• 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

Yes, and you need to apply your life experience and how you perceive the world to render a decision. Different juries will reach different decisions. That's just the way it is.

For instance: Zimmerman said he tried to return to his vehicle immediately after he was told to. He stated this many times in police reports and television interviews. To him, that is a fact. But cell phone records and 911 calls directly contradict his account of the story. He did something that he didn't tell us about. He was lying.

He also said he left his vehicle only to check an address so the police could meet him. We know this isn't true because he ran in the direction that he said Trayvon was going (and ultimately 'found' him). He was lying.

There's also this nagging matter that stems from the Zimmerman family that suggests that Trayvon saw Zimmermans gun, and that's what prompted him to attack. If that was the case then (aside from Zimmerman possibly being guilty of brandishing) Trayvon was fighting for his life.
 

Look, it's quite obvious to me now that you do not have a good grasp on how our justice system is supposed to operate. :roll:
 
ChrisL said:
Look, it's quite obvious to me now that you do not have a good grasp on how our justice system is supposed to operate. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yesh, it's supposed to convict guilty people and it failed. I'm just telling you the reality of how juries are selected. If you can't grasp fact that two juries will come to different decisions with the same evidence (ala OJ Simpson), or why people can be guilty on one state but not another, then I don't know what to tell you.


Feel free to explain why he lied, and why his lying doesn't influence his version of events.
 
Buckworth said:
I can say with pretty good certainty that a guy walking in the direction of his home with a bag of candy purchased from the closest store, in the rain....was going home. You're correct, the fact that somebody was following him changed his behaviour.
Click to expand...

No, he could have crawled home in that amount of time. Your messages are diametrically opposite from the known facts.
 
joko104 said:
No, he could have crawled home in that amount of time. Your messages are diametrically opposite from the known facts.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that Trayvon was going home before he followed. He even headed in that direction after he was followed.

What are you saying?
 

All subjective and no facts.

Z's FACE SAYS IT ALL and jusifies deadly force.

and intention is not a crime, if I follow you for 1/2 a day as allowed by law. that is all it is. LEGAL following.

and in no case does following allow you to attack me.
 
Buckworth said:
I'm saying that Trayvon was going home before he followed. He even headed in that direction after he was followed.

What are you saying?
Click to expand...

That your statement that it was a FACT that Trayvon Martin was going home is false. NOR is your revision of he was going home before being followed also false. It is known when he left the 7-11 by the security camera and it known what time Zimmerman's call came into the police. Your "FACT" is FACTUALLY FALSE.

Zimmerman was heading home before TM initially approached him reaching into his waistband but then turned and ran as he approached Zimmerman talking to the police on his cell phone. Your "FACTS" are absolutely false by the evidence.
 

It is extremely racist to bring up the OJ Simpson trial in my opinion. That case has exactly nothing in common whatsoever with this case. ZERO. NOTHING. NADA.
 
Last edited:

Zimmermans face says he had trauma to the face. It doesn't say anything about who started the fight.

No. There's no laws that specifically allow you to follow another person. There are laws that prevent you from doing so, and it all depends on the situation.

My entire argument is that Zimmerman lied repeatedly, and there are far too many inconsistencies with his version of events and the facts for him to be considered believable. Something else happened that lead to the fight (and during the fight) that we don't know about.
 
Buckworth said:
I think he shot him because he was losing a fight he was responsible for. I don't believe he would have followed Trayvon if he wasn't armed.
Click to expand...

It is very possible he would not have followed if he wasn't armed. Good thing he was.
 

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about or what you're getting at.

joko104 said:
Zimmerman was heading home before TM initially approached him reaching into his waistband but then turned and ran as he approached Zimmerman talking to the police on his cell phone. Your "FACTS" are absolutely false by the evidence.
Click to expand...

I seriously can't make sense of what you're saying.
 


We've been thru this many times on the forum and citing exact Florida law. Under Florida law Zimmerman did NOT stalk Martin. However, because Martin approached GZ twice (unless DeeDee and GZ BOTH are lying and DD was a prosecution witness), it could be argued that Martin stalked GZ because Martin came at GZ TWICE.

You post in extremes. Now your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that GZ lied. Lying is not murder. They tried to convict on the Casey Anthony trial upon her radically lying about everything constantly. Didn't work.

Everyone lies. Everyone.
 

No, seeing someone has a gun does not allow you to violently assault that person. I have no clue where you come up with that theory. Nor is it rational. What is rational is that if you attack someone you know has a gun, you are willfully and deliberately provoking that person to shoot you with it.
 
joko104 said:
It is extremely racist to bring up the OJ Simpson trial in my opinion. That case has exactly nothing in common whatsoever with this case. ZERO. NOTHING. NADA.
Click to expand...

LOL, I'm automatically racist if I talk about OJ? That's awesome.

I was talking about jury prejudice, and was using the OJ Simpson case to illustrate that he was found not guilty, but then subsequently found criminally responsible. Both were jury trials, and they came to different conclusions from the same evidence. Which punctuated my point that the law is not always served in a jury trial.

When did I mention race?
 

All your messages are based upon speculating on unknown or didnt' happen alternative realities. Do you even realize that?
 

But by dictionary definition he did indeed stalk Trayvon. Sure, you can argue that Trayvon was stalking Zimmerman, but it's not believable, since Zimmerman fully admits he was following Trayvon, and Trayvon was always moving towards home until he entered the cut through.

joko104 said:
You post in extremes. Now your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that GZ lied. Lying is not murder. They tried to convict on the Casey Anthony trial upon her radically lying about everything constantly. Didn't work.
Click to expand...

I think when a killer is caught lying, it's kind of important when you're trying to determine his guilt.

joko104 said:
Everyone lies. Everyone.
Click to expand...

That's so deep it's meaningless.
 


Wow, you really don't get anything right, do you?

No, OJ was NEVER found CRIMINALLY responsible for those deaths. He was found CIVILLY liable for the deaths.

Obviously you don't know the different standards for a civil case and a criminal case. SO..... I will TRY to explain this inaccuracy of your view to you.

In a CRIMINAL case, there is a presumption of innocence. To defeat it, the government (who is who is bringing the criminal case), must prove beyond any reasonable doubt the Defendant is guilty. If there is ANY basis to doubt the defendant is guilty, he must be found not-guilty. All speculations and alternative "what-ifs" favor the Defendant.

In a CIVIL case, other people are bringing a civil lawsuit. The technical legal standard is "by a preponderance of evidence." IF the jury thinks is it 50.00001% likely the Defendant did it, and 49.99999% likely the Defendant did not, the jury is to find the Defendant 100% CIVILLY liable and render a CIVIL judgment. HOWEVER, in that the jury was NOT finding that OJ was a murderer. Rather, that he was civilly liable in a economic sense for the deaths by a preponderance of the evidence.

Since the OJ Simpson trial, it has been learned via DNA that thousands of people have been wrongfully convicted. Yet you don't cite any of those, do you? You go looking for a case involving a black guy that absolutely NOTHING to do with this case in any of the accusations or circumstances whatsoever, and that is why I say doing so is obvious racism on it's face.

Do you NOW UNDERSTAND the difference between a civil case and criminal case in the USA? I don't even think Canada has a presumption of innocence, does it?
 

I didn't say that. I was implying it's possible that Trayvon was fighting for his life.
 

No, TM was not going home when he approached GZ either time. No TM was not going home by the timeline. No, you can post that falsity 1000 times and it is false every time.

NO, Zimmerman did not stalk Martin. Not by a dictionary definition. More importantly not by the legal definition. NOR is there evidence that GZ followed Martin at all. The evidence - if any at all - is that GZ stayed to the sidewalk and TM didn't.

Then again, what lie are you talking about anyway?
 
ecofarm said:
Following a 6 foot male stranger in ones neighborhood to see what he is up to is not stalking and does not in any way remove ones right to self defense. Have some respect for the victims of that crime, stop belittling it.
Click to expand...

I have been a victim of crime.

The guy that was following me would probably have gotten the same response if he had just tapped me on the shoulder and asked for directions to the train station. Because following me while I was walking alone in the dark induced such incredible fear/anxiety/anger.

Following from the car or from afar was one issue. Getting closer is FITH.
 

You're a chick, not a big dude visiting a residential community roadside at 7pm.
 
Buckworth said:
I didn't say that. I was implying it's possible that Trayvon was fighting for his life.
Click to expand...


Without a doubt, they both were fighting for their lives before it was over. TM lost that fight.

As you often point out, there is no certain way to know who started the fight, only that there was one by the injuries to GZ. "I dunno" means "NOT GUILTY" in the USA. In the UK originated King's Court that the Canadian system evolved from, there is no presumption of innocence and substantially less right to defend yourself too. In Canada he'd very likely been found guilty in some regions of Canada. He'd likely be found guilty in some regions of the USA too.

So? This did not happen in Canada and it did not happen in NYC. Doesn't matter what the legal standards are there. ALL your messages about finding someone guilty are just all factually and legally false about Florida law.
 

If you slammed a person in the face breaking his nose for tapping you on the shoulder and asking for directions, you would have committed felony assault under the laws of the State of Florida.

Then again, there is no evidence that GZ tapped TM on the shoulder, is there?

This claim - the EXTREME WORSHIP OF VIOLENCE - some anti-GZ people cite that you can violently assault someone who is following you is truly bizarre, a glorification of violence, and has no basis in law whatsoever.
 

Yes, I completely understand. He was found not guilty but responsible. Pardon my vernacular. My point stands. All you did was repeat what I said, but try to make yourself sound smart. And insult me and use caps a lot, lol. Do you understand that I was using an analogy to illustrate a point that jurys decisions are subjective to the specific jurors? I never mentioned race, that's on you.

Yes, we have a presumption of innocence in Canada, haha. Our murder rate is only a third of yours, tho...so we're doing something right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.