• 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!

George (misplaced) His Old Gun..........Yeah Right

And for the one trillionth time, a defense strategy is not facts. It's a strategy to cast reasonable doubt, by playing "what ifs."


Everything you've said here is speculative....and based on the idea (which I agree with, by the way) that there was a possibility that it went down as you put it here.

Indeed, the defense has no burden of proof and the prosecution presented ample evidence to support self defense.
 
And for the one trillionth time, a defense strategy is not facts. It's a strategy to cast reasonable doubt, by playing "what ifs."


Everything you've said here is speculative....and based on the idea (which I agree with, by the way) that there was a possibility that it went down as you put it here.

What do you see in that post that you think is speculative?

It is a fact Zimmerman had every right to be where he was.

It is a fact Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose, and he had no right to do that.

It is a fact Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin on top beating on him.

What is speculative about all of that?
 
I'll be happy if the distinction between opinion and fact is made clear. For example, it is not a fact that the prosecution threw the case.
 
What do you see in that post that you think is speculative?

It is a fact Zimmerman had every right to be where he was.

It is a fact Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose, and he had no right to do that.

It is a fact Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin on top beating on him.

What is speculative about all of that?

Oh for crying out loud.

I thought the Trayvon supporters were bad enough, with rank speculation about racism and so on.

But you guys are (at least) as bad.

We don't know what led to the altercation.

We are missing a chunk of what occurred in the altercation.

that is not debatable...in fact, it has not even been debated....because it can't be.

Again: there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute Zimmerman. That's it. Full stop.

If you think that connotes (much less denotes) "innocence"...or even hints that Zimmerman was a victim of an altercation started by Trayvon...then you have no idea whatsoever of how the justice system works, or is supposed to work.
 
Oh for crying out loud.

I thought the Trayvon supporters were bad enough, with rank speculation about racism and so on.

But you guys are (at least) as bad.

We don't know what led to the altercation.

We are missing a chunk of what occurred in the altercation.

that is not debatable...in fact, it has not even been debated....because it can't be.

Again: there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute Zimmerman. That's it. Full stop.

If you think that connotes (much less denotes) "innocence"...or even hints that Zimmerman was a victim of an altercation started by Trayvon...then you have no idea whatsoever of how the justice system works, or is supposed to work.

What are you going on about?

What you pointed out as speculative is not.

There was evidence presented at trial to prove every point of what you think is speculative.

What happened before Martin smashed Zimmerman inthe nose doesn't matter because the first ilegal act was Martins, unless you think Zimmerman did something illegal that night before the shot.
 
there is always "evidence presented." Much of it is based on nighttime eyewitness accounts...which, as any professional law enforcement personnel or criminologist will tell you, has an accuracy rate of...crap.

Much of it based on Zimmerman's own story, which as objective fact carries approximately zero information.

I don't know why you are so personally invested in the case; but you're not alone. Me? Not so much, you see.

Further, as I pointed out, I believe the verdict was correct. Not because Zimmerman's story is true...but because it's possible.

That's all that's needed.

If you think he was "proven innocent" then you are completely, flatly, uncontroversially incorrect. It's not even close to that.
 
there is always "evidence presented." Much of it is based on nighttime eyewitness accounts...which, as any professional law enforcement personnel or criminologist will tell you, has an accuracy rate of...crap.

Much of it based on Zimmerman's own story, which as objective fact carries approximately zero information.

I don't know why you are so personally invested in the case; but you're not alone. Me? Not so much, you see.

Further, as I pointed out, I believe the verdict was correct. Not because Zimmerman's story is true...but because it's possible.

That's all that's needed.

If you think he was "proven innocent" then you are completely, flatly, uncontroversially incorrect. It's not even close to that.

Please show me where I posted anything about guilt or innocence.
 
Oh for crying out loud.

I thought the Trayvon supporters were bad enough, with rank speculation about racism and so on.

But you guys are (at least) as bad.

We don't know what led to the altercation.

We are missing a chunk of what occurred in the altercation.

that is not debatable...in fact, it has not even been debated....because it can't be.

Again: there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute Zimmerman. That's it. Full stop.

If you think that connotes (much less denotes) "innocence"...or even hints that Zimmerman was a victim of an altercation started by Trayvon...then you have no idea whatsoever of how the justice system works, or is supposed to work.

The reason we don't know exactly what happened is that the young one is dead and the fat wuss was able to fabricate a tale.
 
So you say.....I was in my thirties when that **** was happening and I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Have you forgotten those who went to Canada to stay out of that slaughter? Have you forgotten the burned draft cards, burned American flags and protests? Have you forgotten that 150,000 were killed and three times that many seriously wounded? What about George W. Bush who pulled strings to jump ahead of more than 1000 who were trying to join the TX national guards and then didn't even serve the last fourteen months of his obligation? Methinks you talk through your ass. My wife's only brother was killed there in the Long Tan province by small arms fire when he was nineteen years old. He was in the 9th Infantry Division. There were four siblings so when he died that was the end of one branch of his family heritage. What they have left of him is an inscription on the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC.

"It may come as a surprise to some that 63.3% of all V'nam enlisted casualties were volunteer. If officers are added then almost 70% of those who died were volunteers. Of course, the Marine, Navy and Air Corps enlisted personnel were, with the exception of a small number of Marines, all volunteer, but as it turned out almost 50% of Army enlisted casualties were also volunteer."

Vietnam War Deaths, Author's Notes
 
Back
Top Bottom