• 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 Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman [W:1041]

It certainly IS old news. The post of mine that you quoted was made in March of 2012, almost a year and a half ago. I'm frankly surprised and a little disappointed that you would pull such an old post, and use it to accuse me of "spin."

He wasn't the one who bumped the old thread. People just assume that active threads are recent ones.
 
It certainly IS old news. The post of mine that you quoted was made in March of 2012, almost a year and a half ago. I'm frankly surprised and a little disappointed that you would pull such an old post, and use it to accuse me of "spin."

Damn - Zombie thread alert.

Thanks for the confirmation of my blind stupidity!
 
see Iknew he was guilty, if only they had this information at the trial he would be in jail now.
 
The unraveling has already begun. Zimmerman is the only one alive so he can say whatever he wants now. But physcial evidence is going to be his hurdle.

Time will tell.
16 months later, time has told. All the evidence was in Zimmetmans favor and the verdic came back not guilty.
 
Maybe because Zimmerman said he had a boo-boo on his head. I don't see anything on the back of his head. And it's interesting, that he looks like he is healthy enough to run down someone and fight. Just some more "evidence" to ponder...a little bit more every day.
See I thought this also when the case first came to national attention. Z looks like he should be able to hold his own in a reguler fist fight. Maybe he should have taken some of the fighting classes offeref at his gym.
 
Well, it would have helped if ABC News hadn't decided to put it's logo over said face and head for most of the clip. There were several clear views the showed (1) his nose was perfectly fine; and (2) the back of his head was perfectly fine. No blood on him, no flattened nose, no bloody gash in the back of his head.

Somebody's lawyer has some explaining to do.
And explain they did. Not guilty.
 
I'm not even going to watch a video - and still confidently I will say that you cannot tell if someone is bruised or injured from a VIDEO or without medical examination.

Everyone's 'defenses' and 'support evidence' are just becoming more and more uneducated and stupid the harder everyone tries.

This is why I necrod the thread, to see who was thinking criticaly.
 
See I thought this also when the case first came to national attention. Z looks like he should be able to hold his own in a reguler fist fight. Maybe he should have taken some of the fighting classes offeref at his gym.

Just curious, why are you bringing up stuff from March 2012 when so much has happened since then? Most recently--the thoroughly televised trial. I originally thought Zimmerman was guilty as sin, in part because of the initial reports and also I have previously known over-controlling neighborhood watch people that were douchebags. In the end, I think both GZ and TM did things that were questionable, but in the end I think GZ was getting his ass kicked and feared for his life so he shot TM to save himself and that is why he was found not guilty. I wish he had some other non-lethal weapon to successfully get TM off of him, but that wasn't the case and there is really nothing that can change what happened.
 
Just curious, why are you bringing up stuff from March 2012 when so much has happened since then?
I'm bringing up stuff from March 2012 because so much has happened since then. My intent is to have a sort of then-and-now compare and contrast of what we knew and thought at the beginning, and what we think and know now; how our view of the story has changed, if at all, and to reflect on how people initially reacted to the story.

I think we see the best and worst: OP itself is presumptive and many others joined in with taking a fuzzy video at face value because it seemed to justify what they wanted to be true, while others people such as Cain and Aunt Spiker seemed to look at evidence critically.

Necro'ing this thread is less about the shooting or trial and more about DP members. We so often accuse eachother of not looking at evidence objectively and applying logic, so now here's an instance where we can prove it.

It's just something I do. I have a stack of other threads I'm tracking with the intent of necro'ing them about a year after they die for the same reason.
  • Threads predicting Rush Limbaugh will go off the air, or have to change his theme-song, for saying something.
  • A global warming news story debated in 2009 predicting, literally, the end of the world in early 2013 if Obama didn't pass sweeping 'green laws'. Those laws were never passed, yet we're still here, so I toss that in the face of today's end-of-the-world predictors.
  • In the run-up to the 2008 election, DP members chastized pro-gun for our concerns that Obama would attack the Second Amendment. We gave our reasons for our concerns and were basically told by many that we were kooks, that Obama would never attack the Second Amendment. I necro'd 2 such threads right after Obama signed 23 executive orders on gun control and held a major press conference calling for gun control.

I think it's a good exposition of blind bias with the long-term goal of debasing political prostitutes.
 
Last edited:
The ridiculous Trayvon Martin case

It’s a failure of US judicial system. It failed to help the weak side people.

When it says Zimmerman is not guilty to kill Trayvon Martin, then what Trayvon was? He became an attacker – a threat to other’s life. That’s how a court to turn an innocent man to be a potential life threatener. An unarmed teen on his way to his relative’s house. He now was believed to be a threaten to other’s life. The other one, though proved having original bad will against Trayvon and finally killed him, became victim.

It indicates that any law abiding citizens should be obedient to unreasonable search (followed, monitored, provoked…). Or he would be killed, if the provoker announced that his life has been threatened.

This case also would encourage people to use guns in argument because dead people losing their voice in the case.
 
The ridiculous Trayvon Martin case

It’s a failure of US judicial system. It failed to help the weak side people.

When it says Zimmerman is not guilty to kill Trayvon Martin, then what Trayvon was? He became an attacker – a threat to other’s life. That’s how a court to turn an innocent man to be a potential life threatener. An unarmed teen on his way to his relative’s house. He now was believed to be a threaten to other’s life. The other one, though proved having original bad will against Trayvon and finally killed him, became victim.

It indicates that any law abiding citizens should be obedient to unreasonable search (followed, monitored, provoked…). Or he would be killed, if the provoker announced that his life has been threatened.

This case also would encourage people to use guns in argument because dead people losing their voice in the case.

Bit extreme.

The system failure was not going to a grand jury. This case would not have gone to trial and all those tax dollars going to a failed attempt to place politics above the law.

The case indicates that a law abiding citizen should be civil to another citizen when approuch.

I doubt the case "encourages people" to shoot others. Who would want to go through what GZ has gone through, even though it was self defesne.
 
Back
Top Bottom