• 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 acted in self-defense

rocket88 said:
Doesn't matter if it's illegal or not. Personal responsibility, right?
Click to expand...

Not in this case, no. One could argue it was personal responsibility as the head of Neighborhood Watch to make sure that Martin wasn't doing something wrong.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Not in this case, no. One could argue it was personal responsibility as the head of Neighborhood Watch to make sure that Martin wasn't doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

One could argue that. And get slapped up the side of the head.
 
rocket88 said:
Yes, Martin did attack Zimmerman. He did what any reasonable person would do when being followed by someone who is armed.




Betcha never thought of it along those lines.
Click to expand...


I'll make a note of that... someone is watching you so the correct response is to confront them and physically attack them.

I got it... And thanks for clearing that up for us.
 
MaggieD said:
That's nothing new. It's actually been my contention very early on.

That very well may have been why Trayvon Martin decked him, jumped on him and banged his head into the concrete. George Zimmerman, however, still acted in self-defense.
Click to expand...

And I agree with you.
 
rocket88 said:
Exactly. I agree that there's a bunch of stupid decisions on both sides. It's good to see someone can look beyond pure partisanship and think for themselves.
Click to expand...

Ironic considering hte post you just said "Exactly too" was countering YOUR attempt to blame it all on Zimmerman.

I agree that in the end during the fight, it was self-defense. However, I have a problem giving someone a free pass for their actions.
Click to expand...

Understandable. However, you having a "problem" or anyone else having a "problem" about a "free pass" is irrelevant to the fact we have a system of Laws in this country with set standards, not a bunch of emotinoal twattle.

Whether or not you feel he deserves a "free pass" or if he needs to be held "responsible" is irrelevant; what matters if whether or not what happened was actually against the law. If it is, so be it, if it's not, so be it. NEITHER verdict changes the fact it's a tragic event brought about by a series of poor choices. Not to mention based around the coverage of this trial and the highly politicized nature of it, suggesting that he's going to get a "free pass" even if he's found not guilty is laughable. The man's life is likely massively changed for the worse going forward than it was prior to this incident.

The reason, however, that George Zimmerman likely is not "taking responsibility for his actions" right now...and would be an idiot to do such...is because he's up on SECOND DEGREE MURDER CHARGES.

I don't care if you're the most principled person in the world. When you're being faced with pretty much hte rest of your life in prison for a crime you honestly feel you did not commit you're not going to walk out there, contrary I'm sure to your lawyer's suggestions, and admit ANY FAULT WHAT SO EVER prior to the verdict being made. That would be ****ing idiotic.

Had it been a situation where charges absolutely wouldn't have been brought, I'd absolutely say he should step forward and apologize to the family and admit he ALSO acted in error and with rash judgement that night. But not when his life is hanging in the balance. Expecting that is simply daft and unreasonable.
 
rocket88 said:
Well, contrary to popular opinion, I have other things to do with my day.
Click to expand...

I hate it when people argue the facts when they really don't know them.
 
rocket88 said:
Yes, Martin did attack Zimmerman. He did what any reasonable person would do when being followed by someone who is armed.

Betcha never thought of it along those lines.
Click to expand...
I have thought about it along those lines and I agree. People talk about Zimmerman's right to defend himself with deadly force against what he perceived as a threat against his life. Well, by that logic, Martin had the same right. Martin was defending himself successfully so Zimmerman shot him. Hope he gets manslaughter.
 
Josie said:
So why are you arguing again?
Click to expand...

Because most people miss the fact that defending yourself against some guy following you with a gun is a somewhat reasonable response. They want to turn it into a race thing (both sides in this case). (Though I do think that if the races were reversed, the black guy would already be on death row.)
 
Josie said:
Have you even watched the trial, rocket?
Click to expand...

Rocket "don't need no stinking facts" he knows that TM was justified in defending himself from a possible threat and the GZ had no business defending himself from a real threat.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
What illegal action does George need to take responsibility for exactly? That is where your argument wins or loses.
Click to expand...

One can make poor choices, rash decisions, and regrettable actions without any of them being illegal. You've never taken responsability for something you've done poorly or in error or in bad judgement that WASN'T illegal?

The notion that he should be stepping up to "take responsibility" for anything during a MURDER trial is idiotic and laughable....but acting as if there would be nothing hypothetically he could claim responsability for because he did nothing "illegal" is rather idiotic in it's own right.
 
This trial is proof enough the GZ hasn't gotten a "free pass" on anything. Just because he isn't convicted of anything doesn't mean he hasn't paid a price for what went down that night.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
This trial is proof enough the GZ hasn't gotten a "free pass" on anything. Just because he isn't convicted of anything doesn't mean he hasn't paid a price for what went down that night.
Click to expand...

That's a good point.
 
rocket88 said:
Who made it a gunfight?
Click to expand...
Obviously Zimmerman as it he had and used the gun. Can I just say that I love Zimmerman supporters' purposely obtuse responses to this question of yours, LOL?
 
rocket88 said:
Yes, Martin did attack Zimmerman. He did what any reasonable person would do when being followed by someone who is armed.




Betcha never thought of it along those lines.
Click to expand...

correct, I never considered such idiocy.

to do so means cops can be attacked. private investigators can be attacked. security guards patrolling parking lots can be attacked.

it means we don't have the freedom we actually do have. it's utter nonsense. a joke. pathetic. I would be ashamed uttering such stupidity.
 
Zyphlin said:
One can make poor choices, rash decisions, and regrettable actions without any of them being illegal. You've never taken responsability for something you've done poorly or in error or in bad judgement that WASN'T illegal?

The notion that he should be stepping up to "take responsibility" for anything during a MURDER trial is idiotic and laughable....but acting as if there would be nothing hypothetically he could claim responsability for because he did nothing "illegal" is rather idiotic in it's own right.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, my comment was to point the error of the others arguments.
 
rocket88 said:
Which he wouldn't have done if Zimmerman wasn't following him. It's not like he was sitting in a lawnchair sipping a lemonade when some punk jumped him.
Click to expand...

You need to legally justify why M punched Z

Following is not enough provocation to hit someone and to make it even more difficult for you...Z was walking back to his vehicle. He lost sight of M, and was no longer following M. The contemporaneous factor goes out the window.....

M had no legal right to strike Z...none whatsoever
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Rocket "don't need no stinking facts" he knows that TM was justified in defending himself from a possible threat and the GZ had no business defending himself from a real threat.
Click to expand...

I didn't need facts to tell me that Zimmerman is, contrary to the right wing spin, as much responsible for what happened as Martin is.

(I also didn't need facts to know that everybody would jump in with their preconcieved bias)
 
Zyphlin said:
Shooting someone when one reasonably feels ones life is in danger based on an attack, not a single punch? Extreme perhaps, but legal.
Click to expand...

Thing that bugs me is that Zimmerman initiated the conflict. Zimmerman placed Martin in an extraordinarily stressful situation by following him at night, Martin tried to avoid conflict by running away, Zimmerman then chased him, freaking Martin out more, Martin responded aggressively after being pursued, and Zimmerman shot him. Had Martin not being shot, Zimmerman would be guilty of assault on the basis of, and I quote from wikipedia here: "Assault is an attempted battery or the act of intentionally placing a person in apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact with his or her person."

This ****s me about Zimmerman, someone died because he couldn't stay in his ****ing car and wait on the cops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom