• 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]

More of that twisted right wing logic. Something does not have to be illegal to be stupid, wrong and/or negligent.
No violation of laws there.
 
That pre-supposes that one find GZ's description reliable.
If you hold GZ's account suspect, then you don't have to assume that TM started the attack.
There is evidence from Jeantel that TM was telling GZ to "get off."

And if you hold that evidence as suspect too, then you have no evidence about how things started.

Either of those situations leads to a different conclusion than the one you presented.

Those hypothetical situations are hypothetical, and don't lead to conclusions at all. Those situations lead to more questions. Lots of questions = lots of reasonable doubt. You don't convict someone in a court of law when reasonable doubt is abundant. The prosecution's whole case is trying to show reasonable doubt of GZ's innocence. The actual job of the prosecution is to remove reasonable doubt as to GZ's guilt. The fact that the judge allowed this case to continue when from the outset it was obvious the prosecution didn't even aim to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt is staggering, but unsurprising considering the politics involved.
 
More of that twisted right wing logic. Something does not have to be illegal to be stupid, wrong and/or negligent.

Seems to me that not going home, and choosing to confront the "creepy ass cracker", and then initiate an assault turned out to be the negligent move....
 
An adult carrying a firearm should be held to a bit of a higher standard than a kid with skittles. Before this case I would not have had to explain that.

Moving goalposts I see.

Why don't you answer the question.

Zimmerman follows Martin but Martin doesn't attack him...... DOES MARTIN STILL GET KILLED?
 
That pre-supposes that one find GZ's description reliable.
If you hold GZ's account suspect, then you don't have to assume that TM started the attack.
There is evidence from Jeantel that TM was telling GZ to "get off."

And if you hold that evidence as suspect too, then you have no evidence about how things started.

Either of those situations leads to a different conclusion than the one you presented.

Why is everyone afraid to just answer the question instead of trying to come up with excuses to get out of answering it?
 
Cause it is a dumb question. Like everyone keeps asking about Z. was it illegal for Martin to be out to buy skittles? Do you understand the difference in responsibility level between an unarmed minor with skittles and an armed adult. Before this case I never ever had to explain this to anyone. When I carry my firearm my level of responsibility is immensely different.
Why is everyone afraid to just answer the question instead of trying to come up with excuses to get out of answering it?
 
Cause it is a dumb question. Like everyone keeps asking about Z. was it illegal for Martin to be out to buy skittles? Do you understand the difference in responsibility level between an unarmed minor with skittles and an armed adult. Before this case I never ever had to explain this to anyone. When I carry my firearm my level of responsibility is immensely different.

That doesn't make it your fault that someone attacked you either.

The fact is... you don't want to answer the question because Zimmerman's act of following Martin was NOT the mistake that led to Martin's death.

Martin's assault on Zimmerman was that mistake, but everyone wants to ignore that.
 
I have answered it repeatedly. It is Z's fault Martin is dead. Z had the firearm and at some point that night made the decision that got Martin killed. Wether he will be convicted or not is a toss up, but it is Z's fault Martin is dead. I an not ignoring anything, you are just wrong about it. Z was the adult, Z was armed, Z killed Martin. Z could have stayed in his vehicle. The fact is you are not listening to what you dont want to hear, I really dont understand the confusion.
That doesn't make it your fault that someone attacked you either.

The fact is... you don't want to answer the question because Zimmerman's act of following Martin was NOT the mistake that led to Martin's death.

Martin's assault on Zimmerman was that mistake, but everyone wants to ignore that.
 
I have answered it repeatedly. It is Z's fault Martin is dead. Z had the firearm and at some point that night made the decision that got Martin killed. Wether he will be convicted or not is a toss up, but it is Z's fault Martin is dead. I an not ignoring anything, you are just wrong about it. Z was the adult, Z was armed, Z killed Martin. Z could have stayed in his vehicle. The fact is you are not listening to what you dont want to hear, I really dont understand the confusion.

What you don't seem to understand is that getting out of a vehicle is not a crime or a mistake.

Attacking another person with no justification IS a crime and is the CATALYST that created the death.....

Without the assault.... the shot would not have been fired.......

There is absolutely no way around that.

The way you are going about it.... we should blame Zimmerman for needing to get stuff to make lunches with that night....

Or blame Martin for wanting some Skittles and an Ice Tea.

But that is ignorant, because they could have done all of those things without Martin assaulting Zimmerman, and there would have been no death in that community that night.
 
Ok Caine, we will see.
What you don't seem to understand is that getting out of a vehicle is not a crime or a mistake.

Attacking another person with no justification IS a crime and is the CATALYST that created the death.....

Without the assault.... the shot would not have been fired.......

There is absolutely no way around that.

The way you are going about it.... we should blame Zimmerman for needing to get stuff to make lunches with that night....

Or blame Martin for wanting some Skittles and an Ice Tea.

But that is ignorant, because they could have done all of those things without Martin assaulting Zimmerman, and there would have been no death in that community that night.
 
Back
Top Bottom