• 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.

Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:169]

Re: Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:

Kal'Stang said:
But have you ever seen someone attack someone first and not leave some kind of mark on that person?
Click to expand...
Boo's experiences in life aren't really relevant imho.

If I take a swing at you and I miss, have I attacked you?
Did I leave a mark?

There're numerous possible scenarios where there can be an attack and no "marks" are left.

fwiw, I don't know that the ME's report will coincide exactly with the funeral director's assessment.
 
Re: Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:

Kal'Stang said:
But have you ever seen someone attack someone first and not leave some kind of mark on that person?
Click to expand...


Yes.
123456 10 char
 
Re: Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:

Kal'Stang said:
But have you ever seen someone attack someone first and not leave some kind of mark on that person?
Click to expand...



Don't even know what you all are tallking about or with whom, but I've seen it a couple times....
 
Re: Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:

Simon W. Moon said:
Boo's experiences in life aren't really relevant imho.

If I take a swing at you and I miss, have I attacked you?
Did I leave a mark?

There're numerous possible scenarios where there can be an attack and no "marks" are left.

fwiw, I don't know that the ME's report will coincide exactly with the funeral director's assessment.
Click to expand...



That's key.... Also I wonder if treyvon's mother who called it an "accident" earlier would come into play.
 
Re: Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:

ReverendHellh0und said:
That's key.... Also I wonder if treyvon's mother who called it an "accident" earlier would come into play.
Click to expand...
From what I have seen I kind of agree with what I think she was saying.
I don't think that Z accidentally discharged his weapon. I do think that it was an accident that the situation came about and became what it did.

I am not seeing cold-bloodedness about Z's action or apparent intentions. Irresponsible, short-sighted, possibly. But cold-blooded, not likely.

I suspect it has more to do with "hot blood" than cold blood.
 
Re: Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:

Kal'Stang said:
But have you ever seen someone attack someone first and not leave some kind of mark on that person?
Click to expand...

Open hand strikes. Gut punches. There are all sorts of ways to hide an attack.
 
Re: Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:

poweRob said:
Open hand strikes. Gut punches. There are all sorts of ways to hide an attack.
Click to expand...

This is true. But how could the prosecution prove that? The prosecution cannot just suggest something that might have happened.
 
Re: Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:

Kal'Stang said:
But have you ever seen someone attack someone first and not leave some kind of mark on that person?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have an older brother.
 
Re: Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:

iguanaman said:
Zim states that Trayvon knocked him on his back with one punch. That was some punch to knock a 250 lb man down. How did he avoid even bruises on his knuckles?
Click to expand...
You still going with that 250lbs thing?

Have you even tried to learn anything about this case?
 
Re: Zimmerman charged

muciti said:
Ok Michael. I'll bite, again.

I believe that Zimmerman acted in self defense based on the information that has come out.

Facts as I know them.

Zimmerman was following Martin.
Zimmerman was told that he didn't need to continue.
Zimmerman lost Martin.
Zimmerman and Martin had a brief conversation.
Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him.
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Those are not facts. I stopped reading after the part where you added your spin on the story by stating Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

Nice try for an amateur author.
 
Re: Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:

muciti said:
This is true. But how could the prosecution prove that? The prosecution cannot just suggest something that might have happened.
Click to expand...

Wasn't thinking of that answer in a court-room sense. Just answer the question of attacking without leaving marks. Many abusive husbands know how to do this.
 
Re: Zimmerman charged

Simon W. Moon said:
Is that actually what needs to be proven at trial?
I thought that was just to make an arrest.
I thought at trial that self-defense is an affirmative defense where the defendant has to show that he was acting in self-defense.
Click to expand...

The state has the burden of proof in any case.

If this were true..... all human beings should wear cameras on them to ensure they don't get prosecuted and convicted of defending themselves because they may not be able to prove it outside of their own statement.

This kind of thinking is what would turn self defense killings into unsolved murders.
 
Re: Zimmerman charged

poweRob said:
That's not the case here. He's not having to prove his innocence. When you declare innocence you are declaring that you didn't do something. He did in fact shoot and kill someone. So he admittedly did something that he is not declaring innocence of. From that point on, he has to prove that he what he already admitted that he did, he did so in self defense.
Click to expand...
Yet... he is not on trial for "shooting and killing someone"...... as that general statement is not against the law.

He is on trial for MURDER.... which is an UNLAWFUL killing of another person.

It is the state's responsibility to prove the killing was unlawful.
 
Re: Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:

ReverendHellh0und said:
That's key.... Also I wonder if treyvon's mother who called it an "accident" earlier would come into play.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't.

She wasn't present... her statements in EITHER direction (supporting the prosecution or helping the state) won't come into play.

However, as the father was asked by police BEFORE the NAN, NAACP, Black Panthers, Black Congressional Congress, Etc got involved, whether or not the voice screaming help on the 911 tape was his son's, and he stated it was not. That WILL come into play.

The fact that he later changed his answer will still only help the defense.......
 
Re: Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:

Simon W. Moon said:
From what I have seen I kind of agree with what I think she was saying.
I don't think that Z accidentally discharged his weapon. I do think that it was an accident that the situation came about and became what it did.

I am not seeing cold-bloodedness about Z's action or apparent intentions. Irresponsible, short-sighted, possibly. But cold-blooded, not likely.

I suspect it has more to do with "hot blood" than cold blood.
Click to expand...

how about a "depraved state of mind"???
 
Re: Zimmerman charged

Simon W. Moon said:
It certainly would make it a lot easier for attorneys representing people charged with homicide offenses if the attorneys weren't obligated to demonstrate that their clients acted in self-defense.
Click to expand...
Stop playing games.
You know that is not what I said or even implied.
 
Re: Zimmerman charged

Caine said:
How can the prosecution meet the burden of the elements of 2nd degree murder without showing proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed this crime?
Click to expand...
idk about the specific charge.
My reasoning is thus
Since there's a dead guy and a guy who says he shot the dead guy all that's left is figuring out if the homicide was justified or excusable or what have you.
If it's not justified, excused or w/e, then it's a crime as it is not a lawful killing.
The default is that killing someone is a crime unless conditions a through z are met. If the conditions are not met, then we're stuck with a crime.
Since Z says he did kill Martin, the only question left is whether or not the killing was lawful. If he can't show that it's lawful, then the default is that it's unlawful.

But, that doesn't necessarily speak to the details of a 2nd degree murder charge, just that some charge is valid.
 
Re: Zimmerman charged

Caine said:
The state has the burden of proof in any case.
Click to expand...
They do have the burden of proof in this case. But Zimmerman has conceded a lot of that for them. He has conceded that he did the shooting. Shooting someone is illegal except under certain circumstances. He has the obligation to show that this shooting was under some set of circumstances that make the homicide lawful.
Afaict, that's what an affirmative defense means.

Caine said:
If this were true..... all human beings should wear cameras on them to ensure they don't get prosecuted and convicted of defending themselves because they may not be able to prove it outside of their own statement.
Click to expand...
Some people are wrongly convicted.
 
Re: Zimmerman charged

Simon W. Moon said:
idk about the specific charge.
My reasoning is thus
Since there's a dead guy and a guy who says he shot the dead guy all that's left is figuring out if the homicide was justified or excusable or what have you.
If it's not justified, excused or w/e, then it's a crime as it is not a lawful killing.
The default is that killing someone is a crime unless conditions a through z are met. If the conditions are not met, then we're stuck with a crime.
Since Z says he did kill Martin, the only question left is whether or not the killing was lawful. If he can't show that it's lawful, then the default is that it's unlawful.

But, that doesn't necessarily speak to the details of a 2nd degree murder charge, just that some charge is valid.
Click to expand...

It just doesn't sit right with me that folks would expect someone to be able to prove that they defended themselves beyond their own statement or face murder charges.

It would seem more reasonable that the state would have to show that George Zimmerman did NOT act in self defense if he is alleging that he defended himself.

The state would have to meet the burden that the killing was unlawful in some way.

When people claim he has to PROVE he was defending himself or go to jail, my mind keeps wandering back to situations in which one man attempts to kill another man and he defends himself, but there is nobody around to assist him in proving his case of self defense, so he is automatically guilty, with the state not having to show any burden of proof that the killing was unlawful or unjustified self defense.


Makes me want to go out and buy a small camera to hide on my clothing at all times that has a long battery life and large capacity for storage so I'll always have proof of everything that happens around me.

Scary thought, that.
 
Re: Zimmerman charged

Caine said:
It just doesn't sit right with me that folks would expect someone to be able to prove that they defended themselves beyond their own statement or face murder charges.
It would seem more reasonable that the state would have to show that George Zimmerman did NOT act in self defense if he is alleging that he defended himself.
The state would have to meet the burden that the killing was unlawful in some way.
When people claim he has to PROVE he was defending himself or go to jail, my mind keeps wandering back to situations in which one man attempts to kill another man and he defends himself, but there is nobody around to assist him in proving his case of self defense, so he is automatically guilty, with the state not having to show any burden of proof that the killing was unlawful or unjustified self defense.
Makes me want to go out and buy a small camera to hide on my clothing at all times that has a long battery life and large capacity for storage so I'll always have proof of everything that happens around me.
Scary thought, that.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that's what affirmative defense means though--its the defense obligation to provide it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom