Dr. Phil The Zimmerman Episode Self Defense Poll

[357 Terms]

If I walk behind you, is that "initiating a confrontation"?

So what are you saying? Zimmerman admitted he was following Martin.

What you are asking has no relevance.

 

[griffin]

This was not about "self defense".

Actually it is 100% about self-defense.

You are not required by law to let someone pummel you to death.

Trayvon chose poorly. He won't do that again.

 

[youngda9]

So what are you saying? Zimmerman admitted he was following Martin.

What you are asking has no relevance.

Are you just playing the part...or do you really not get it.

People claim that following someone is the initiator of the whoopin and therefore whatever happened after that was Martin's fault.

Merely following someone, confronting someone, or talking to someone DOES NOT WARRANT A DEADLY BEATDOWN.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Looking at a snapshot of the poll results as of now - the amount of people who believe he should be convicted is a larger percent than those who believe he did NOT act in self defense....

What does that mean? Do they believe he acted in self defense, but should be convicted anyway - or are they just too confused to take a two question poll?

1) Do you believe George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense?

49%​

Yes. 49%

51%​

No. 51%


2) George is currently charged with second-degree murder. Do you believe he should be convicted?

53%​

Yes. 53%

47%​

No. 47%

 

[Bunnykid68]

The amount of people who believe he should be convicted is a larger percent than those who believe he did NOT act in self defense....

What does that mean? Do they believe he acted in self defense, but should be convicted anyway - or are they just too confused to take a two question poll?

1) Do you believe George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense?

49%​

Yes. 49%

51%​

No. 51%


2) George is currently charged with second-degree murder. Do you believe he should be convicted?

53%​

Yes. 53%

47%​

No. 47%

No, it means they think he did not act in self defense and think he should be convicted

 

[357 Terms]

Merely following someone, confronting someone, or talking to someone DOES NOT WARRANT A DEADLY BEATDOWN.

It did become SD when Martin made the unfortunate choice to attack Zimmerman.

That is my quote from another post...pay better attention.

 

[griffin]

What does that mean? Do they believe he acted in self defense, but should be convicted anyway - or are they just too confused to take a two question poll?

It means that people that watch Dr. Phil are idiots. They don't understand the specifics of this conflict, the evidence, or the law.

What kind of an audience watches Dr. Phil or Maury Povich or Jerry Springer? There's your answer.

 

[Fargo]

Geez la freaking weez! The responses in this thread to the simple proposition that Zimmerman made some "unwise choices" are just amazing. The guy went out following people around the neighborhood, used epithets and derogatory terms on a recorded conversation with LE, at best put himeself in a tactically foolish position, at best let himself get caught in a physical confrontation with an unarmed teenager he couldn't handle, and ended up shooting an unarmed teenager who was staying in the addition and walking home.

If you can't accept that there are some "unwise decisions" in the above, I have to seriously question your "wisdom" or lack thereof.

I guess if you ignore the eye-witness testimony, the grass stains on the back of Zimmerman's clothes, his account of the incident to police that cooberate with his injuries, his screaming for help, the cut that required stitches on the back of his head, and the bullet trajectory cooberating his account... than you couldn't believe it. But why do you choose to ignore all of that? You seem to have an adjenda here.

Nevermind that the "eyewitness testimony" you cite is facially incomplete and contradictory between the various witnesses, that it is far from proven who was screaming for help, that he neither needed or got stitches (see USAToday link below, don't know where you came up with that one) and the bullet trajectory is not inconsistent with a wide variety of other possibilities.

Doctor: Zimmerman suffered no serious head trauma

I find it pretty interesting that in light of the above, you accuse others of ignoring things and having an "adjenda"?

From what I have seen, Zimmerman will not and should not be convicted for ONE huge primary reason: the state bears the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and of disproving his defense to that same burden while he has no burden to prove anything.

In a case like this where the only other real witness is dead and there is a real factual possibility that it was legal self-defense, there is almost no way the state makes its case.

It is NOT because Zimmerman has somehow been PROVEN to have acted legally but rather because the state cannot PROVE he did not.

In any case like this one, where neither side can prove it is right, the default always goes to the defense.

I freely admit I have no certainty about what happened that night and so I would vote to acquit based upon what I know. I seriously question anyone who thinks they have any certainty either way on this one.

Joe

 

[cp009]

I find it funny that the poll hasn't changed one bit. I say its rigged.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I disagree with you on your, first attack, run away, next attack, scenario. Sounds like BS. In the Martin/Zimmerman case, nobody knows the truth about 'who struck first'. It is known that Zimmerman pursued Martin.

I do not believe that Martin was "bashing someone's head repeatedly into the cement is deadly force("attempting to kill") " because of the amount of blood in post-confrontation photos of Zimmerman.

I can admit that an unprovoked attack, which gets to the point that the attacker is bashing the victims head to the concrete is an act of deadly force.

I do not believe that Martin was the attacker and Zimmerman the victim.

I'm with you. Zimmerman said his head was being smashed on concrete "dozens" of times, thats pure BS. If I have the intent to kill someone, I can bash their brains in after three or four slams against concrete.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

No, it means they think he did not act in self defense and think he should be convicted

Look again... the people who believe he should be convicted is a 2% higher number than the people who believe he did NOT act in self defense....

So, 2% of people believe he acted in self defense but should still be convicted - or 2% of poll takers are confused idiots.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Geez la freaking weez! The responses in this thread to the simple proposition that Zimmerman made some "unwise choices" are just amazing. The guy went out following people around the neighborhood, used epithets and derogatory terms on a recorded conversation with LE, at best put himeself in a tactically foolish position, at best let himself get caught in a physical confrontation with an unarmed teenager he couldn't handle, and ended up shooting an unarmed teenager who was staying in the addition and walking home.

If you can't accept that there are some "unwise decisions" in the above, I have to seriously question your "wisdom" or lack thereof.




Nevermind that the "eyewitness testimony" you cite is contradictory between the various witnesses, that it is far from proven who was screaming for help, that he neither needed or got stitches (see USAToday link below, don't know where you came up with that one) and the bullet trajectory is not inconsistent with a wide variety of other possibilities.

Doctor: Zimmerman suffered no serious head trauma

I find it pretty interesting that in light of the above, you accuse others of ignoring things and having an "adjenda"?

From what I have seen, Zimmerman will not and should not be convicted for ONE huge primary reason: the state bears the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and of disproving his defense to that same burden while he has no burden to prove anything.

In a case like this where the only other real witness is dead and there is a real factual possibility that it was legal self-defense, there is almost no way the state makes its case.

It is NOT because Zimmerman has somehow been PROVEN to have acted legally but rather because the state cannot PROVE he did not.

In any case like this one, where neither side can prove it is right, the default always goes to the defense.

I freely admit I have no certainty about what happened that night and so I would vote to acquit based upon what I know. I seriously question anyone who thinks they have any certainty either way on this one.

Joe

This sums up nicely why I don't think he'll be convicted, as well.

 

[Fargo]

Are you just playing the part...or do you really not get it.

People claim that following someone is the initiator of the whoopin and therefore whatever happened after that was Martin's fault.

Merely following someone, confronting someone, or talking to someone DOES NOT WARRANT A DEADLY BEATDOWN.

What is the legal basis for your conclusion? The basic legal standard for justified use of force is reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm. If a person reasonably believes he is being stalked at night by an unknown stranger in an unfamiliar neighborhood and he is then stopped and confronted by that person, it is entirely POSSIBLE that they may have a reasonable fear that they are about to be harmed.

I'm not saying that is what happened in this case, because once again I don't know. That said, your extremely broad legal proposition above seems to be on very shaky ground.

Joe

 

[Roadie]

Geez la freaking weez! The responses in this thread to the simple proposition that Zimmerman made some "unwise choices" are just amazing. The guy went out following people around the neighborhood, used epithets and derogatory terms on a recorded conversation with LE, at best put himeself in a tactically foolish position, at best let himself get caught in a physical confrontation with an unarmed teenager he couldn't handle, and ended up shooting an unarmed teenager who was staying in the addition and walking home.

If you can't accept that there are some "unwise decisions" in the above, I have to seriously question your "wisdom" or lack thereof.




Nevermind that the "eyewitness testimony" you cite is facially incomplete and contradictory between the various witnesses, that it is far from proven who was screaming for help, that he neither needed or got stitches (see USAToday link below, don't know where you came up with that one) and the bullet trajectory is not inconsistent with a wide variety of other possibilities.

Doctor: Zimmerman suffered no serious head trauma

I find it pretty interesting that in light of the above, you accuse others of ignoring things and having an "adjenda"?

From what I have seen, Zimmerman will not and should not be convicted for ONE huge primary reason: the state bears the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and of disproving his defense to that same burden while he has no burden to prove anything.

In a case like this where the only other real witness is dead and there is a real factual possibility that it was legal self-defense, there is almost no way the state makes its case.

It is NOT because Zimmerman has somehow been PROVEN to have acted legally but rather because the state cannot PROVE he did not.

In any case like this one, where neither side can prove it is right, the default always goes to the defense.

I freely admit I have no certainty about what happened that night and so I would vote to acquit based upon what I know. I seriously question anyone who thinks they have any certainty either way on this one.

Joe

" used epithets and derogatory terms on a recorded conversation with LE" ?

Really. Care to post proof? And.. will this be from the edited, or unedited, version of the call transcript?

Oh, and you left this out from your link:

"The just-released document states he suffered a broken nose, but no deviation of the septum, and two black eyes"

 

[moosebag]

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

So what you are saying is if you were behind a drunk driver weaving all over the road and you called 911 on you cell phone and the dispatcher told you to follow the car for them until a LEO could intercept. Then all of a sudden the car slams on the brakes, a maniac jumps out of the car with a gun pulled, shoots you dead, that it would be the dispatchers fault because they told you to follow the subject?

 

[Roadie]

So what you are saying is if you were behind a drunk driver weaving all over the road and you called 911 on you cell phone and the dispatcher told you to follow the car for them until a LEO could intercept. Then all of a sudden the car slams on the brakes, a maniac jumps out of the car with a gun pulled, shoots you dead, that it would be the dispatchers fault because they told you to follow the subject?

Add to that that: .. when the dispatcher told you to stop following, you did, and were talking to them about where to meet the police, THEN the car slams into you...

 

[357 Terms]

So what you are saying is if you were behind a drunk driver weaving all over the road and you called 911 on you cell phone and the dispatcher told you to follow the car for them until a LEO could intercept. Then all of a sudden the car slams on the brakes, a maniac jumps out of the car with a gun pulled, shoots you dead, that it would be the dispatchers fault because they told you to follow the subject?

A drunk driver is commiting a crime.

Martin was walking down the street.

He was also unarmed... (certainly NOT a maniac with a gun!) ..are you trying to make a VALID point?

 

[Roadie]

A drunk driver is commiting a crime.

Martin was walking down the street.

He was also unarmed...are you trying to make a VALID point?

It was a valid point.. just because YOU don't understand it, doesn't invalidate it..

 

[357 Terms]

It was a valid point.. just because YOU don't understand it, doesn't invalidate it..

LOL!!

Please explain the parallels of a drunk driving maniac with a gun , and a unarmed person (who committed no crime) walking down the street.

 

[netsecurity]

Since when was leaving your vehicle in walking in your own neighborhood a poor decision? If GZ wanted to execute TM, would he have let him beat himself first? And why would he be working with the police beforehand if he wanted ro be his own jury and executioner?

ALL evidence strongly indicates self defense to this point, and for anyone to argue any other point at this time just shows how easily they are manipulated by lies in the liberal media. It is amazing how some people can be told lies, and even when the lies are proven totally false, they still believe the thrust of them.