• 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.

Zimmerman is a LIAR

CycloneWanderer said:
Excuse me, your confirmation bias is showing.
Click to expand...

Ohmygoodness, confirmation bias.

Sorry Charlie, the trial has been concluded but for the verdict. I'm sitting in the court of public opinion, in judgment of the defendant. I find him guilty, but I'm not on the jury.

For a man claiming to be in the right, he did not even have the decency to appear before the jury. I'm impressed in all the wrong ways.
 
Henry David said:
You are certainly right in your analysis. Somebody asked why I thought he was a liar, and I answered.

The part that has surprised me now, is that he elected not to take the stand to explain to the jury what happened in his own words. For the last year we've been told that he was the aggrieved party, he was the one standing his own ground, he was the one that was assaulted.

It seems if that were true, and his conscience was clear about all that, he would have wanted to tell the jury since his fate in their hands. It seems if he had an honest case, and had done the right thing, he would want to persuade the jury, but he passed.

I had a friend years ago who shot and killed a man. He was brought to trial and took the stand in his own defense, so that the jury could know the truth. He was acquitted.

Z is lucky I'm not on the jury, because from Day One he has come across as a scoundrel and a predator. The trial merely reinforced that impression.
Click to expand...
For a defendant to not take the stand in their own defense is absolutely no admission of guilt whatsoever_

In fact it is quite common when the prosecution fails to make its case, for the defense attorney to advise their client to not expose them self to the scrutiny of a jury that may become hostile towards him/her for various personal reasons totally unrelated to the charges_

Jurors can change a verdict which they once based on facts and evidence, to a verdict now based on preconceived notions and personal assumptions they have attached to a defendant's appearance, personality, demeanor and/or the way they talk_

Simply being innocent does not make a defendant more likable or convincing in the eyes and ears of a jury_

Fact, some people can make you believe a lie much better than some people can make you believe the truth_

I had a friend years ago who shot and killed a man. He was brought to trial and took the stand in his own defense, so that the jury could know the truth. He was acquitted.
Click to expand...
More than likely your friend, for whatever reason, was advised by his attorney to take the stand_

Can you honestly say, in Zimmerman's situation, you would disregard council's advise and take the stand?

Remember, your life is riding on your decision???
 
Empirica said:
For a defendant to not take the stand in their own defense is absolutely no admission of guilt whatsoever_

In fact it is quite common when the prosecution fails to make its case, for the defense attorney to advise their client to not expose them self to the scrutiny of a jury that may become hostile towards him/her for various personal reasons totally unrelated to the charges_

Jurors can change a verdict which they once based on facts and evidence, to a verdict now based on preconceived notions and personal assumptions they have attached to a defendant's appearance, personality, demeanor and/or the way they talk_

Simply being innocent does not make a defendant more likable or convincing in the eyes and ears of a jury_

Fact, some people can make you believe a lie much better than some people can make you believe the truth_

More than likely your friend, for whatever reason, was advised by his attorney to take the stand_

Can you honestly say, in Zimmerman's situation, you would disregard council's advise and take the stand?

Remember, your life is riding on your decision???
Click to expand...

Certainly I can see both sides, and your point is absolutely valid.

If one accepts that the jury is the conscience of the community whose main role is to find the truth in any given matter, then it seems a jury might be curious to hear a defendant's side of things and to see him under fire, even while it understands that the state has an obligation to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the truth is that Z started the whole business, and that if he had walked away and waited for the police as instructed by the dispatcher M would be alive today, then guilt is established as to how the event played out. Aside from being young and black, Martin was minding his own business and doing nothing wrong or illegal.

So, before long we will know which way the jury goes. :peace
 
Henry David said:
Certainly I can see both sides, and your point is absolutely valid.

If one accepts that the jury is the conscience of the community whose main role is to find the truth in any given matter, then it seems a jury might be curious to hear a defendant's side of things and to see him under fire, even while it understands that the state has an obligation to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman's primary responsibility is not to satisfy the jury's curiosity_

He is literally fighting for his life so his one and only priority is survival_

If the truth is that Z started the whole business, and that if he had walked away and waited for the police as instructed by the dispatcher M would be alive today, then guilt is established as to how the event played out. Aside from being young and black, Martin was minding his own business and doing nothing wrong or illegal.

So, before long we will know which way the jury goes. :peace
Click to expand...
Zimmerman was the Neighborhood Watch and therefore obligated to watch anyone he considered suspicious_

I believe Zimmerman was walking away,(per instructions from dispatch) at the time Martin approached him_

And I agree that Martin did absolutely nothing wrong until he chose to approach and then attack Zimmerman_

At that moment Martin became a violent criminal which Zimmerman believed was going to kill him_

IMO, Martin's unwarranted attack confirmed Zimmerman's suspicions that Martin was a potential criminal_

Most people who fear they're being followed would get home or to a public place if close or knock on a door_

However Martin's racist/bullying/violent actions seem to indicate that he was not afraid and looking for trouble_

Fact! If Zimmerman had not been legally armed, he could very well be the victim instead of the defendant_

IMO Martin would've had a long list of victims during his life had he chose not to attack Zimmerman that night_
 
Henry David said:
Ohmygoodness, confirmation bias.

Sorry Charlie, the trial has been concluded but for the verdict. I'm sitting in the court of public opinion, in judgment of the defendant. I find him guilty, but I'm not on the jury.

For a man claiming to be in the right, he did not even have the decency to appear before the jury. I'm impressed in all the wrong ways.
Click to expand...

Well, you have just proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt you have absolutely no idea what confirmation bias is.
 
Isn't it when somebody is biased at a Senate confirmation hearing? ;)

Have a good weekend, and don't let the verdict bother you. :peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom