• 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:
Those are the facts about the trial not the case.
Click to expand...

The jury listened to the facts and saw the evidence regarding the case, so I don't know what you're trying to pull here.
 
opendebate said:
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
Click to expand...

Good Lord! This has been explained MULTIPLE times in this thread as well as others. Don't be dense.
 
opendebate said:
Profanity, impressive. Nobody is moving on. I am talking about the world outside the court room.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Juanita said:
Two scratches and a bloody nose is being brutally beaten? He was being followed, he was scared, he ran........he is dead....
Click to expand...

You're missing pieces to the story there.
 
Juanita said:
Two scratches and a bloody nose is being brutally beaten? He was being followed, he was scared, he ran........he is dead....
Click to expand...

You missed a few parts:

Two (and a few more) scratches (to the back of the head) and a bloody (practically broken) nose is being brutally (MMA ground and pound, no escape for the victim) beaten? He was being followed (checked out by a concerned neighbor), he was scared (but didn't call the cops or go home), he ran (not home, to a neighbor's house or a light public space, but to a dark place)... (he brutally ambushed the concerned neighbor)... he is dead (without a bruise on him except the shot).

All of the physical evidence supports Z's story. There is no physical evidence to contradict his story. Physical evidence points to it being a one-way "fight".



Juanita said:
This is an apartment complex--how could you know "everybody" that lives there?
Click to expand...

We're familiar with our neighbors. While we don't hang out with them all, we recognize them as people who live here. My neighbors and I would have no problem noticing someone we've never seen around here before.
 

Would you also recognize their guests and visiting relatives?
 
Juanita said:
Checking someone out is a bit different than stalking, first in his car and then on foot.....
Click to expand...

Following a stranger in ones neighborhood is not stalking.

Why didn't Zimmerman identify himself instead of What are you doing here?......
Click to expand...

Following a stranger in ones community and asking them 'what are you doing here' does not remove ones right to self defense.
 
sharon said:
Would you also recognize their guests and visiting relatives?
Click to expand...

Most guests and visiting relatives are regulars. We generally aren't concerned with females and children, just never-seen-before full-grown males. If there was a stranger in my neighborhood, there would be a couple people checking him out, someone might even follow to see what he's up to.
 

Or speak to him?
 


^ Best brief summary of it all I've ever read on the forum.
 
sharon said:
Or speak to him?
Click to expand...

So you are back to your stance of GZ absolutely should NOT have stayed in his truck, but instead GZ should have took of after TM to eventually get face to face with TM's, whereupon GZ was - again according to Sharon - to say this: "I am George Zimmerman, Captain of Neighborhood, and in such authority you are tell me your name, address of the unit you are in or visiting, and your purpose of being outside on this property."

AND THAT IS TOTAL LUDRICOUS! If THAT is how the fight had started, I would not see that as positive for the Defense. And that definitely would be a wannabe kook to.

Only cops get do that direct in-your-face demanding and confrontational. Neighborhood watch - or other people - get to do that in the sense the other person might not take it well, but mostly because it is incredibly rude and offensive.
 
sharon said:
Or speak to him?
Click to expand...


Let's say a few neighbors and friends are sitting outside one evening and notice a full grown male walking in the apartment complex. They might say:

Never seen him before, anyone.
Nah, never seen him.
What's he up to.
I'll go see.

Now, no one would consider that stalking someone. We wouldn't suggest someone follow and check out a female or small child (obviously a visitor).

The person who goes to see what's up might say to the stranger: "Sup".

Does our neighbor still have a right to self defense?
 
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...

It doesn't mean you can't. The entire point is that we don't have the benefit of Trayvons testimony...only the word of his killer. And I have no reason to believe his killer.
 

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.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Buckworth said:
It doesn't mean you can't. The entire point is that we don't have the benefit of Trayvons testimony...only the word of his killer. And I have no reason to believe his killer.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

It's a little bizarre that you wouldn't consider the uncontested profiling, stalking and shooting of an unarmed innocent person evidence of murder. There's a doubt as to whether OJ or Anthony even killed anybody, with Zimmerman there is no doubt.
 
Or, for example, to base it upon Sharon's theory that if GZ had told a suspicious person his own name and his position as neighborhood watch, then TM would have responded submissively and passively. And upon that "did NOT happen" and the UNKNOWN of what would then have followed, GZ should be condemned as murderer.

Why? Because she thinks he a rotten person by what she heard and read in the tabloid media and press about him. She just doesn't like him so we should assume as fact he is a murderer upon the unknowns of what happened. However, it is wrong to do any examination of the attitudes and history of TM in any way whatsoever because she likes TM upon what she's heard and read in the press and media.

So much for the concept of Lady Justice being blind and measuring matters of law upon the merits of known evidence - rather than deciding who we do and don't like based upon who the person is by our own values and prejudices.
 
Last edited:

What is ludicrous is you not realizing that George could have called out to Trayvon from his truck. Silly lack of critical thinking. George's gun made him "macho".. Very dumb.
 

He didn't have to use his name... He could have said.. "I am Neighborhood Watch".. George couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag.
 
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?
 
sharon said:
He didn't have to use his name... He could have said.. "I am Neighborhood Watch".. George couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Thrilla said:
how did he punch Z, break his nose, blacken both of his eyes, and manage to bash his head into the concrete resulting in a couple more cuts if he... ran?


had he run away, he's be alive today and nobody here would know his name.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes you are. You are the one here who is arguing about the verdict. I'm telling you that you know less about the case than the jury, so you can't argue with their verdict.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Lol, you can't follow somebody 'all day'. Please. If you purposely follow somebody at all it could be considered a crime. Depends on your intentions.

Go...stand outside of somebodies house and see how long it takes for the cops to show up. Good luck with that.
 
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…