• 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
ecofarm said:
Attacking from the darkness is not an attempt to avoid confrontation. There was plenty of time for M to get home and he could have called the cops if he was so scared.
Click to expand...

You don't know that's what happened. I will say it until I am blue in the face.

We know he hid, he ran, he left the road. I'm am satisfied that he was doing everything possible to avoid contact (including trying to SPEAK with Zimmerman - at which point Zimmerman) and therefore wouldn't suddenly turn hostile without provocation.

Furthermore, if Zimmerman had gone back to his car immediately after being told, like he testified...why wasn't he back at his truck by the end of the call? Why was he so evasive when the operator repeatedly asked him to go to a location to meet the police? This whole narrative that Trayvon doubled back and ambushed Zimmerman doesn't deserve to be taken at face value. There are many scenarios that spring to mind that are logical and more believable, that would keep Trayvon on the defensive.
 
opendebate said:
But you must agree that this is speculation. Not having been there, neither one of us knows that actual circumstances. Z could have appeared very threatening to TM. You may find it unlikely, but that does not make it so.
Click to expand...

You just answer your own inquiry

You have doubts, you must acquit
 
opendebate said:
But you must agree that this is speculation. Not having been there, neither one of us knows that actual circumstances. Z could have appeared very threatening to TM. You may find it unlikely, but that does not make it so.
Click to expand...

Fear alone doesn't constitute justification for attack. Circumstance must justified an attack and Martin was unjustified.
 
ric27 said:
This is not what I assume...thats bs

Z to be the aggressor had to initially provoke the use of *physical force*a push/shove.

You need evidence that Z was about to attack M
Click to expand...

I need actual evidence to believe that the person who was running away started a confrontation, yes. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that Zimmerman would provoke Trayvon.
 
Buckworth said:
I'm am satisfied that he was doing everything possible to avoid contact (including trying to SPEAK with Zimmerman - at which point Zimmerman) and therefore wouldn't suddenly turn hostile without provocation.
Click to expand...

M had plenty of time to get home, and he never called the cops.
 
ecofarm said:
Fear alone doesn't constitute justification for attack. Circumstance must justified an attack and Martin was unjustified.
Click to expand...

Yes, by the letter of the law fear is most certainly enough. The statute requires that the victim perceive an imminent danger, and nothing more.
 

Random curiosity rocks. It tells me your brain is busy observing and questioning.
As for the "facts" of the case I don't think we will every know them. That is unfortunate.
 
Buckworth said:
Yes, by the letter of the law fear is most certainly enough. The statute requires that the victim perceive an imminent danger, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I could have great fear for no reason, and that doesn't mean I can attack someone. Try reading the law again.
 
ecofarm said:
Fear alone doesn't constitute justification for attack. Circumstance must justified an attack and Martin was unjustified.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't know that.
 
opendebate said:
Again, you don't know that.
Click to expand...

All the physical evidence suggests such. There is no physical evidence that contradicts Z's account. There is much physical evidence that supports it.
 
Buckworth said:
Yes, by the letter of the law fear is most certainly enough. The statute requires that the victim perceive an imminent danger, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Someone simply following you is not reason enough though. A reasonable and logical person might get nervous or even a little scared, but it certainly isn't justification to strike out physically.
 
ecofarm said:
All the physical evidence suggests such. There is no physical evidence that contradicts Z's account. There is much physical evidence that supports it.
Click to expand...


I understand that. But the suggestion of truth does not make it the truth. I could walk into a bar and see two guys, one without a scratch on him and one with a bloody nose, messed hair and a torn shirt. That does not tell me who started the fight. It tells me who won the fight. But not who started it.
 
ecofarm said:
M had plenty of time to get home, and he never called the cops.
Click to expand...

You do understand that guilty or not guilty...Trayvon is still an innocent kid who was just trying to go home, right? To assume that he 'took advantage' of being stalked and committed criminal assault isn't believable. If we actually knew what events happened from the point of contact to Trayvon being on top, then it would be open and shut 'something'. I know that I do not buy Zimmermans version.
 

No physical evidence contradicts Z's story. Much physical evidence supports it.
 
Buckworth said:
Yes, by the letter of the law fear is most certainly enough. The statute requires that the victim perceive an imminent danger, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Actually you are wrong.

ecofarm said:
Nonsense. I could have great fear for no reason, and that doesn't mean I can attack someone. Try reading the law again.
Click to expand...

There is usually some case law that clears that "eggshell" disposition issue up within the reasonable person standard that have been adopted in most states I believe, if not all.
 
ecofarm said:
No physical evidence contradicts Z's story. Much physical evidence supports it.
Click to expand...

having to evidence to support it does not prove it either it simply does not disprove it.
 
Buckworth said:
You do understand that guilty or not guilty...Trayvon is still an innocent kid who was just trying to go home, right?
Click to expand...

False. M chose to attack a concerned neighbor. No one should be attacked because they check out a stranger in their neighborhood and no one should lose their right to self defense just because they check out a stranger in their community. M had no right to viciously attack someone just for following him, a 6' male, a recent visitor at 7 pm roadside in a residential community.

M had plenty of time to just go home. He chose to try to do something else, something criminal and something that got him killed in legal self defense.
 
Fisher said:
There is usually some case law that clears that "eggshell" disposition issue up within the reasonable person standard that have been adopted in most states I believe, if not all.
Click to expand...

IIRC, we'll find the word "reason" in the FL statute, ~"one must have reason to believe blahblah". Further, M failed to demonstrate such belief in his failing to call the police.
 
opendebate said:
having to evidence to support it does not prove it either it simply does not disprove it.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that is why the jury couldn't make a conviction. Simple really. Remember, beyond a reasonable doubt.
 

If that were the case, I guess "he looked at me funny" might hold up in a court of law as well.
 
ChrisL said:
Exactly, that is why the jury couldn't make a conviction. Simple really. Remember, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

that has been my point all along. The verdict is based on whether or not reasonable doubt remains. If it does you are obligated to return a not guilty verdict. That does not mean the accused is innocent.
 
ecofarm said:
IIRC, we'll find the word "reason" in the FL statute. One must have reason to believe blahblah.
Click to expand...

Which means would a reasonable person under those circumstances have felt yada yada yada, not whether or not the actual person under the circumstances would have felt yada yada yada ergo a paranoid schizophrenic's subjective fears are not the ones the jury would be deciding upon but a reasonable person i.e. what would you have done, Mr. Juror.
 
Buckworth said:
I know that I do not buy Zimmermans version.
Click to expand...

So, despite all the physical evidence supporting his version and NO physical evidence contradicting his version whatsoever (no injury, scrape, bruise, clothing damage, nothing)... you want to ignore the physical evidence and replace it with fantasy... because?
 
ChrisL said:
If that were the case, I guess "he looked at me funny" might hold up in a court of law as well.
Click to expand...

"He had baggy pants, I was terrified".


One must have reason to believe such danger exists.
 

The absence evidence to challenge something does not prove it is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…