• 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
opendebate said:
The absence evidence to challenge something does not prove it is true.
Click to expand...

There is much physical evidence supporting Z's story. There is no physical evidence supporting your story. But you want us to believe yours.
 
ecofarm said:
There is much physical evidence supporting Z's story. There is no physical evidence supporting your story. But you want us to believe yours.
Click to expand...

No, I don't you to believe mine and it's not mine. I just want you to stop selling something as "fact" and "truth" that is neither.
 
ChrisL said:
In a court of law it really does matter.
Click to expand...

In a court of law it will guide a jury toward a not guilty verdict but in the real world its a different story
 
opendebate said:
No, I don't you to believe mine and it's not mine. I just want you to stop selling something as "fact" and "truth" that is neither.
Click to expand...

All of the physical evidence supports Z's story. No physical evidence contradicts Z's story. No physical evidence supports your story. Physical evidence contradicts your story. But you want us to ignore all the evidence and believe a fantasy you've concocted - despite physical evidence contradicting your fantasy.
 
Buckworth said:
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.
Click to expand...

The jury may not have either. Omit anything that Zimmerman said and you still have no proof of murder by the prosecution. ;)
 
opendebate said:
In a court of law it will guide a jury toward a not guilty verdict but in the real world its a different story
Click to expand...

Amusing. The trial and verdict ARE a part of the real world. He was found not guilty in this here REAL world that we live in. :roll: You and your friends are NOT the judge or the jury. You have NOT heard or seen all of the evidence that the jury did. You really don't know what you are talking about.
 
ecofarm said:
All of the physical evidence supports Z's story. No physical evidence contradicts Z's story. No physical evidence supports your story. Physical evidence contradicts your story. But you want us to ignore all the evidence and believe a fantasy you've concocted - despite evidence contradicting your fantasy.
Click to expand...

Why do you guys always resort to this tactic? Let's make it personal. It's this odd ME against YOU form of discussion that just shoots it in the foot. Let your guard down and hear the logic in my statement. The only thing the physical evidence confirmed was that T was on top when Z shot him. This does not prove who the aggressor was. Your speculations about what took place that night or your faith in the truth of Z's version does not qualify it as fact.
 
opendebate said:
No, I don't you to believe mine and it's not mine. I just want you to stop selling something as "fact" and "truth" that is neither.
Click to expand...

The facts and the truth are that he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers in a legitimate judicial proceeding where both sides had fair opportunity to present their cases. The jury felt there was not enough evidence to convict him. THOSE are facts.
 
opendebate said:
In a court of law it will guide a jury toward a not guilty verdict but in the real world its a different story
Click to expand...

The trial, the judge, the lawyers and the jury ARE the real world. Why can't you just accept the verdict and move the hell on?
 
opendebate said:
Why do you guys always resort to this tactic? Let's make it personal. It's this odd ME against YOU form of discussion that just shoots it in the foot. Let your guard down and hear the logic in my statement. The only thing the physical evidence confirmed was that T was on top when Z shot him. This does not prove who the aggressor was. Your speculations about what took place that night or your faith in the truth of Z's version does not qualify it as fact.
Click to expand...

There is no me against you. Such a contest is absurd.

There are two stories:

1. M started the fight.
2. Z started the fight.

All physical evidence points to 1. Physical evidence contradicts 2. Yet you ask people to believe 2. Why?
 
ChrisL said:
Amusing. The trial and verdict ARE a part of the real world. He was found not guilty in this here REAL world that we live in. :roll: You and your friends are NOT the judge or the jury. You have NOT heard or seen all of the evidence that the jury did. You really don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Because the jury is or should be determining only whether or not reasonable doubt remains and not getting to the "truth" it IS different. I am not challenging the verdict the jury came to, I think they had no other choice. Casey Anthony and OJ are just a couple of examples of not guilty verdicts that were returned because the jury felt that reasonable doubt remained. I doubt that you would disagree with me that it is quite likely that they did not necessarily believe in the innocence of either of the accused.
 
Josie said:
The trial, the judge, the lawyers and the jury ARE the real world. Why can't you just accept the verdict and move the hell on?
Click to expand...

No, no... the real world is my keyboard and computer screen, and I am the overlord of all knowledge and truth. That justice system nonsense is a conspiracy.



:D
 
opendebate said:
Because the jury is or should be determining only whether or not reasonable doubt remains and not getting to the "truth" it IS different. I am not challenging the verdict the jury came to, I think they had no other choice. Casey Anthony and OJ are just a couple of examples of not guilty verdicts that were returned because the jury felt that reasonable doubt remained. I doubt that you would disagree with me that it is quite likely that they did not necessarily believe in the innocence of either of the accused.
Click to expand...

Unlike the OJ or Anthony cases, there was no evidence whatsoever of murder or manslaughter in the Z case. Further, physical and other evidence all supported Z's story. So, those are not the same type cases at all.
 
opendebate said:
Because the jury is or should be determining only whether or not reasonable doubt remains and not getting to the "truth" it IS different. I am not challenging the verdict the jury came to, I think they had no other choice. Casey Anthony and OJ are just a couple of examples of not guilty verdicts that were returned because the jury felt that reasonable doubt remained. I doubt that you would disagree with me that it is quite likely that they did not necessarily believe in the innocence of either of the accused.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "not getting to the truth." You don't know what the truth is.
 
ChrisL said:
What do you mean "not getting to the truth." You don't know what the truth is.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should learn to judge cases not on evidence, physical and otherwise, but on whatever kind of story we feel like inventing. And then, we can say "but you can't prove my story is not true!"

Aliens shot M and Z was framed. Prove it's not true.
 
ecofarm said:
Perhaps we should learn to judge cases not on evidence, physical and otherwise, but on whatever kind of story we feel like inventing. And then, we can say "but you can't prove my story is not true!"

Aliens shot M and Z was framed. Prove it's not true.
Click to expand...

I tried that with opendebate earlier tonight. She didn't get it.
 
ChrisL said:
The facts and the truth are that he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers in a legitimate judicial proceeding where both sides had fair opportunity to present their cases. The jury felt there was not enough evidence to convict him. THOSE are facts.
Click to expand...

Those are the facts about the trial not the case.
 
Josie said:
The trial, the judge, the lawyers and the jury ARE the real world. Why can't you just accept the verdict and move the hell on?
Click to expand...

Profanity, impressive. Nobody is moving on. I am talking about the world outside the court room.
 
ecofarm said:
There is no me against you. Such a contest is absurd.

There are two stories:

1. M started the fight.
2. Z started the fight.

All physical evidence points to 1. Physical evidence contradicts 2. Yet you ask people to believe 2. Why?
Click to expand...

The physical evident does not support ANY theory of who started the fight. It only supports who was winning and where Trayvon was when he got shot.

Tell me what physical evidence supports the notion that Z started the fight
 
ecofarm said:
Unlike the OJ or Anthony cases, there was no evidence whatsoever of murder or manslaughter in the Z case. Further, physical and other evidence all supported Z's story. So, those are not the same type cases at all.
Click to expand...

Point being.....the jury is responsible for delivering a not guilty verdict if reasonable doubt remains even if they are not necessarily convinced of someones innocence.
Therefore you can not accurately make the statement that they found him innocent.
 
ChrisL said:
What do you mean "not getting to the truth." You don't know what the truth is.
Click to expand...

And YOU do? No .... you don't. Neither do I. The difference is that I do not claim to know the truth. The only things we KNOW....are that Trayvon was not top when he was shot, Zimmerman was following him, Z shot Trayvon, and that Z got more beat up than T. That's it. That does not reveal who started it. All the rest is speculation and conjecture.
 
opendebate said:
Point being.....the jury is responsible for delivering a not guilty verdict if reasonable doubt remains even if they are not necessarily convinced of someones innocence.
Therefore you can not accurately make the statement that they found him innocent.
Click to expand...

There was a mountain of physical and other evidence against OJ and Anthony. There was no evidence against Z. So, not really the same thing at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom