• 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 jury may consider lesser charge of manslaughter: judge [W:87]

Uh, no. I was pointing out the lack of logic in saying following TM was not reckless. Of course it was, someone got killed.
ARealConservative said:
that the other side is dead means you invent things that might of happened? that is your method of justice? make things up with zero evidence of happening?
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
Uh, no. I was pointing out the lack of logic in saying following TM was not reckless. Of course it was, someone got killed.
Click to expand...

following Travon did not get anyone killed.
 
mak2 said:
Oh good. Call off the trial and call his Mom, she will be glad to hear.
Click to expand...

She knows what got her son killed, and it was not a concerned neighbor.
 
NEN operator "are you following him?"
GZ "yes"
NEN operator "we don't need you to do that"
GZ "ok"

What "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" has been proffered in this trial, GZ did not abide by that instruction??
 
mak2 said:
I also have a right to wear my Rolex and fancy clothes and hide multiple firearms under my jacket and act drunk and stagger around in bad neighborhoods. Soon as someone approachs me and tries to steal my Rolex, I shoot them, right? It is my right you know. This case has stretched reasonableness so far out of...It is just weird the arguments you hear for Z. Z at some point during that night made a decision that got a minor killed. Without question he killed an unarmed minor, yet some think even having a trial is outrageous.
Click to expand...

Mr. Martin did not make any decisions on his part that were reckless? A stretch as well. This case is complicated. Two people acting out of fear ending making a SERIES of decisions that lead to Mr. Martins death. I cannot see any of these decisions or the totality of decisions being criminal on either side. Its a tragedy pure and simple. It would be even more tragic to put a man who seems to be a fairly honest upstanding man trying protect his neighbors in jail. It does nothing for society. Mr. Marten is the victim of circumstance plain and simple.
 
danarhea said:
the prosecution has proven manslaughter.
Click to expand...

They have not proven, as is their burden, beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense. Legally, it isn't considered manslaughter if the homicide is an act of self-defense. as a result, they haven't proven manslaughter.

Let's clarify, in earlier stages of the trial, the defense had the burden of showing that a preponderance of the evidence supported self-defense. They passed that hurdle successfully. At this stage in a jury trial, it is the prosecutions burden to show that, beyond a reasonable doubt, it was NOT self-defense.
 
danarhea said:
Zimmerman told police investigators the night of the killing that Trayvon was circling his car and that he was frightened by him. But, throughout his entire call with the non-emergency dispatcher, Zimmerman does not mention once that Trayvon was circling his car, in fact he is constantly telling the dispatcher that Trayvon is running away.
Click to expand...
:doh
First of all, he does not have to tell the Call-Taker everything that is happening.
Secondly, he tells the Call-Taker "Yep, he's coming to check me out", Or did you not hear that?

And no, :naughty he is not constantly telling the call-taker that he was running.
While he was sitting in his vehicle ™ took off and Zimmerman said; "****, he's running".
He then got out of his vehicle, gives the requested direction that ™ ran, and roughly 30 seconds later confirmed that the suspicious person had ran.
Following to keep a suspicious person under surveillance until the police arrive, is not reckless.

™ let Zimmerman pass by him twice and then approached Zimmerman in a hasty manner from his rear, yelling a question, and when he arrived upon him, immediately struck him.
™ was the cause, the one who was reckless, and the one responsible for his own death. ​


danarhea said:
Whether or not is was actually self defense has not been proven one way or the other, as neither side was able to make their case.
Click to expand...
You are imagining things.
The defense made their case with the prosecutions witnesses.

danarhea said:
However, the recklessness on Zimmerman's part, by following Martin, after being instructed by the police not to, is well established,
Click to expand...
However, you are wrong. As there is no evidence of following after it was suggested they didn't need him to do that.
™ went South down the walk.
Zimmerman Traveled East, and then returned to the West.

You should really learn the evidence before trying to discuss it.


And let me ask this since you apparently think getting out of his vehicle was somehow reckless. iLOL :doh
When the Call-Taker told Zimmerman the following;
"Just let me know if he does anything, ok?"
&
"just let me know if this guy does anything else."​

Just how do you think you accomplish that without keeping eyes on the suspicious person?
 
Last edited:
CycloneWanderer said:
Let's clarify, in earlier stages of the trial, the defense had the burden of showing that a preponderance of the evidence supported self-defense.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that. In a criminal case, the defense is never required to prove innocence. The burden of proof is always on the state. The state failed, pathetically, from beginning to end. The defense pretty much didn't need to call any testimony. The case belongs in the trash, where the SPD put it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
The prosecution knows they've lost the case, not that they had one to begin with. Now they are just trying to minimize the fallout. The judge is afraid of a LA riots style result. They need him to be guilty of something, unfortunately he's not.
 
clownboy said:
The prosecution knows they've lost the case, not that they had one to begin with. Now they are just trying to minimize the fallout. The judge is afraid of a LA riots style result. They need him to be guilty of something, unfortunately he's not.
Click to expand...

There's not gonna be any riots. When the case is decided, the mainstream media talking heads will all spew about how the prosecution had no case at all. There's not going to be anyone still willing to shout "Whoa! Rachel the Hut said she heard him say 'get off'".

It's over. Everyone knew he didn't need to testify a long time ago. The defense has fought against a lesser charge being optional - this means they honestly believe there is no chance of a M2 conviction.

This case was an embarrassment for pretty much everyone except the SPD, who made the right call from the getgo and would have saved taxpayers a million dollars, judicial effort and countless hours of Reality TV.
 
mak2 said:
Oh good. Call off the trial and call his Mom, she will be glad to hear.
Click to expand...

what you are doing is no different then blaming the women in a short skirt for rape.

sure, I will warn my daughters that they increase their risk. but at the end of the day, if a person can be raped for wearing a short skirt, justice has failed.

same with saying a person can be felony assaulted for following someone else in public spheres.

following someone is not why a person died anymore then wearing a short skirt is why someone gets raped.
 
I dont get the connection. At some point that night an armed adult made a decision that directly led to a minor dying. I dont think he will be convicted either, but the rationale for many of these arguments to defend Z flies in the face of rational thought and responsible gun rights. Of course an armed adult has more responsiblity than a minor with skittles and iced tea.
ARealConservative said:
what you are doing is no different then blaming the women in a short skirt for rape.

sure, I will warn my daughters that they increase their risk. but at the end of the day, if a person can be raped for wearing a short skirt, justice has failed.

same with saying a person can be felony assaulted for following someone else in public spheres.

following someone is not why a person died anymore then wearing a short skirt is why someone gets raped.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
I dont get the connection. At some point that night an armed adult made a decision that directly led to a minor dying. I dont think he will be convicted either, but the rationale for many of these arguments to defend Z flies in the face of rational thought and responsible gun rights. Of course an armed adult has more responsiblity than a minor with skittles and iced tea.
Click to expand...

is his decision to follow someone form a distance what directly lead to someone dying?

trying to assign blame for that is just like assigning blame to the girl in a short skirt. Zimmerman has a right to follow people in public, just as girls have a right to wear short skirts
 
If he had not, would Martin be dead? He might have had the right, or the act of following him might have instigated the event, but in the end it resulted in a dead minor. It seems this argument would apply more to Martin. He had every right to walk through that neighborhood with skittles and tea without being harasseed by someone.

The short skirt thing doesnt work, the person taking the action had the gun.
ARealConservative said:
is his decision to follow someone form a distance what directly lead to someone dying?

trying to assign blame for that is just like assigning blame to the girl in a short skirt. Zimmerman has a right to follow people in public, just as girls have a right to wear short skirts
Click to expand...
 
Ok, you can stick with the analogy if you want to, but the girl in the short skirt doesnt commit the crime. In the Z case the person whodid the following of TM(short skirt) did the shooting. In either case it in no way reduces Z responsiblities as an adult and gun owner. So, if Z had made another decision, would Martin be dead?
ARealConservative said:
if the girl didn't wear a short skirt, would she of been raped?
Click to expand...
 
ARealConservative said:
is his decision to follow someone form a distance what directly lead to someone dying?

trying to assign blame for that is just like assigning blame to the girl in a short skirt. Zimmerman has a right to follow people in public, just as girls have a right to wear short skirts
Click to expand...

This is an interesting bit.

The whole "following from a safe distance" thing.

Once you lose sight of someone you are no longer "following" them. You are searching of attempting to reacquire or some other thing.

And it is impossible to know how far away someone is who you can no longer see, so you are therefore incapable of maintaining a "safe distance" as you have no idea how far away they are.

Hence, when Z exited his vehicle, he was no longer following OR maintaining a safe distance.
 
mak2 said:
If he had not, would Martin be dead? He might have had the right, or the act of following him might have instigated the event, but in the end it resulted in a dead minor. It seems this argument would apply more to Martin. He had every right to walk through that neighborhood with skittles and tea without being harasseed by someone.

The short skirt thing doesnt work, the person taking the action had the gun.
Click to expand...

Since when did following/observing from a distance become harassment? Harassment is not a violent act warranting any self defense. Martin's right to swing his arm freely ends where Zimmerman's nose begins.
 
mak2 said:
Ok, you can stick with the analogy if you want to, but the girl in the short skirt doesnt commit the crime. In the Z case the person whodid the following of TM(short skirt) did the shooting. In either case it in no way reduces Z responsiblities as an adult and gun owner. So, if Z had made another decision, would Martin be dead?
Click to expand...

self defense isn't a crime either.

who knows, maybe if the rapist looked like Obama's son, the state would of filed prostitution charges against the girl in the short skirt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom