• 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.

The trial is over... Guilty or not guilty?

You're on the jury... Guilty or not guilty?

  • Total voters
    67
  • Poll closed .
Grim17 said:
So you think Zimmerman absolutely was not in fear of great bodily harm?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I think he honestly believed that, but being in fear of great bodily harm is but one part of the equation.

I think that Martin had a right to stand his ground against what a reasonable person would have felt was an imminent threat to his person, and the evidence suggested that Martin did feel that an imminent threat was present. Thus I believe that Martin's use of force was lawful, thus negating Zimmerman's right to self-defense.
 
spanky said:
I would simply like to vote on M2 or manslaughter. But I will do so in thread.
Click to expand...

It comes down to the question I asked you in the other thread... You know, the one you never would answer.
 
Tucker Case said:
Not at all. I think he honestly believed that, but being in fear of great bodily harm is but one part of the equation.
Click to expand...

No it isn't... The judge stated very clearly to the jury, that if you believe he was in fear of great bodily harm then you must render a verdict of not guilty.
 
Tucker Case said:
Not at all. I think he honestly believed that, but being in fear of great bodily harm is but one part of the equation.

I think that Martin had a right to stand his ground against what a reasonable person would have felt was an imminent threat to his person, and the evidence suggested that Martin did feel that an imminent threat was present. Thus I believe that Martin's use of force was lawful, thus negating Zimmerman's right to self-defense.
Click to expand...

Incorrect according to Florida law. Even if TM had a right to stand his ground, once GZ felt in fear of grave injury or death on teh ground being hit by TM, he simply had to exhaust all options of escape before using deadly force in lawful self defense. He screamed for quite a while before discharging his weapon. Self-defense is still valid.
 
Yay, the trial is over!

NOT GUILTY
 
Tucker Case said:
Not at all. I think he honestly believed that, but being in fear of great bodily harm is but one part of the equation.

I think that Martin had a right to stand his ground against what a reasonable person would have felt was an imminent threat to his person, and the evidence suggested that Martin did feel that an imminent threat was present. Thus I believe that Martin's use of force was lawful, thus negating Zimmerman's right to self-defense.
Click to expand...

Other than, that's NOT the law, your comment makes no sense at all.
 
Grim17 said:
No it isn't... The judge stated very clearly to the jury, that if you believe he was in fear of great bodily harm then you must render a verdict of not guilty.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. If that was the legal standard for self defense, I could punch you in teh face, wait for you to retaliate, and then shoot you and only be convicted of assault if I was in fear of great bodily harm.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
Incorrect according to Florida law. Even if TM had a right to stand his ground, once GZ felt in fear of grave injury or death on teh ground being hit by TM, he simply had to exhaust all options of escape before using deadly force in lawful self defense. He screamed for quite a while before discharging his weapon. Self-defense is still valid.
Click to expand...

So I can punch you in the face and then, if you retaliate, I can shoot you as long as I exhaust all other options first without being convicted of murder?
 
Tucker Case said:
That makes no sense. If that was the legal standard for self defense, I could punch you in teh face, wait for you to retaliate, and then shoot you and only be convicted of assault if I was in fear of great bodily harm.
Click to expand...



Skip to the 8:52 mark and listen until the 11:05 mark and you will hear what I'm talking about.

 
Caine said:
No..

A troll is someone is logs out, gets on as a "guest" and votes in polls over and over and over again to boost up one particular choice or another.
Click to expand...

Isn't that an auto-permaban?
 
CycloneWanderer said:
Incorrect. You would have to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that you exhausted every means of escape you had after being punched in the face before a self-defense claim would make it to trial.
Click to expand...

So I could punch someone in the face, exhaust all other options after they retaliate, and then shoot them. Cool beans. Does this work if I try to rob them as well?
 
I see one of 2 motivations could be true ...

1) TM was looking to build cred and thought he had an opportunity with GZ.
2) GZ was looking to build cred and thought he had an opportunity with TM.

Yet the 2 are clearly not the same, they would target different audiences, and not likely to both be true.
Which do you think is more likely?
 
Tucker Case said:
So I could punch someone in the face, exhaust all other options after they retaliate, and then shoot them. Cool beans. Does this work if I try to rob them as well?
Click to expand...

Yes. I think it should be clarified, you will still be charged with Assault or robbery because you did punch someone in the face/rob them.

EDIT: It would be aggravated assault/robbery with a deadly weapon. You know... cause you had a gun on you.
 
Grim17 said:
Skip to the 8:52 mark and listen until the 11:05 mark and you will hear what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...


She also states that even if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that deadly force was not justified, all the elements of the crime of murder2 or manslaughter must also have been proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt in order to reach a guilty verdict.
 
Tucker Case said:
So I can punch you in the face and then, if you retaliate, I can shoot you as long as I exhaust all other options first without being convicted of murder?
Click to expand...

According to Florida law you can. Absolutely.
 
Grim17 said:
Skip to the 8:52 mark and listen until the 11:05 mark and you will hear what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...


9:40 and onward she starts talking about justifiable force and defining it. Big part of that definition: "a reasonably cautious and prudent person"

That right there proves he was not justified. A reasonably cautious and prudent person would not have followed someone they were CONVINCED was a criminal. A reaosnably cautious and prudent person would not have FOUND themselves in the circumstances that George Zimmerman was in. I don't even see what the debate is on this.
 
Grim17 said:
She also states that even if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that deadly force was not justified, all the elements of the crime of murder2 or manslaughter must also have been proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt in order to reach a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...

Which is why I went with Manslaughter rather than murder 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom