Dr. Phil The Zimmerman Episode Self Defense Poll

[RoyalTenenbaum]

Go vote:

Dr. Phil.com - George Zimmerman Poll

 

[youngda9]

1) Do you believe George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense?
49% Yes.
51% No.

2) George is currently charged with second-degree murder. Do you believe he should be convicted?
53% Yes.
47% No.

 

[indytechnerd]

Voted, but Dr. Phil's audience is a neatly packaged sub-set of the MSNBC soccer mom population. Might be tough to get our number, here.

 

[2A_Tom]

George will most likely be convicted.

I hate it but probably true.

 

[terrehautian]

I seen the photo posted on Dr. Phil's facebook page and it makes me want to scream. Why shouldn't you be able to carry it anywhere that you feel the need to.

 

[Birds Away]

Well, he made some decisions which were not wise. To some degree he placed himself in this situation. I do not believe he should be convicted but, as in many of these cases, he was his own worst enemy.

 

[terrehautian]

Which decisions were not wise?

 

[Birds Away]

If I am not mistaken the dispatcher told him not to pursue.

 

[terrehautian]

There has not been any proof that he didn't disobey them, just speculation. Any other unwise decisions?

 

[Birds Away]

There has not been any proof that he didn't disobey them, just speculation. Any other unwise decisions?

Could you rephrase that with fewer negatives? Not sure I caught your meaning.

 

[357 Terms]

If I am not mistaken the dispatcher told him not to pursue.

This is correct.

There was no reason for him to initiate a confrontation with Martin.

 

[youngda9]

This is correct.

There was no reason for him to initiate a confrontation with Martin.

What did he do to deserve the beat-down that he got(broken nose, straddled and got his head bashed into the concrete requiring stitches) ?

Unless you have valid proof as to what happened before the beatdown, than you can't say he "initiated" anything warranting a beatdown.

Merely following ,talking to, or verbally confronting someone is not justification for them to physically assault and attempt to kill you by bashing your head against the pavement.

 

[Birds Away]

What did he do to deserve the beat-down that he got(broken nose, straddled and got his head bashed into the concrete requiring stitches) ?

Unless you have valid proof as to what happened before the beatdown, than you can't say he "initiated" anything warranting a beatdown.

Merely following ,talking to, or verbally confronting someone is not justification for them to physically assault and attempt to kill you by bashing your head against the pavement.

I simply stated that he made a bad decision. That is not to infer that he deserved anything. My opinion is that once dispatch told him not to pursue he probably was unwise to do so. I still believe he is not guilty.

 

[Roadie]

If I am not mistaken the dispatcher told him not to pursue.

Actually, the UNedited transcripts show that he obeyed and was on the way to meet the police, discussing with Dispatch where to meet them..

 

[femurphy77]

Ah yes, here we are ridiculing Dr phils soccer mom audience since they are willing to convict without knowing all of the details, yet some of us are willing to convict/release him without all of those same details.

No sane person can pretend to know enough to convict or exonerate based on the "evidence" that has been released by "anonymous" sources, or doctored 911 tapes, or "witnesses" that didn't see anything.

No reasonable person could be faulted for convicting AND clearing based on all of the B.S. evidence floating around the 'net or the MSM. Based on one days "evidence" it's easy to convict, and based on another days "evidence" it's easy to clear.

When we vote on Phils poll, are we voting based on all of the facts, or the fact that "he's a gunowner, I have to stand up for our rights"? Or "he's a gunowner, therefore he's bad"?

 

[357 Terms]

Unless you have valid proof as to what happened before the beatdown, than you can't say he "initiated" anything warranting a beatdown.

Why did he leave his vehicle?

 

[Dirtebiker]

If I am not mistaken the dispatcher told him not to pursue.

This is correct.

There was no reason for him to initiate a confrontation with Martin.

No, that is NOT correct!
The dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that"! After asking if Z was following M and Z responding "yes"!
That is NO WHERE close to an order to stop!

 

[Dirtebiker]

This is correct.

There was no reason for him to initiate a confrontation with Martin.

Where was it ever shown that he DID initiate the confrontation?

 

[bobzilla]

Why was he walking between houses?

Works the other way as well.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

I went to the site, but I will admit, I REFUSE to vote either way... To 'vote' one way or another is to be taking the same "public opinion poll" that everyone else that we revile do. That is to pass judgment BEFORE the trial... In that regard, to vote to convict or not to convict is not only irrelevant, but is also playing the same game...

I will not play the conviction in the "Court of Public Opinion" game. If it had been a survey of anything along the lines of Do you favor ..... as it relates to Gun Control, fine, but to VOTE on whether a person is to be CONVICTED or not, is just doing the same thing the Brady Bunch does that we so detest...