• 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.

Couldn't agree more.

Well, I guess there's another poster that I usually respect and admire here that has disappointed me. The manipulation is deep.
 
Josie said:
Well, I guess there's another poster that I usually respect and admire here that has disappointed me. The manipulation is deep.
Click to expand...

How?

By agreeing with your position but not looking to blame a political side for something?
 
Your Star said:
So your not ashamed of what conservatives have done? Of how they politicized a young mans death?

Both sides have done wrong here.
Click to expand...

Your Star, what have conservatives done? I don't understand that comment at all. How have they politicized his death? I don't get it. I know I was happy as a little clam with the Not Guilty verdict and felt like celebrating, but that was because I felt justice had been served -- and, because of the politicizing done by others, I fully expected them to find him guilty of the lesser charge. I celebrated justice.

Please tell us what Conservatives did to politicize this tragedy. It is the ACLU on a witch hunt. It's race baiters who refuse to accept the jury's verdict and think the sky has fallen. What have Conservatives done?
 
Your Star said:
How?

By agreeing with your position but not looking to blame a political side for something?
Click to expand...

The Leftists really blew it on this. Usually the yooz-a-racist stategy works, but not this time and you're trying to cover them by blaming everyone.
 
MaggieD said:
Your Star, what have conservatives done? I don't understand that comment at all. How have they politicized his death? I don't get it. I know I was happy as a little clam with the Not Guilty verdict and felt like celebrating, but that was because I felt justice had been served -- and, because of the politicizing done by others, I fully expected them to find him guilty of the lesser charge. I celebrated justice.

Please tell us what Conservatives did to politicize this tragedy. It is the ACLU on a witch hunt. It's race baiters who refuse to accept the jury's verdict and think the sky has fallen. What have Conservatives done?
Click to expand...

Have you watched Fox News? :lol:
 
Jack Hays said:
It was a straightforward self defense case that never should have gone to trial. The left politicized it, like the Duke lacrosse case a few years ago. Martin attacked a man who turned out to be armed. That mistake cost him his life. That's all there is to it. The jury saw through the lefty propaganda, and delivered a just verdict.:peace
Click to expand...

I disagree. Absent video of the event, or even a witness who saw the whole thing, it becomes an issue for trial.

Example: You have gun, I am unarmed. You walk up to me and I end up shot dead. No witnesses to the event. Of course, being the only survivor you can tell whatever story you want. Is that really a "straightforward self-defense case?"

I'm not on either side of this issue. I did not follow the case and knew nothing of it aside from the original news reports I happened to see of the incident itself. I was content to let the court handle it and am content with the verdict. HOWEVER, I never saw it as a "straightforward self-defense case." A trial was warranted.
 
Your Star said:
Did I say that? No, he should have never physically confronted Zimmerman, that is why legally Zimmerman did nothing wrong. But the whole situation would have never happened if he wasn't following him, for what I know, no logical reason.
Click to expand...
You said he was justified in the shooting, but provoked the attack.

I was thinking of a way to tactfully explain how both Martin could have been doing nothing at all, while Zimmerman be completely justified in his being concerned about Martin's actions to the point of calling in a suspicious person and observing his actions.....

I came up with this..

Martin was on the phone, and from what I remember was using a blue tooth device..... yet had his hoodie up so its not like someone could tell he was on the phone. Talking, possibly using his hands while talking on the phone may make him appear like a drug addict talking to himself.
He was a visitor there, knew his way around somewhat but it is POSSIBLE that he, while walking around and being distracted by the phone, wasn't exactly taking the most direct route... so as to appear even more suspicious. (I have literally been walking around on my front porch on the phone with my brother and moments later looked in front of me to see I was at the mailbox at the end of the driveway, oblivious to having walked there).
When he noticed Zimmerman watching him..... he got spooked and ran..... which further solidified Zimmerman's belief that he was up to no good because this is what scoundrels do when they see the police observing them.


How am I doing so far?
 
apdst said:
The Leftists really blew it on this. Usually the yooz-a-racist stategy works, but not this time and you're trying to cover them by blaming everyone.
Click to expand...

How about address what I actually say, and not what you want me to say?

See Josie, this is part of what the conservative media has done, said that anyone who didn't agree race baiting. Funny thing is I mainly agree with you apdst :lol:
 
Captain Adverse said:
I disagree. Absent video of the event, or even a witness who saw the whole thing, it becomes an issue for trial.

Example: You have gun, I am unarmed. You walk up to me and I end up shot dead. No witnesses to the event. Of course, being the only survivor you can tell whatever story you want. Is that really a "straightforward self-defense case?"

I'm not on either side of this issue. I did not follow the case and knew nothing of it aside from the original news reports I happened to see of the incident itself. I was content to let the court handle it and am content with the verdict. HOWEVER, I never saw it as a "straightforward self-defense case." A trial was warranted.
Click to expand...

Yes. It was straightforward self defense. The physical evidence was consistent with GZ's story. Your point about the only survivor is apt. Homeowners who buy firearms for home defense are routinely advised to shoot to kill if they ever need to use the weapon. Why? Because then there is no contrary witness.:peace
 
Captain Adverse said:
I disagree. Absent video of the event, or even a witness who saw the whole thing, it becomes an issue for trial.

Example: You have gun, I am unarmed. You walk up to me and I end up shot dead. No witnesses to the event. Of course, being the only survivor you can tell whatever story you want. Is that really a "straightforward self-defense case?"

I'm not on either side of this issue. I did not follow the case and knew nothing of it aside from the original news reports I happened to see of the incident itself. I was content to let the court handle it and am content with the verdict. HOWEVER, I never saw it as a "straightforward self-defense case." A trial was warranted.
Click to expand...

So you are saying the investigation by SPD the night of the incident was not enough. Lead detective Serino's much more intensive investigation was not enough. The special prosecutor bypassing the NORMAL procedure of calling for a grand jury was ok? Then hand the case to Assistant State Attorneys?

What ever happened to the notion you couldn't simply accuse a citizen of a crime when there is insufficient evidence of same? How did we dance around the rule of law because the Mayor held a press conference with the "race baiting" attorney Crump??

I mean I know we're currently ruled by an administration that doesn't bat an eyelash to circumvent the law. Just kinda surprised I'd hear a "libertarian" supporting the notion.

I know this case was a tragedy. I know reviewing one's actions with hindsight is a high bar for anyone to pass. The most troubling aspect of this entire case for me personally, is the length the press, the "race baiters", DOJ, the black panthers, POTUS and so many fellow Americans would go, or think it's ok to go, in making baseless accusations, simply based on skin color.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Yes. It was straightforward self defense. The physical evidence was consistent with GZ's story. Your point about the only survivor is apt. Homeowners who buy firearms for home defense are routinely advised to shoot to kill if they ever need to use the weapon. Why? Because then there is no contrary witness.:peace
Click to expand...

Well, in most states if I was in your home with no business being there...you'd be correct. As for physical evidence? Again I did not follow the case but....(see response below)

Oceandan said:
So you are saying the investigation by SPD the night of the incident was not enough. Lead detective Serino's much more intensive investigation was not enough. The special prosecutor bypassing the NORMAL procedure of calling for a grand jury was ok? Then hand the case to Assistant State Attorneys?

What ever happened to the notion you couldn't simply accuse a citizen of a crime when there is insufficient evidence of same? How did we dance around the rule of law because the Mayor held a press conference with the "race baiting" attorney Crump??

I mean I know we're currently ruled by an administration that doesn't bat an eyelash to circumvent the law. Just kinda surprised I'd hear a "libertarian" supporting the notion.
Click to expand...

Originally the lead detective did not believe Zimmerman's account and wanted him arrested (at least according to several reports I was made aware of).

Trayvon Martin lead investigator wanted George Zimmerman arrested the night of the fatal shooting - Crimesider - CBS News

Of course he later testified OTHERS were pressuring him to do so. In any case, there was enough initial evidence to raise some doubts about the self-defense issue.

We are also finding out that only 3 Jurors wanted aquittal, 2 wanted manslaughter, and 1 wanted second degree murder. Juror: Zimmerman had right to defend himself

The final verdict was Not Guilty because the State failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not because the jurors all believed his self-defense claim.

I am not arguing against the verdict. The jury says he is not guilty, so I personally presume his innocence based on the possibility it was self-defense. I am just stating that it was NOT a case of "straightforward self defense."
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
This is the biggest pet peeve of mine........

People act as if the mere act of observing Martin is provocation worthy of starting a fight.

Society thinks that it is acceptable to fight someone for being disrespected.... is what it all boils down to.

Pride.... one of the seven deadly sins.... I'll leave you ponder upon that.
Click to expand...

I find it bizarre that the left's entire argument seems to be "but he followed him!"

When the heck did that become grounds for such a savage beating?
 
It is sickening how one side in this thinks that because he was found not guilty they can all make assumptions about how innocent he was. Your Star is trying to recognize that both side were assholes, and one side, only one side, is proving how big of assholes they have been all along.

All along I have felt that both Trayvon and Zimmerman were at fault. I am glad it went to trial, because I think people on both sides were using the case to make a political point, and it had to be sorted out thoroughly. I just wanted to see whatever facts there were put to the test, and none of us knew what the facts were at the beginning of this process. I still believe that they too readily bought Zimmerman's story. Perhaps if they had investigated properly to begin with, there wouldn't have been the political pressure so many Zimmerman worshipers bemoan.

Yes, yes, legally he is innocent. I still believe Zimmerman had a bad part in the drama, though it may not have been a criminal part. I hope he lives with the guilt of his part for the rest of his life. Trayvon has paid for his bad part in the scene already.

As for me, the thing I have learned from this trial is the type of folks I am in bed with when I support gun rights. I realized I was in bed with the crazies, I just didn't realize all the implications of that. Now it is just that much harder. It is really hard to support gun rights when the crazies you are consorting with are so incredibly irresponsible.

Yes, yes, my fellow liberals overplayed how much evidence there was to be believing what they believed. But so did the conservatives, every bit as much. The conservatives weren't simply saying there was a lack of evidence. They were and still are saying that Z is practically an angel sent from god on god's business. It is pathetic.

Kudos to you, Your Star. Thank you for the thoughtful OP.
 
Dapper Andy said:
I find it bizarre that the left's entire argument seems to be "but he followed him!"

When the heck did that become grounds for such a savage beating?
Click to expand...

It isn't hard to make up a scenerio where it almost might have been. There are just no facts to support it.

They come face-to-face as Zimmerman says, Trayvon Martin asks, "Why are you following me?" And Zimmerman reaches for his cell phone. (As Zimmerman stated.) Trayvon Martin figures he's reaching for a weapon . . . he's already on alert because Zimmerman's been tailing him . . . and, in self defense, he throws the first punch -- and keeps on throttling him because he's in fear for his life.

We'll never know if that happened; that's not what the facts support, and there are a number of problems with this theory, but it could have happened just that way. This case has been a cluster**** since Jump Street.

I believe Zimmerman's account because when Serino told him there was video of the event? Zimmerman said, "Thank God!"
 
Dezaad said:
It is sickening how one side in this thinks that because he was found not guilty they can all make assumptions about how innocent he was. Your Star is trying to recognize that both side were assholes, and one side, only one side, is proving how big of assholes they have been all along.

All along I have felt that both Trayvon and Zimmerman were at fault. I am glad it went to trial, because I think people on both sides were using the case to make a political point, and it had to be sorted out thoroughly. I just wanted to see whatever facts there were put to the test, and none of us knew what the facts were at the beginning of this process. I still believe that they too readily bought Zimmerman's story. Perhaps if they had investigated properly to begin with, there wouldn't have been the political pressure so many Zimmerman worshipers bemoan.

Yes, yes, legally he is innocent. I still believe Zimmerman had a bad part in the drama, though it may not have been a criminal part. I hope he lives with the guilt of his part for the rest of his life. Trayvon has paid for his bad part in the scene already.

As for me, the thing I have learned from this trial is the type of folks I am in bed with when I support gun rights. I realized I was in bed with the crazies, I just didn't realize all the implications of that. Now it is just that much harder. It is really hard to support gun rights when the crazies you are consorting with are so incredibly irresponsible.

Yes, yes, my fellow liberals overplayed how much evidence there was to be believing what they believed. But so did the conservatives, every bit as much. The conservatives weren't simply saying there was a lack of evidence. They were and still are saying that Z is practically an angel sent from god on god's business. It is pathetic.

Kudos to you, Your Star. Thank you for the thoughtful OP.
Click to expand...

You know if you are going to blow smoke up my ass, at least give me the benefit of a reach around. This has nothing to do with those on Zimmerman's side being assholes. We are and were correct in that the evidence did not AND STILL DOES NOT show a crime was committed on his part. That is the extent of what we did. Now that it's over you start the whole "well both sides" No, HELL NO.

Martin supporters made **** up and out and out lied. Now that it's over... Both sides my ass.

Eat your sour grapes and like em.
 
Dezaad said:
It is sickening how one side in this thinks that because he was found not guilty they can all make assumptions about how innocent he was. Your Star is trying to recognize that both side were assholes, and one side, only one side, is proving how big of assholes they have been all along.
Click to expand...
Yes... its the side still trying to lynch this man because they cling to the false idea that he is an evil racist murderer. Despite 30+ people interviewed by the FBI about George only for the FBI to conclude he is not a racist. Despite his own Defense Team's black female legal aide stating she knows he is not a racist and wouldn't have worked with him if he was. Despite his known history of not being a racist.

Them right there.... they are the assholes.


All along I have felt that both Trayvon and Zimmerman were at fault.
Click to expand...
Morally they share responsibility for both being retards. One was a retard, the other was a criminal retard.

I am glad it went to trial, because I think people on both sides were using the case to make a political point, and it had to be sorted out thoroughly. I just wanted to see whatever facts there were put to the test, and none of us knew what the facts were at the beginning of this process.
Click to expand...
Not to be the know it all... but if you pull my posts up on this issue from March 2012, You'll see pretty much all of my predictions have come true. I won't say all... but pretty much all.

I still believe that they too readily bought Zimmerman's story.
Click to expand...
Which turned out to be supported by the evidence presented in the case.... so perhaps they were correct.
Perhaps if they had investigated properly to begin with, there wouldn't have been the political pressure so many Zimmerman worshipers bemoan.
Click to expand...
The case was investigated properly to begin with. All the additional investigation did was bring about more knowledge of his "non-guilt" (cant use the common word of innocence. someone will flip their ****). All the stuff testified to during the trial was already known by Sanford PD (and released in the media prior to Zimmerman's arrest).

Yes, yes, legally he is innocent.
Click to expand...
OMG NO HE DIDNT. You better duck and hide...using that term is a sore subject around here.
I still believe Zimmerman had a bad part in the drama, though it may not have been a criminal part.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
I hope he lives with the guilt of his part for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...
He will.


As for me, the thing I have learned from this trial is the type of folks I am in bed with when I support gun rights. I realized I was in bed with the crazies, I just didn't realize all the implications of that. Now it is just that much harder. It is really hard to support gun rights when the crazies you are consorting with are so incredibly irresponsible.
Click to expand...
Just because you are a liberal doesn't make you in bed with the morons who wanted to throw piss, **** and used tampons on people in Texas does it? No. Same can be applied here.


Yes, yes, my fellow liberals overplayed how much evidence there was to be believing what they believed. But so did the conservatives, every bit as much. The conservatives weren't simply saying there was a lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
I was saying there was a lack of evidence. But then again I am not a necessarily a conservative. So I reckon this means you should listen to Libertarians when they speak. :p
They were and still are saying that Z is practically an angel sent from god on god's business. It is pathetic.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying that.
 
MaggieD said:
It isn't hard to make up a scenerio where it almost might have been. There are just no facts to support it.

They come face-to-face as Zimmerman says, Trayvon Martin asks, "Why are you following me?" And Zimmerman reaches for his cell phone. (As Zimmerman stated.) Trayvon Martin figures he's reaching for a weapon . . . he's already on alert because Zimmerman's been tailing him . . . and, in self defense, he throws the first punch -- and keeps on throttling him because he's in fear for his life.

We'll never know if that happened; that's not what the facts support, and there are a number of problems with this theory, but it could have happened just that way. This case has been a cluster**** since Jump Street.

I believe Zimmerman's account because when Serino told him there was video of the event? Zimmerman said, "Thank God!"
Click to expand...

I can't believe that story that has been repeated alot about believing he reached for a weapon............ only because when someone is getting their face pounded in screaming for help.... that would have been a good clue they weren't a threat and he should have stopped.
 
Funny I get attacked by people for agreeing with them :lol:
 
The Zimmerman verdict showed just how politicized every speck of American life has become for a hyper-partisan political class that has little in common with most Americans. In fact, they are probably why most Americans hate politics.
Click to expand...

By design. If a person is to be interested in politics, they are to be mad at another side of the spectrum. A united populace is much harder to control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom