• 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.

Is physical assault justified if you're being followed?[W:263]

Is physical assault justified if you're being followed? (Public poll)


  • Total voters
    52
Good Lord! This has been explained MULTIPLE times in this thread as well as others. Don't be dense.

First of all, the person or people who may or may not be "dense" here is subjective. Secondly, and listen close, please stop calling people who do not disagree with you names. It is childish.
 
asking questions that have been asked and asked and asked.. and answered and answered and answered.. is not going to change a thing...

no matter how you feel, no matter how deep in your bones you think you are right... it really doesn't matter... it's a settled case and the facts didn't show an injustice.

The facts showed an injustice to most people. That's why you'll have to defend the verdict to most people you meet.
 
Based on the polls we've done here, the vast majority of intelligent people believe he's not guilty. So you're arguing for the losing side. Move on.


Tell you what, when it stop being a topic on this site....I'll move one. Until then I have just as much right to discuss it as anyone. So, stop being a bully. I can assure you I am not alone in my views. And try to finally grasp this instead of going of on some random unjustified rage.....I am not arguing the verdict.
 
Tell you what, when it stop being a topic on this site....I'll move one. Until then I have just as much right to discuss it as anyone. So, stop being a bully. I can assure you I am not alone in my views. And try to finally grasp this instead of going of on some random unjustified rage.....I am not arguing the verdict.

I'm not being a bully. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to save you from making a fool of yourself anymore.
 
The facts showed an injustice to most people. That's why you'll have to defend the verdict to most people you meet.

multiple polls show that most people agree with the verdict.... how did you reach the opposite conclusion?

I live in central Texas....a successful self defense verdict is the last thing i'll need to defend around here
 
K, I'm getting kind of bored saying the same thing to you over and over again so for the last time: There's absolutely no physical evidence as to who started the fight. You keep giving me evidence that Trayvon won the fight. If you logically try to determine who started the melee, you have to assume it was because Trayvon was being followed. Everybody is reading Trayvons mind, and filling in the unknown with he must have been angry enough at Zimmerman to instigate. This, I repeat, is based on speculation since there is no evidence to suggest what happened after the 911 call, and before Trayvon was seen on top of Zimmerman. It is my contention that there isn't enough information to convict Trayvon as the assailant, therefore you can't excuse the fact that Zimmermans mistakes lead to the death of an innocent person.


What an incredible opinion. Trayvon Martin was not on trial for assault. Your view of a presumption that GZ is guilty unless proven absolutely innocent is absurd. And more absurd to claim the unknown is a "fact."
 
Explain ANY possible relevance to the fact that we don't know what we don't know and never will. And THAT is the "entire point" to you. That because what is known, what is told and the evidence leave many things unknown to us, we should therefore condemn George Zimmerman as an evil murderer as a person, and also he should be put in prison - literally for unknown reasons. Because GZ cannot absolutely prove is absolute innocence, he is presumed a murderer based upon what is not known?

That is always the most desperate of arguments against Zimmerman. That he should be condemned based upon the unknown. That has absolutely no value from any direction.

No, I want to condemn him based on the fact that his errors lead to the death of an innocent person. I don't think evidence of losing a fight after you mistakenly follow somebody is enough to vacate responsibility. My entire point is that the spirit of the law should not protect vigilantes who follow the wrong person.
 
Why do you think Neighborhood Watch has any authority whatsoever to TM or towards TM? Why do you believe TM's response would have been respectful, passive and submissive? What authority to GZ declaring himself to be NW would that have then given to GZ himself or towards TM? TM had clearly figured out that GZ was watching him.

I am speaking of INTELLIGENCE.. Why do you suppose that NW has been around for 40 years and doesn't kill people?
 
Have you noticed how the GZ haters don't just stop at extreme overstated and false representation of his past history? They go on to ridicule his weight, his having short hair, that he looks "freaky" - and overall a mass of ridicule of how he physically looks? While at the same time they absolutely RAGE against profiling a person for how the person looks?

Did you hear his lawyer during the trial? His defence was that he was an out of shape, overweight guy who couldn't fight.
 
No, I want to condemn him based on the fact that his errors lead to the death of an innocent person. I don't think evidence of losing a fight after you mistakenly follow somebody is enough to vacate responsibility. My entire point is that the spirit of the law should not protect vigilantes who follow the wrong person.

Then in that "spirit of the law," if a "vigilante" "follows the wrong person" it is presumed that any violence confrontation reqardless of who started it or continued to any degree at all was started by "the vigilante."

Other than he didn't call the police, why don't you see TM as a vigilante too? He is who first approached GZ - at the trunk while GZ on the phone - and since it appears TM ran away, but then came back towards GZ with the first question (according to DD) of why are you following me? - how is that not TM being a vigilante and - since GZ had done nothing wrong and was "innocent," - therefore TM was questioning "the wrong person"?
 
I'm not being a bully. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to save you from making a fool of yourself anymore.

I live to be your fool and anyone else's who is so close minded that they name call and try to shame anyone who does not agree with them. Worse yet, do that to someone just because they are struggling to understand a simple point.
 
He ran, that's on record. He ran, he hid, he tried to talk to Zimmerman. You're giving us evidence that he won the fight. None of us know precisely what lead to it. The only thing we know is Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after he clearly knew that he was bothering him (and lied when directly asked if he was following him), he continued to follow him after the 911 operator asked him to stop. I find no reason to assume that the person who had previously been trying to avoid contact would suddenly turn into the aggressor. Unless Zimmerman didn't tell us the whole truth. I find it a little bizarre that everybody can so readily bridge the gap and decide that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, but can in the same logical thought, assume that he had no justification. You have to bend the facts to suit your interpretation in order to do that.

yes he did run.... unfortunately, at some point, he stopped running.... coming back to confront Z was a fatal mistake...he shoulda kept running right on home... he had a good head start and not far to go.

there is no evidence TM was justified in assaulting Z... if there was, we might have a very different verdict under discussion here.
 
Did you hear his lawyer during the trial? His defence was that he was an out of shape, overweight guy who couldn't fight.


Yes, and unlike anti-GZ people on the forum and otherwise, the prosecution was smart enough to not ridicule GZ for being overweight, out of shape and couldn't fight. I best most those women see herself as out of shape and overweight, and probably husbands or BFs and/or have children who are out of shape, overweight and can't fight.

What I am saying is that ridiculing and sneering as personal insults at GZ and even factoring that into deciding if he is guilty is absolute bigotry and prejudice.
 
First of all, the person or people who may or may not be "dense" here is subjective. Secondly, and listen close, please stop calling people who do not disagree with you names. It is childish.

Well if you can't understand the evidence that was provided, that is being dense.
 
multiple polls show that most people agree with the verdict.... how did you reach the opposite conclusion?

I live in central Texas....a successful self defense verdict is the last thing i'll need to defend around here

What polls are you reading? I'm reading scientific non-partisan polls. :)

In Texas he likely would have been found guilty, for the record. They don't have the same statute that allows a defender to use deadly force in a situation they instigated. All of the time.
 
yes he did run.... unfortunately, at some point, he stopped running.... coming back to confront Z was a fatal mistake...he shoulda kept running right on home... he had a good head start and not far to go.

there is no evidence TM was justified in assaulting Z... if there was, we might have a very different verdict under discussion here.

I think the anti-GZers on this thread are saying no evidence is evidence somehow. That any theory that might mean GZ is guilty therefore proves he is because it can't be proven he isn't.
 
First of all, don't tell me what I am doing just because you can't understand what I am doing. Secondly, don't assume that I know very little about the trial because I did not come to the same conclusion as you. Third, I am not arguing the verdict.

If you have something of substance to offer that illustrates your point (IE: what you consider evidence that supports your theory) than I suggest you offer that instead of just screaming back at me?

Now try actually reading this....the verdict is a separate issue. In the court room, the jury must follow the law and the limited evidence they are allowed. It is a full picture of what happened that night. There have been many cases where someone who the majority of people would consider obviously guilty, were given a not guilty verdict; OJ and Casey A come. to mind. This is simply to illustrate my point that not guilty ONLY means, that reasonable doubt remains. It does not necessarily mean that the jury considers the accused innocent.

First of all, I don't have to support any theory. I'm not the one throwing "theories" around here. That would be you.

Secondly, yes, you are arguing about the not guilty verdict. That's exactly what you're doing. Don't insult my intelligence.
 
yes.. the killers word..... and the evidence, don't forget the evidence.

There's no evidence, other than the fact that he followed him and knew Trayvon was aware of him and was told to stop and didn't. Getting his ass kicked isn't evidence he didn't start it.
 
I live to be your fool and anyone else's who is so close minded that they name call and try to shame anyone who does not agree with them. Worse yet, do that to someone just because they are struggling to understand a simple point.

You call me a bully and I'M the one who is name-calling? :roll:
 
You only have the facts as presented by the killer, and you don't seem to know what it's like to be followed. Do you not think that it's possible that the accused may be changing the facts to suit his defence?

FYI, I do know what it's like to be followed. I went to my neighbor's house and called the police. THAT is what you do when you're being followed. You don't go on the attack. IF you do that, then YOU are wrong and assaulting someone. Understand that fact.
 
First of all, I don't have to support any theory. I'm not the one throwing "theories" around here. That would be you.

Secondly, yes, you are arguing about the not guilty verdict. That's exactly what you're doing. Don't insult my intelligence.

I wouldn't dare to insult your intelligence...I'll leave that up to you and btw way to are doing a splendid job.

The problem here is that you are misunderstanding me, reacting with rage instead of curiosity and TELLING what I am doing rather than LISTENING to me why I tell you.

try again.
 
What an incredible opinion. Trayvon Martin was not on trial for assault. Your view of a presumption that GZ is guilty unless proven absolutely innocent is absurd. And more absurd to claim the unknown is a "fact."

Huh. I don't understand why people ape catch phrases from the law, as if to say their opinions are superior. I'm just just pulling my opinion out of thin air: I'm saying that the facts are he profiled, followed, got beat in a melee by, and killed an innocent kid and I see no reason to take his word as an excuse to vacate responsibility for those actions.
 
He ran, that's on record. He ran, he hid, he tried to talk to Zimmerman. You're giving us evidence that he won the fight. None of us know precisely what lead to it. The only thing we know is Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after he clearly knew that he was bothering him (and lied when directly asked if he was following him), he continued to follow him after the 911 operator asked him to stop. I find no reason to assume that the person who had previously been trying to avoid contact would suddenly turn into the aggressor. Unless Zimmerman didn't tell us the whole truth. I find it a little bizarre that everybody can so readily bridge the gap and decide that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, but can in the same logical thought, assume that he had no justification. You have to bend the facts to suit your interpretation in order to do that.

This is the scenario you claim could have happened. GZ swung at TM or maybe GZ went for his gun, so TM slammed GZ in the face and continued to struggle with GZ - who TM saw was going for his gun. In this struggle, GZ shot TM point blank in the chest - with GZ have started it overall and then is who threw the first punch OR went for his gun - thus giving TM a clear right of self defense including violently.

Yeah, it could have happened that way I suppose within the evidence if that is how the person sees that particularly unknown. You cannot convict or condemn a person upon speculations of the unknown. You can only find a person innocent that way.

That is the meaning of the presumption of innocence - that does NOT exist in civil trials. In a criminal trial, all realistic unknowns are in the favor of the defendant. If it were not so, then there instead would be a presumption of guilt.
 
Back
Top Bottom