for no apparent reason other than Z following him. It doesn't matter how scared you are, when walking down a public way you do not have the right to strike someone unless there is obvious criminal intent going on. And in this case there was none. Might have had a suspicion of one but that is it, suspicion. No one has the Right to strike out at someone because of a suspicion. There must be obvious intent to do harm in order for a self defense claim to actually work. Many people have been shot because of a "suspicion" and in every case that I know of the person who shot the other guy because of a "suspicion" is always punished...even cops.

The "no apparent reason" thing has always troubled me. Seems out of character for M. He was ****ing up, but not that KIND of ****ing from anything anyones been able to find, if that makes sense.

Makes me suspect SOMETHING Z isn't telling us OR was unaware of was involved.

Which is why I feel Z bears SOME responsibility.
 
Following someone around doesn't harm anyone and therefore there is no reason to limit it by law.

Actually, many legal definitions of "stalking" include unwanted following, even one instance.

Its not COMPLETELY unregulated.
 
No MaggieD.
It was created when attacked. Had he not attacked, Zimmerman would have continued back to his vehicle unmolested, and nothing would have occurred.

Ah, but here's the thing.

I was first. Just like George Zimmerman.

You don't have to defend him anymore. He's Not Guilty. George Zimmerman would give anything, I'd bet, not to have gotten out of his car that rainy night.
 
George Zimmerman found not guilty

I still think that Zimmerman created the situation and Trayvon died as a result of that situation.

I notice you use Zimmerman's last name and Martin's first name, similar to the prosecution who tried to portray Martin as a child. Interesting.

Usually people who make such comments believe that Martin had every right to be where he was, when he was, and so didn't deserve to die. I'll agree with you on that one.

However, why is it that the same people never acknowledge that Zimmerman also had every right to be where he was, when he was, and didn't deserve to be attacked? After all, Zimmerman was a resident of the same complex - Martin was a temporary resident, but still a resident. But Zimmerman also was a neighborhood watchman for the complex, a position that carried with it a responsibility to look out for strangers in the area, because of the recent high incidence of crime in the complex. As such, didn't Zimmerman have the right to follow Martin if he didn't know him and didn't know his purpose there? Didn't Zimmerman, by virtue of being the neighborhood watchman, have the right, if not the authority, to try to find out who Martin was and what he was up to?

Clearly, the end result was tragic, but why is it that Zimmerman's right to be there, doing what he was doing, isn't even acknowledged let alone credited?
 
Creating the situation would be more like Zimmerman held up a store, Martin started beating him and Zimmerman then shot him. This was more, Zimmerman was a douche, Martin started beating him, Zimmerman shot him. Yes, Zimmerman was a douche, but that's no excuse for violence. Zimmerman even showed great restraint in not using his weapon until it was clear his life was in jeopardy.

Get over it. He's not guilty.

No restraint. He says he forgot he had it until M went for it.
 
Neither the first nor the last unjust and out-of-touch verdict by a jury.

If Z had any money, the family could sue for wrongful death. But Z ain't OJ. :mrgreen:

TM's family has already collected about $1 million from the homeowners' association settlement. If they can sue George Zimmerman, you can be assured they will. Zimmerman's going to come into some serious money.
 
Back
Top Bottom