Dr. Phil The Zimmerman Episode Self Defense Poll

[griffin]

All evidence will come out at trial. Certainly not from that thread.

All evidence, except some names and addresses, has been released and referenced in the thread. Read it.

 

[griffin]

It was poor judgement in my opinion.

Don't confuse the use of poor judgment with the legalities of what happened that night. Some people confuse the two.

 

[netsecurity]

All evidence will come out at trial. Certainly not from that thread.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman used poor judgement before, during and after this incident.

He doesn't seem to be a person of good character, at least from all the "evidence" so far.

Perhaps he was playing detective because he was in the neighborhood watch. He was doing his duty as he felt necessary, and not committing any crimes by being there.

Evidence shows that TM had worse character, but character is not what trials are supposed to be based on. The crime and evidence of it are supposed to be subject of the trial. You can't just jail someone for having bad character or you and I would all be persecuted.

 

[Glock19]

You go to jail for breaking the law, not for being stupid...

 

[357 Terms]

All evidence, except some names and addresses, has been released and referenced in the thread. Read it.

There is no way we could possibly know all evidence that has been gathered.

It is an on-going investigation.

We are debating known admissions/facts, everything else is speculative

 

[Kutnupe14]

You go to jail for breaking the law, not for being stupid...

The two, often, go hand in hand

 

[357 Terms]

(Zimmerman)............ and not committing any crimes by being there.
.

Martin had commited NO crime.

 

[griffin]

There is no way we could possibly know all evidence that has been gathered.

It has been released per Florida law. You know that, right?

You keep asking people to post things for you, for example, the audio tapes. They are in that thread. Read it. Then you won't have to ask others to post links for you.

 

[griffin]

Martin had commited NO crime.

He did when he attacked Zimmerman.

 

[357 Terms]

You keep asking people to post things for you, for example, the audio tapes. They are in that thread. Read it. Then you won't have to ask others to post links for you.

I am familiar with the transcripts...

Its the logic I am having trouble comprehending.

He did when he attacked Zimmerman

read my posts, I am not debating that!

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Martin had commited NO crime.

Maybe he did, and maybe he did no. Without witnessing the event, and without more evidence - we cannot make a concrete determination.

However, the question is not "Did Martin commit a crime?", the question is "Did Zimmerman act in self defense?"

Believe it or not, both may have acted in self defense under the letter of law. Most self defense laws contain phrases such as "reasonable fear" - not about "technical danger". It is within the realm of possibility that neither individual broke the law.

 

[357 Terms]

However, the question is not "Did Martin commit a crime?", the question is "Did Zimmerman act in self defense?"

He did!!

Yet an argument could be made that Martin did also!! (from what we know, excluding Zimmermans statements, after all we know about his lack of integrity for a fact!)

Zimmerman should have never left his vehicle, SIMPLE as that!

 

[Roadie]

He did!!

Yet an argument could be made that Martin did also!! (from what we know, excluding Zimmermans statements, after all we know about his lack of integrity for a fact!)

Zimmerman should have never left his vehicle, SIMPLE as that!

Are you saying that someone FOLLOWING you is sufficient cause to defend yourself with violence?

..and no, it's NOT "simple as that".. that is your OPINION.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Maybe he did, and maybe he did no. Without witnessing the event, and without more evidence - we cannot make a concrete determination.

However, the question is not "Did Martin commit a crime?", the question is "Did Zimmerman act in self defense?"

Believe it or not, both may have acted in self defense under the letter of law. Most self defense laws contain phrases such as "reasonable fear" - not about "technical danger". It is within the realm of possibility that neither individual broke the law.

Hadnt thought of that, great point

 

[357 Terms]

Are you saying that someone FOLLOWING you is sufficient cause to defend yourself with violence?

I have never said that.

I personally would view someone following me as a threat!

Like I have said in MANY previous posts..I would confront anyone following me!

certainly not in the manner Martin did, but I would confront him none the less.

Both are guilty of poor judgement.

 

[griffin]

I personally would view someone following me as a threat!

Then you certainly wouldn't circle back around and confront the threat who was returning to his car. I'm sure you would get as far away as possible.

 

[youngda9]

...Youngda9 claimed that the back of his head required stitches which is simply untrue...

My bad. I thought I heard that at one point. Doesn't change anything though...he was still bashed and beaten with a bloody cut on the back of his head, a broken nose and black eye(s), no scars on his knuckles and Treyvon had not been hit according to the coroner report.

Following, confronting, talking, even screaming at someone does not justify the type of force that Treyvon laid down on Zimmerman...it was deadly force(no doubt Zimmerman thought so at the time), people have been killed by much less things.

If Treyvon, the skinny young football player, felt threatened by Zimmerman, the older heavier guy, they Treyvon could've lost him EASILY. Treyvon decided to attack IMO (haven't heard any evidence otherwise).

Bad situation all around.

 

[jbombelli]

I have never said that.

I personally would view someone following me as a threat!

Like I have said in MANY previous posts..I would confront anyone following me!

certainly not in the manner Martin did, but I would confront him none the less.

Both are guilty of poor judgement.

Both are guilty of poor judgment. But one of them threw the first punch. From all accounts, that was MARTIN. Throwing the first punch is NOT self defense. EVEN if he WAS defending himself, once you've gotten the best of the other guy (i.e. knocking him down), you can't jump on him to finish the job or keep beating on him. Once you do that, you cross the line from defending yourself to something more. That something more is NOT SELF DEFENSE.

 

[youngda9]

Both are guilty of poor judgment. But one of them threw the first punch. From all accounts, that was MARTIN. Throwing the first punch is NOT self defense. EVEN if he WAS defending himself, once you've gotten the best of the other guy (i.e. knocking him down), you can't jump on him to finish the job or keep beating on him. Once you do that, you cross the line from defending yourself to something more. That something more is NOT SELF DEFENSE.

+1

 

[357 Terms]

Nobody is defending Martins actions, least of all me. Unfortunatly we don't have (and never will) his version.

We do have Zimmermans, and he is a known liar (his bond was revoked for just that reason).

Nobody really knows for sure how the initial confrontation went down, witness accounts vary and Zimmermans integrity is sheeut.

What we do know for sure is that Zimmerman initiated a sequence of events that led to him shooting someone.

I carry a gun for SD, in case me or my family is ever confronted or faced with a threat.

I don't carry to back my ass up when I am playing cop.

What is that saying?..

"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes"