• 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.

Call for Riots/Murder if Zimmerman found Not Guilty

It's really not the point. The question is, was it necessary for Z to shoot Martin? I don't see the necessity

Fear of Great bodily harm or emanate death.

Most folks see that suffering though such an ordeal as being such.
They also see the threat made and going for the gun to be another cause to induce said reasonable belief.
I am sure you would have said reasonable belief too if you were suffering through it.
 
I suppose you might think differently if you're ever pinned to the ground, getting punched in the face, your head grinding into concrete, a hand smashing your broken nose down, he's reaching down for your firearm saying, "You're gonna die tonight!" and NO ONE is helping you.

All of that is Z testimony as to what happened that night. We don't really know what the exchange was. We can not say, conclusively, that Martin was posing more of a threat than Z or that Martin didn't feel just as threatened.
 
All of that is Z testimony as to what happened that night. We don't really know what the exchange was. We can not say, conclusively, that Martin was posing more of a threat than Z or that Martin didn't feel just as threatened.
Bs!
The evidence clearly says otherwise.

I hear you however, I don't really see the relevance. Even if Martin had the upper-hand was it really necessary for Z to shoot him? I don't see it as a question of who had the advantage or who started it. Z shot and killed this child and I have a hard time understanding the necessity for such extreme measures in response to this situation. Z followed him, take your lumps for putting yourself in that position and call it a day. Don't kill someone because you are afraid they are going to beat you up.
As the prosecution said. 17 year old adult.
That fact that you refer to an aggressive 17 year old, who was slamming someones head into the ground, as a child, says all I need to know about your position.

You are wrong.
 
All of that is Z testimony as to what happened that night. We don't really know what the exchange was. We can not say, conclusively, that Martin was posing more of a threat than Z or that Martin didn't feel just as threatened.

Well, there ya go. Not guilty. :)
 
Bs!
The evidence clearly says otherwise.


As the prosecution said. 17 year old adult.
That fact that you refer to an aggressive 17 year old, who was slamming someones head into the ground, as a child, says all I need to know about your position.

You are wrong.

Saying I am wrong and that the evidence clearly says that does not support your position. That's just you yelling what you think. Explain yourself. What evidence shows that Z felt more threatened?

The prosecution in not the law and a 17 year old by law in not yet an adult.

As I said earlier, he may not be a child, but he was NOT an adult. I am not wrong you just disagree with me. That does not make me wrong.
 
Well, there ya go. Not guilty. :)

I'm not debating or arguing what verdict should be handed down. I am stating my OPINION about the conflict. I do believe that the evidence can not support a verdict of guilt to 2nd degree murder. I do believe there is a possibility that it can support a manslaughter charge.
 
All of that is Z testimony as to what happened that night. We don't really know what the exchange was. We can not say, conclusively, that Martin was posing more of a threat than Z or that Martin didn't feel just as threatened.

Then, it's up to the persecutor to prove it. And, in this case, the persecutor dicked it all up. Mostly, because he had zero evidence to even warrant a trial, much less satisfy the burden of proof, but also because he already knows that the fix is in and this will be a win for his curriculum vitae.
 
I'm not debating or arguing what verdict should be handed down. I am stating my OPINION about the conflict. I do believe that the evidence can not support a verdict of guilt to 2nd degree murder. I do believe there is a possibility that it can support a manslaughter charge.

The evidence doesn't support anything, other than all charges being dropped, with the court's apologies.

There is, however, plenty of evidence supporting a law suit against the state for false arrest and false imprisonment, not to mention the harassment that Zimmerman has received on account of his confidential information being released to the media by court/state officials.

And those clowns that put out a bounty on Zimmerman? I would sue their asses off to hell-n-gone for that, plus file charges for conspiracy to commit murder. The real shame is that those bastards aren't on trial, as we speak.
 
Saying I am wrong and that the evidence clearly says that does not support your position. That's just you yelling what you think. Explain yourself. What evidence shows that Z felt more threatened?

The prosecution in not the law and a 17 year old by law in not yet an adult.

As I said earlier, he may not be a child, but he was NOT an adult. I am not wrong you just disagree with me. That does not make me wrong.
You seem to be confused.
You are the one who needs to support their position.
You have failed to do so because you are wrong.

And I have provided the information to show where you have been wrong.
So WTF? You must have forgot that or something.



And you are being dishonest by calling him a child.
He was as the prosecutor stated, a 17 year old adult.
He was old enough to be emancipated.
Old enough to be tried as an adult.

Hell, I should say Zimmerman was a child, as he is his mothers child.
 
Well, there ya go. Not guilty. :)

just as o'mara and then the judge told the jury
if there is ANY degree of reasonable doubt whether zimmerman was entitled to self defense, then 'not guilty' is the only verdict which should be rendered
 
just as o'mara and then the judge told the jury
if there is any degree of reasonable doubt whether zimmerman was entitled to self defense, then 'not guilty' is the only verdict which should be rendered

Exactly.
 
If there are riots, I sure hope they don't burn down their own neighbourhood. They should choose an upper class neighbourhood instead.

Calm
 
I hear you however, I don't really see the relevance. Even if Martin had the upper-hand was it really necessary for Z to shoot him? I don't see it as a question of who had the advantage or who started it. Z shot and killed this child and I have a hard time understanding the necessity for such extreme measures in response to this situation. Z followed him, take your lumps for putting yourself in that position and call it a day. Don't kill someone because you are afraid they are going to beat you up.

Take your lumps?
He "probably" would have survived? (As you stated earlier)

When someone is beating another person in that manner and claims, "Your gonna die tonight"..... what reason should you believe that you are going to be just fine?
 
If there are riots, I sure hope they don't burn down their own neighbourhood. They should choose an upper class neighbourhood instead.

Calm

Rioters tend to focus where sneakers/jeans are sold

It would prudent to avoid, the brick and mortar shoe and clothing stores
 
I hear you however, I don't really see the relevance. Even if Martin had the upper-hand was it really necessary for Z to shoot him? I don't see it as a question of who had the advantage or who started it. Z shot and killed this child and I have a hard time understanding the necessity for such extreme measures in response to this situation. Z followed him, take your lumps for putting yourself in that position and call it a day. Don't kill someone because you are afraid they are going to beat you up.

Are you kidding me?

I am driving (dark and rainy night?) and notice a white van following me.

I pull into a mall and notice that I am still being followed by that same white van.

I park and walk towards a store, but the (creepy ass cracker?) driver of that white van is still following me.

I then jump and beat them up to whatever extent that my anger at being followed dictates.

The "crime" committed by the driver of the white van was simply that they were 30 seconds later going to that store than I was. Good thing to know that Floriduh law now allows this "beating when provoked (by following)", but it is illegal to use deadly force to avoid your well deserved beatings. ;)
 
Are you kidding me?

I am driving (dark and rainy night?) and notice a white van following me.

I pull into a mall and notice that I am still being followed by that same white van.

I park and walk towards a store, but the (creepy ass cracker?) driver of that white van is still following me.

I then jump and beat them up to whatever extent that my anger at being followed dictates.

The "crime" committed by the driver of the white van was simply that they were 30 seconds later going to that store than I was. Good thing to know that Floriduh law now allows this "beating when provoked (by following)", but it is illegal to use deadly force to avoid your well deserved beatings. ;)
____

What evidence proves that is happened that way?
 
The violence, the hate and the stupid is heavy on Twitter:

Lynch mob thugs threaten Zimmerman jury; ‘N*ggas coming for that bitch ass jury’ | Twitchy

If I were on the jury, I don't think I'd even want to do one of those interviews you always see a month or so after the verdict.

Ice Cube is on the bitter band wagon as well. I wonder how the Coors Beer executives will view his hate tweets.

https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=icecube&tw_i=356251998024237058&tw_p=tweetembed
 
(1) Presumed innocent is the law. Presumed guilty is, at least, a bias. In this case, it's prejudice since GZ is considered a, in my words, Uncle Tom Hispanic.

(2) Since when was TM being without a gun proof of GZ's guilt? Unarmed? I know of many fistfights that end in death. How many women would have waited as long (accepted as many blows) before they pulled the trigger?

(3) If you desire retribution for over 400 years of slavery, every 'Uncle Tom', regardless of race or color, is guilty. And you'll never be satisfied.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom