• 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.

What if Trayvon..............


Even if you are right. First of all, the operative word here is KID. Almost all 17yr old boys are punks that doesn't mean they are criminals or any real threat. Zimmerman made an assumption about the threat posed based on what?? He didn't know this child. The only thing he had to go on was what he looked like. The question isn't whether or not Trayvon was the ideal teen. Even if Zimmerman had reason to suspect him of something he overreacted and his overreaction resulted in the death of a 17yr old boy. We penalize people all the time for acting irresponsibly especially if it brings these results. It was irresponsible of Zimmerman, with a loaded gun in your hand you better be able to temper your reactions to events. I don't believe he set out to kill Trayvon but we both know he did and like a drunk driver he deserves to be penalized.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
You are bringing assumptions into your argument and racial issues. You are not giving the facts. Martin jumped Zimmerman, and was beating up Zimmerman, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

What assumptions? And Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. Why would he feel that was necessary? Why would he get out of his car with a loaded gun and approach Trayvon? The minute Zimmerman got out of his car he was the aggressor. This this through?? Have you no compassion for this child or his parents?
 

This has nothing to do with compassion. This has everything to do with facts, and the legality of what happened. Zimmerman did not break the law, Martin did.
 

Yet another VERY frightening post by someone I assume is an adult.

Let's explore this a bit. I'll offer to take you to some middle schools, not even a high school where as you suggest these 17 y o "kids" reside. No threat? You'll have your eyes opened quickly.

When on your back, after having your nose broken, and your head made contact with cement at LEAST three times and that's from the prosecutions OWN witness, you've called for help and no one's come, where does the "overreaction" occur?

What law did he break? "like a drunk driver he deserves to be penalized"????? So you think our judicial system should revolve around just feeling like someone needs to be penalized?? Toss out the laws right?? They just LOOK like they need to be punished. Gee that sounds an AWFUL lot like the transgression of which you are accusing GZ.
 

Just so I'm clear, in your mind, because neither possibility is the law, but I want your mindset. "The minute Zimmerman got out of his car he was the aggressor", you prefaced this with a loaded gun approach. So my question is, did he, in your mind become the aggressor SIMPLY be exiting his car? or was it because he exited his car with a loaded gun?

Taking this hallucination a bit further, if he was 16 would he be able to exit his car? How about seventeen? How about seventeen and one minute older than TM? How about if he was his own age and got out of his car with some scissors? How about if he got out of his car with a blow gun? A compound bow? A pencil? How about if he got out of his car and rocks were present? What if he was driving a golf cart that didn't have doors? Could he have stripped down naked and "streaked" out of his car without MAGICALLY being transformed into "the aggressor" in your mind?

Is there ANY possible circumstances GZ could have exited his car and NOT in your convoluted mind magically transformed into "the aggressor"???
 
Phoenix said:
What does the color of his skin have to do with it? I would have agreed if you had left that part out.
Click to expand...
------------------

For some posters, more than I thought.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
This has nothing to do with compassion. This has everything to do with facts, and the legality of what happened. Zimmerman did not break the law, Martin did.
Click to expand...

How did he break the law? By defending himself against an armed man who was pursuing him, who was also instructed by the police NOT to get out of his car btw
 
opendebate said:
How did he break the law? By defending himself against an armed man who was pursuing him, who was also instructed by the police NOT to get out of his car btw
Click to expand...

If we're going the "retentive" route, you are 100 percent WRONG. NO one EVER instructed Zimmerman "NOT to get out of his car". btw.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
This has nothing to do with compassion. This has everything to do with facts, and the legality of what happened. Zimmerman did not break the law, Martin did.
Click to expand...
-------------


This is true.
There does not appear to be enough evidence to convict George.
His version of the confrontation can't be countered by TM.
On the compassion issue, I think we should be sad for a young life lost.
Even if he was, in your analysis, a pothead.
It's the Christian thing to do, don't you agree?
 
opendebate said:
How did he break the law? By defending himself against an armed man who was pursuing him, who was also instructed by the police NOT to get out of his car btw
Click to expand...

For M to defend himself, he had to reasonably believe he was about to be attacked by Z.

Do you have credible evidence to support such a belief?

If yes....please show it and if you don't then stop making up ****
 

Yes, I am an adult. I raised a son and I had a house filled with teenage boys for the majority of my sons teen years. Teenage boys are idiots. Period. There are exceptions, but few. These were great kids but still, hormones are raging and they have no idea at this point how to appropriately handle ANYTHING, let alone a situation like this. My eyes are wide open....are yours?

Zimmerman got beat up because he pursued this boy like he was some kind of cowboy. Martin knew he was being followed and it sounds more to me like he found it necessary to protect himself from Zimmerman. Zimmerman then choosing to use a gun is ridiculous. I'll say it again.... Zimmerman never should have gotten out of his truck. He is not a police officer and does not have the training necessary to handle a situation like this correctly. Plain and simple, Trayvon had every right to be there and Zimmerman had no REAL reason to pursue him with a firearm.

Law: manslaughter. If you are driving your car drunk and you kill someone you can be convicted of manslaughter. It's not really a stretch and it is law.
 

The gun is irrelevant as to whether or not he was the aggressor. The police told him to stay in the car and he should have. He is not a cop. He got out of the car to pursue or confront Trayvon. That makes him the aggressor. No magic. Trayvon was innocently walking through the neighborhood looking for an address, Zimmerman decided he was up to no good and went after him. Those are the facts.
 

This ain't about how it sounds

You need evidence to disprove Z's version

You need to legally justify why M attacked Z

You have to prove Z's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and you must also disprove Z's self-defense claim
 
Oceandan said:
If we're going the "retentive" route, you are 100 percent WRONG. NO one EVER instructed Zimmerman "NOT to get out of his car". btw.
Click to expand...

Timeline:
February 26, 2012 - George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida, calls 911 to report "a suspicious person" in the neighborhood. He is instructed not to get out of his SUV or approach the person. Zimmerman disregards the instructions. Moments later, neighbors report hearing gunfire. Zimmerman acknowledges that he shot Martin, claiming it was in self-defense. In a police report, Officer Timothy Smith writes that Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and back of the head.

Trayvon Martin Shooting Fast Facts - CNN.com
 

ROTFLMAO!!!! You're using CNN as a reference???????? ROTFLMAO!!! omg no wonder.

How about we use the ACTUAL NEN call????

NEN operator: "are you following him?"
GZ: "yes"
NEN operator: "we don't need you to do that"
GZ: "ok"

Now beyond admitting you were WRONG, and PLEASE don't EVER use cnn garbage for "truth" that's deplorable in and of itself, please tell me using FACTS from this case, when GZ did NOT follow the instructions.

I won't even hold you to the HIGHER standard the prosecution faces in PROVING beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT, GZ did not comply with those instructions.
 
Phoenix said:
What does the color of his skin have to do with it? I would have agreed if you had left that part out.
Click to expand...

Have you not noticed the difference in likelihood that a kid acts like a hoodlum when conditioned on race?
 

My point still stands. He was told not to follow him and he shouldn't have. I do not believe that it was his intention to kill Martin but I do think his irresponsible behavior lead to the death of this young man. Manslaughter.
 
opendebate said:
My point still stands. He was told not to follow him and he shouldn't have. I do not believe that it was his intention to kill Martin but I do think his irresponsible behavior lead to the death of this young man. Manslaughter.
Click to expand...

As long as you realize your concept is based on PURE personal bias and not the law. No legal facts of the case support your contention GZ followed TM to the point of physical altercation. GZ's version of the events of the night in question stand up to vigorous legal examination, thus the reason NO CHARGES were initially brought in this case. Only after the "race baiters" got involved were charges brought.

You are free to hold whatever personal bias you choose. You are free to hold GZ in contempt for the rest of your life. That's your personal hang up. Please, however, don't confuse the LAW with your personal hangups.

BTW, in order to be guilty of manslaughter one must NOT have self defense available. In order for GZ to NOT have self defense available, the state must prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt, GZ could not use self defense. Watching the actual TRIAL, it's apparent the prosecution failed miserably. Of course then again, that proves the reason they didn't file charges in the FIRST PLACE.
 
opendebate said:
My point still stands. He was told not to follow him and he shouldn't have. I do not believe that it was his intention to kill Martin but I do think his irresponsible behavior lead to the death of this young man. Manslaughter.
Click to expand...

Your morally guilty verdict towards Z is totally irrelevant

The legal/law codes outranks your moral code

Learn, the evidence before posting

You look foolish
 
ric27 said:
Your morally guilty verdict towards Z is totally irrelevant

The legal/law codes outranks your moral code

Learn, the evidence before posting

You look foolish
Click to expand...

I'n not a attorney and neither are you, stop playing one. This is a forum where people post their opinions. That's my opinion. If I was a juror I would approach it differently.

And why to conservatives have so little control over their emotions. You always find it necessary to reduce yourselves to name calling and bullying. Grow up.
 

You grow up

Your opinion does not comport with the evidence.

Learn, the evidence and ya....you'll sleep better
 
ric27 said:
You grow up

Your opinion does not comport with the evidence.

Learn, the evidence and ya....you'll sleep better
Click to expand...

I'll sleep better?? What's that suppose to mean?? I sleep just fine and frankly...that sounds like a threat. Another conservative go to when you get all read faced and fired up over issues. Something tells me you're a Limbaugh and O'Reily fan. Or aleast FAUX news.

BTW in Florida a person can be found guilty of manslaughter by act. You can debate whether or not the evidence supports the idea that Martin posed a threat warranting Zimmermans actions and whether or not Zimmerman acted responsibly and reasonably in defending himself against that threat. If it is determined he did then he will probably be found not guilty.
 

There you go again with that..."sounds like a" thingy

Base your opinion on the law not on what it "sounds" like
 
ric27 said:
There you go again with that..."sounds like a" thingy

Base your opinion on the law not on what it "sounds" like
Click to expand...

you're an idiot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…