• 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.

Trayvon Martin’s social media posts may come up at trial [W: 980]

Status
Not open for further replies.
j-mac said:
So, does that mean that he gives up his right to carry then?

j-mac
Click to expand...

My understanding is that no neighborhood watch members ever give up that right. But they are discouraged from carrying when they opt to patrol their neighborhood. And at least one reason, as I heard a cop call in to a radio show, was so when police arrive at the scene, they don't wrongly shoot the neighborhood watchman because they assume it's the "bad guys" who are the ones holding a gun.
 
muciti said:
Any witnesses or evidence that is going to be used in the trial is irrelevant. thunder knows he is right and he will be damned if facts change his mind.
Click to expand...

you're projecting again.

I am not the one who has already called people "guilty".
 
muciti said:
That is not entirely true. NHW programs actively have people out on patrol and they go out at certain times. Joining a NHW does make a person forfeit their right to carry a weapon. By that logic we would be violating the constitutional rights of every who joined a NHW program and furthermore we would be discouraging people to help their neighborhood.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you keep talking about carrying a weapon? I am not saying anything about that. My only contention is that he was participating in the capacity of a trained Neighborhood Watch member when he called for police to come check out Trayvon. And as such, should have followed Neighborhood Watch protocols, namely, not to follow Trayvon.
 
OscarB63 said:
So under SYG, it all comes down to who attacked who. The attacker is not covered under SYG. The attackee is. Unless by committing some illegal action the attackee provoked the attack

Is SYG an affirmative defense? Or does the state have to prove zimmerman either provoked the attack or started the fight?
Click to expand...

SYG is an affirmative defense. GZ has to convince the jury that he was attacked. Unfortunately, he has no evidence other than his own claims
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
My understanding is that no neighborhood watch members ever give up that right. But they are discouraged from carrying when they opt to patrol their neighborhood. And at least one reason, as I heard a cop call in to a radio show, was so when police arrive at the scene, they don't wrongly shoot the neighborhood watchman because they assume it's the "bad guys" who are the ones holding a gun.
Click to expand...

Sheik- It sounds like you are saying you dont personally think that GZ should have been carrying a gun. It also seems you are acknowledging that he had every right to be carrying that weapon. We have previously established that a person can observe another person they believe suspicious while awaiting for police to arrive.

With all that being said, it seems we may be on the same page. GZ had done nothing wrong at least up to the point of the confrontation. Is that accurate?
 
j-mac said:
Does that mean that anytime that Z left his home he was on watch?


j-mac
Click to expand...

What GZ did whenever he left his home is irrelevant. What's relevant is what he was doing when he shot TM. At that moment, he was performing NW
 
sangha said:
SYG is an affirmative defense. GZ has to convince the jury that he was attacked. Unfortunately, he has no evidence other than his own claims
Click to expand...

He has to support his claim and nothing more. His ijuries support his claim. Martin's lack of injuries other than gunshot wound support his claim. Eye witnesses support his claim. his clothing supports his claim. therefore it is supported.
 
OscarB63 said:
We can argue that technicality forever. Yes he was a member of NW. But on the night in question he was just a guy on the way to the store. Was he or was he not acting in capacity of NW? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Of course he was acting in the capacity of a NW. Just look at his actions (looking for suspicious people and informing the police of their presence)
 
muciti said:
He has to support his claim and nothing more. His ijuries support his claim. Martin's lack of injuries other than gunshot wound support his claim. Eye witnesses support his claim. his clothing supports his claim. therefore it is supported.
Click to expand...

No, he does have to more than merely support his claim and his injuries do not support his claim. The only thing his injuries show is that he was injured. They in no way demonstrate that he was attacked. Experience shows that many people have been injured after having started a fight. An injury does not suggest that he was attacked.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
My understanding is that no neighborhood watch members ever give up that right. But they are discouraged from carrying when they opt to patrol their neighborhood. And at least one reason, as I heard a cop call in to a radio show, was so when police arrive at the scene, they don't wrongly shoot the neighborhood watchman because they assume it's the "bad guys" who are the ones holding a gun.
Click to expand...


Ok, well two points then,

1. Z was not on watch, he was on his way to the store.

2. "discouraged" is not mean that it is against any law.

I can discourage liberalism, but that doesn't mean that some will ignore my advice.


j-mac
 
muciti said:
they are not policies. FYI they are guidelines. Guidelines noone in a NHW program is required to follow. Furthermore the NHW program that set forth these guidelines has openly stated GZ was not part of their program and never registered with them. So their guidelines are not applicable to him.
Click to expand...
That's a red-herring as there is no requirement to register in order to form a Neighborhood Watch program. Despite him not registering, he still received Neighborhood Watch training, was still acting as a Neighborhood Watch participant, and was still trained not to follow suspects.

Is own father, when testifying in the bond hearing, acknowledged that Neighborhood Watch members are instructed not to follow suspects.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, well two points then,

1. Z was not on watch, he was on his way to the store.

2. "discouraged" is not mean that it is against any law.

I can discourage liberalism, but that doesn't mean that some will ignore my advice.


j-mac
Click to expand...

1) He was performing the actions of a NW member on partrol. Ergo, he was acting as a NW

2) Legal acts can be used to determine responsibility for illegal behavior
 
sangha said:
No, he does have to more than merely support his claim and his injuries do not support his claim. The only thing his injuries show is that he was injured. They in no way demonstrate that he was attacked. Experience shows that many people have been injured after having started a fight. An injury does not suggest that he was attacked.
Click to expand...


Tell us. What to you would demonstrate that Z was indeed attacked by M?

j-mac
 
sangha said:
1) He was performing the actions of a NW member on partrol. Ergo, he was acting as a NW
Click to expand...

No, he was on his way to the store, and preforming the act of a citizen. Your terminology is only a method to say that Z, a legal CCW permit holder, shouldn't have had his gun...Because my belief is that some of the M supporters are really in this argument to curtail the 2nd Amendment, and not anything to do with justice for anyone.

2) Legal acts can be used to determine responsibility for illegal behavior
Click to expand...


Sure, no one said differently. But the illegality has to be proven by the state.


j-mac
 
sangha said:
Evidence that he was attacked.

Injuries don't prove that he was attacked because plenty of attackers are injured
Click to expand...

Wow, vagueness...How could I have guessed?....Look, just tell us what that "evidence"
would be.

j-mac
 
sangha said:
Evidence that he was attacked.

Injuries don't prove that he was attacked because plenty of attackers are injured
Click to expand...

His injuries support his statements. he does not have to prove them. he has to support them. support=/= prove. I know you don't understand that but your lacking of understanding does not make something less true.

Furthter supporting his statements is Trayvon was not beaten.

even more support is the eye witnesses who saw trayvon on top of zimmerman.

All of these things support Zimmermans statement. Nothing disproves it which is what the prosecution is tasked with.
 
j-mac said:
No, he was on his way to the store, and preforming the act of a citizen. Your terminology is only a method to say that Z, a legal CCW permit holder, shouldn't have had his gun...Because my belief is that some of the M supporters are really in this argument to curtail the 2nd Amendment, and not anything to do with justice for anyone.
Click to expand...

Since I said nothing about his having a gun, you have once again exposed your arguments as dishonest.




Sure, no one said differently. But the illegality has to be proven by the state.
Click to expand...

More dishonesty. Someone certainly did say differently. Several people, in fact

And the state can prove that he shot an innocent person. Now GZ has to prove that it was self-defense.
 
j-mac said:
Wow, vagueness...How could I have guessed?....Look, just tell us what that "evidence"
would be.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Since TM may not have attacked him, there may not be any evidence at all. Since no one knows what happened, no one can tell you any specifics about evidence that doesn't exist

Besides, only a nincompoop would be completely unaware that evidence such as eyewitness accounts, videotape or audio recordings could be used as evidence. Unfortunately, there is no such evidence that TM attacked GZ. That's because there's no evidence that TM attacked anyone that night besides GZ's self-serving claims (some of which have been shown to lack credibility)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom