• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

The tiresome pro-zimmerman's "It's not illegal" mantra

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Pro-zimmerman supporters, who for the most part are white, christian conservatives, love to throw around the admonition "Personal opinion isn't the law".

Yep, that's their mantra when they were being defeated in debate by reason and moral ground.

Another pet peeve of theirs when they painted themselves into a corner in order to defend the shadowy killer of an unarmed teenager, is that they invariably will pull up their next favorite trump card of "it's not illegal" or "he had a right to be where he was" to get out of the bind as if doing something not illegal or having the right to be at some location is all it takes to nullify an unjust killing of another human being.

It's not illegal for someone to cut the big old tree in their own yard either.

It's also not illegal to disregard a firefighter's suggestion of seeking the service of a professional tree cutting service to do the job safely also. But, if you disregard the professional sound advice and didn't exercise due precaution in carrying out a task you are ill-equipped to handle and thus caused the tree to fall down on your neighbor's roof that resulted in the death of a child who happened to be sleeping in the bedroom, you can't then plead that your action isn't illegal or that there is no law against cutting down a tree in your own property.


Then again, i guarantee you won't hear the police chief coming out in public to defend the killer by stating that cutting tree in your property isn't illegal and that a firefighter has no authority to give order or suggestion to prevent a foreseeable tragedy.


You can't also blamed it on the parents for poor parenting and on the child for history of juvenile criminal records, late night parties involving drugs and alcohol that caused the kid to be in the bedroom sleeping into late hours while you were cutting the tree.


Yes, it's not illegal to do-it-yourself to cut down a tree in your own property. And of course, you have the right to be where you are in your own property doing what is not illegal. But, if you do so recklessly that resulted in the death of someone else who was minding their own business, you cannot then expect to cast blame on the victim in order to exonerate your own reckless behavior.


There are many other activities that are not illegal, such as leaving your car engine running in the garage or gas stove unattended and then leaving the scene for an extended period of time from an occupied apartment. If people died because of gas poisoning, gas explosion or fire, there is not excuse for the criminal homicide based on "it's not illegal" argument.


Or playing a prank on a construction worker on highrise structure during work. It's not illegal to play a prank on people to startle them for fun. But, if it is so reckless that it caused a death, whether intended or not, it would be a criminal offense whether you realized it or not. Unless of course you are clinically certified as a mentally retarded person. Otherwise, the standard of reasonable person applies.


Also, there were many activities that were at one time "not illegal" but later became "illegal" due to public outcry of reckless perpetrators getting away for killing innocent people without so much of facing the justice system for their lethal action let alone receiving due punishment.


Such cases would be drunk driving or boating while intoxicated where at one time in the past was not an illegal offense until Mothers Against Drunk Driving took action:


MADD - Archives


"At the time Danny and Ricky were killed, there weren’t any laws against impaired boating, so the boat driver received a six month jail sentence for speeding. After their death, a law was passed prohibiting driving a boat while intoxicated."​


So, what is "not illegal" doesn't make it morally right or ok when that so called "legal" action resulted in the death of an innocent person due to reckless behavior. So, when the justice system is flawed or when the judicial process let the letter of the law gets in the way of justice, then the moral public must demand change in the system of legislation to address the injustice.


If our govenrment can demand and legislate gun owners to conceal their legal weapon via the conceal carry permit, which doesn't result in the death of another person who happens to see the weapon if exposed, why can't the moral public demand the government to legislate that gun owner be responsible for the death of another human being(s) if he willingly leaves the safety of his protected environment to go after some unarmed or armed persons who were just minding their own business in a public place where they have a right to be?

They can't legally be allowed to follow or chase someone and caused the death of that person with their weapon and then turn around claiming self-defense with their self-serving accounts with the benefit of there being no witness to dispute his accounts of the actual fatal encounter and shooting event that occurred.


What irks me most is the hypocrisy of these so-called "conservatives" who come in here day in and day out screaming "it's not illegal" in your face in their futile attempt to put down any reasonable argument putforth by pro-Trayvon supporters. Then, they would go over to the abortion department and shout down abortion proponents for reminding them that women seeking abortion at abortion clinics is also not "illegal".


So, what happens to the mantra "personal opinion isn't the law"?


Also, they talked about zimmerman doing them a great cause by getting rid of a potential criminal thug in the making and donated to his legal defense fund and living expenses.


Well, why don't they donate their money to planned parenthood and other abortion cause to build more abortion clinics in the hoods? Afterall, wouldn't it be that by supporting more abortion in the hooded black neighborhoods where most potential criminals were to be spawned in these poor young single unmarried black girls with unwanted pregancies they would get rid of more future criminal thugs than zimmerman ever dreamed of accomplishing?


So, by their logic, why won't the so-called christian conservatives cross over to the abortion side and support their "it's not illegal to have abortion" instead of protesting and working hard with their personal opinion against them in legistating anti-abortion laws?


Yes, personal opinion isn't law. But, it can effect the change in the society by changing the law to reflect true justice.


Yes, personal opinion isn't law. But, then again our personal opnion doesn't send zimmerman to prison for decades or for life though it may affect public opinion and result in a just public policy. About adherent to law thang, that would be the prosecution and the jury's job. Hence, they have the highest standard encoded by the judicial priniciples and the law.
 
Last edited:

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,599
Reaction score
20,637
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Good flippin' Lord.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,932
Reaction score
21,532
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
^ Summary of the OP of this thread:

"I am tired of people pointing out that Zimmerman did not break the law and has a valid legal defense."
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The part i don't understand is that he went after the kid even though the police told him not to. Even if Trayvon Martin gained the upper hand and was attacking him, he disobeyed law enforcement by going after him. I think it's foolish to say it is ok to use deadly force when necessary, when you started it by going after the kid. I don't know if there was malicious intent or not, but what I do know is he put himself in that position even after being told not to, seems foolish to let him off the hook.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,599
Reaction score
20,637
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
38,931
Reaction score
8,837
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The part i don't understand is that he went after the kid even though the police told him not to. Even if Trayvon Martin gained the upper hand and was attacking him, he disobeyed law enforcement by going after him. I think it's foolish to say it is ok to use deadly force when necessary, when you started it by going after the kid. I don't know if there was malicious intent or not, but what I do know is he put himself in that position even after being told not to, seems foolish to let him off the hook.
That is not what happened. That is not the evidence.
 

Mr. E

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
225
Reaction score
101
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I'm a flaming liberal. As so far presented I don't see any crime Zimmerman has committed. It does not matter whether he had a firearm on his persons or not (this was clearly legal). What matters is who attacked who. As a person you are free (please read the 1st amendment once, twice or thrice) to talk to anyone in the public. The listening party in this case does not have the right to strike you with physical force. The crime happens with the person who throws the first punch. Zimmerman as shown so far never presented a threat to Martin. He apparently only used force after being attacked...This is kind of clear from all the testimony so far.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
38,931
Reaction score
8,837
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
please enlighten men then
This is so damn repetitive.
The NEN Call-taker made a suggestion of: "We don't need you to do that." That is a suggestion.
One that does not need to be followed as it has no legal authority behind it.
Secondly, Zimmerman acknowledged it with "Okay" and stopped following.


And what ™ supporters continually ignore is that the same Call-taker told (as in not a suggestion) Zimmerman twice, to let him know if the suspicious person did anything else.
How does one accomplish that with out following to maintain surveillance?
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is so damn repetitive.
The NEN Call-taker made a suggestion of: "We don't need you to do that." That is a suggestion.
One that does not need to be followed as it has no legal authority behind it.
Secondly, Zimmerman acknowledged it with "Okay" and stopped following.
“I was on the phone when Trayvon decided to go to the corner store. It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was raining too hard. He started walking, then noticed someone was following him. Then he decided to find a shortcut ‘cause the man wouldn’t follow him. Then he said the man didn’t follow him again. Then he looked back and saw the man again. The man started getting closer, then Trayvon turned around and said, ‘Why are you following me?’ Then I heard him fall, then the phone hung up. I called back and text. No response. In my mind I thought it was just a fight. Then I found out this tragic story.”

Testimony in a letter from girl that was on the phone with Martin.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/w8_letter.pdf
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,926
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The part i don't understand is that he went after the kid even though the police told him not to. Even if Trayvon Martin gained the upper hand and was attacking him, he disobeyed law enforcement by going after him. I think it's foolish to say it is ok to use deadly force when necessary, when you started it by going after the kid. I don't know if there was malicious intent or not, but what I do know is he put himself in that position even after being told not to, seems foolish to let him off the hook.
Martin was using deadly force, but that's ok. Right?
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,926
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm a flaming liberal. As so far presented I don't see any crime Zimmerman has committed. It does not matter whether he had a firearm on his persons or not (this was clearly legal). What matters is who attacked who. As a person you are free (please read the 1st amendment once, twice or thrice) to talk to anyone in the public. The listening party in this case does not have the right to strike you with physical force. The crime happens with the person who throws the first punch. Zimmerman as shown so far never presented a threat to Martin. He apparently only used force after being attacked...This is kind of clear from all the testimony so far.
It doesn't even matter who attacked who first.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,599
Reaction score
20,637
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
“I was on the phone when Trayvon decided to go to the corner store. It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was raining too hard. He started walking, then noticed someone was following him. Then he decided to find a shortcut ‘cause the man wouldn’t follow him. Then he said the man didn’t follow him again. Then he looked back and saw the man again. The man started getting closer, then Trayvon turned around and said, ‘Why are you following me?’ Then I heard him fall, then the phone hung up. I called back and text. No response. In my mind I thought it was just a fight. Then I found out this tragic story.”

Testimony in a letter from girl that was on the phone with Martin.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/w8_letter.pdf
You didn't watch the trial, did you?
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Martin was using deadly force, but that's ok. Right?
Put yourself in his shoes, you are not doing anything wrong, on the phone with a friend and walking and being followed by somebody you don't know and is much larger than you, I would want an explanation too. After that there is not clear evidence what happened. Personally I would expect a little more damage if Trayvon was using deadly force.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,599
Reaction score
20,637
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,926
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Put yourself in his shoes, you are not doing anything wrong, on the phone with a friend and walking and being followed by somebody you don't know and is much larger than you, I would want an explanation too. After that there is not clear evidence what happened. Personally I would expect a little more damage if Trayvon was using deadly force.
If I'm intimidated by someone following me, I'm more likely to become fleet of foot.

Shooting at someone, but not hitting them, is using deadly force, so the amount of, "damage", is irrelevant. A blow to the head, as in slamming someone's head against concrete, is considered deadly force.
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Really? Tell me more of the evidence against Zimmerman.
No blood on Trayvon's hand which would be expected if he was silencing a bleeding Zimmerman.

Crime Scene photos of zimmerman, with only minor lacerations to the face, taking only 5 minutes to fix up by emts.

No evidence of Martin having possession of the gun in the struggle.

Contradiction in itself of the defense team that tried to prove both that lying down he would be choking on his own blood as to not be able to yell out, then claiming it was him on the tape screaming for help (proving they don't know what the heck happened)
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,932
Reaction score
21,532
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The part i don't understand is that he went after the kid even though the police told him not to. Even if Trayvon Martin gained the upper hand and was attacking him, he disobeyed law enforcement by going after him. I think it's foolish to say it is ok to use deadly force when necessary, when you started it by going after the kid. I don't know if there was malicious intent or not, but what I do know is he put himself in that position even after being told not to, seems foolish to let him off the hook.
No, the police did not tell Zimmerman not to go after Martin, nor did GZ go after Martin. He tried to see where Martin when to tell the police when they arrived.
 

Mathematician

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
1,187
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Put yourself in his shoes, you are not doing anything wrong, on the phone with a friend and walking and being followed by somebody you don't know and is much larger than you, I would want an explanation too. After that there is not clear evidence what happened. Personally I would expect a little more damage if Trayvon was using deadly force.
Much larger than you? I think you still have the old kiddie pictures of TM stuck in your head. I was the same age as TM when I had to chokehold my mother's ex to protect her and he only got free by biting my arm.
 

Mr. E

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
225
Reaction score
101
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
It doesn't even matter who attacked who first.
Not for Murder 2, it actually does apply for manslaughter...If (thats a big IF) Zimmeran attacked first his use of force later to combat Martin could lawfully result in a manslaughter charge.
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If I'm intimidated by someone following me, I'm more likely to become fleet of foot.

Shooting at someone, but not hitting them, is using deadly force, so the amount of, "damage", is irrelevant. A blow to the head, as in slamming someone's head against concrete, is considered deadly force.
Agains, look at Zimmerman's head, if I were to get a 17 year old to do that to somebody I would see a lot more damage. Hardly deadly force. Plus, why is Trayvon not allowed to defend himself, he was infact being followed.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,599
Reaction score
20,637
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No blood on Trayvon's hand which would be expected if he was silencing a bleeding Zimmerman.
It was raining and his hands were exposed to the weather for 2-3 hours.

Crime Scene photos of zimmerman, with only minor lacerations to the face, taking only 5 minutes to fix up by emts.
Irrelevant.

No evidence of Martin having possession of the gun in the struggle.
Also irrelevant.

Contradiction in itself of the defense team that tried to prove both that lying down he would be choking on his own blood as to not be able to yell out, then claiming it was him on the tape screaming for help (proving they don't know what the heck happened)
They never said he was choking on his own blood, just that the blood wasn't on his face because it was going in his throat.

What else ya got?

P.S. If you had actually watched the trial, you would've known everything I just said.
 
Last edited:

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,932
Reaction score
21,532
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No blood on Trayvon's hand which would be expected if he was silencing a bleeding Zimmerman.

Crime Scene photos of zimmerman, with only minor lacerations to the face, taking only 5 minutes to fix up by emts.

No evidence of Martin having possession of the gun in the struggle.

Contradiction in itself of the defense team that tried to prove both that lying down he would be choking on his own blood as to not be able to yell out, then claiming it was him on the tape screaming for help (proving they don't know what the heck happened)
Lying never convinces anyone - and exactly everyone knows - even anti-Zimmerman folks - your message is a lie given the photos of the injuries to the back of GZs head - and his broken nose.

Why do some anti-GZers think just outright lying in ways everyone knows is lying serves any purpose. Rather, it is persuasive towards GZ if the best a person can do is make up false statements that exactly everyone knows are false.
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It was raining and his hands were exposed to the weather for 2-3 hours.



Irrelevant.



Also irrelevant.



They never said he was choking on his own blood, just that the blood wasn't on his face because it was going in his throat.

What else ya got?
Everything I just pointed out was relevant. I'm not going to sit here all night and bring up every piece of evidence just so you can twist it to favor Zimmerman.
 
Top Bottom