Trayvon Martin Vs. George Zimmerman

[jimnyc]

LuvRPgrl and Logroller are volunteering to have a debate pertaining to this shooting, based on the facts presented thus far.

'Martin was unarmed when he was shot and killed by Zimmerman; thus, it's murder'

The bold above will be the premise for the debate. Logroller will be arguing from the Zimmerman side and Luv will be going forward arguing for murder charges. This debate will be a total of 10 posts, 5 posts per participant, so make them count! Once the debate is completed, we will open it up to a friendly vote. The voting will be up for 2 weeks (and more) but after 2 weeks, the loser must interview the winner!

We are going to allow Logroller to start with his 1st post and outline his argument for why he believes Zimmerman is justified in his shooting.

** Reminder - this is to remain just between these two. Nobody else should be replying in this thread. Any replies outside of these 2 will be deleted and the offender will be banned from this section of the board. **

The floor is yours, Log...

[logroller]

Thanks Jim.
Let me begin by stating the obvious-- this was a tragedy. I think I speak for everyone familiar with this case when I say it could have, and should have been avoided. Though my opponent will try to vilify George Zimmerman's lawful actions, I will show that Zimmerman was wholly within his legal rights during that fateful night, and it was Trayvon Martin's unlawful and violent actions which led directly to the night's tragic conclusion.

In this forum it is you, the reader, who shall be the jurist; you shall consider the available evidence to reach a conclusion at the end of this debate. There will be evidence presented concerning the actions of Zimmerman leading up the shooting; and though you may not have taken the same action under the same circumstance, that does not make the actions any less reasonable in the eyes of the law. The evidence will show that George Zimmerman acted upon an open and honest concern for the safety of his community, and for this alone, he was maliciously attacked by Trayvon Martin.

Upon asking what Martin was doing, Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and pounced on him, pinning Zimmerman on his back. A witness hears Zimmerman's cries for help, but no one intervened-- Martin continued the onslaught. Defenseless, bloodied and under attack, Zimmerman was faced with a decision that no one wants to make; poised to defend his own life, he acted in self-defense.

[LuvRPgrl]

Welcome to my esteemed colleagues.!
I have a few questions for LR.
To make sure we are on the same page, I would like to have you present as detailed a description of what you think happened, based solely on what GZ has claimed happened.
Did GZ claim he lost site of TM?
DID TM fall GZ with one punch?
Did TM have his knees on GZ's arms when GZ pulled his gun from his holster.?
What is the order of which direction each party was going from when GZ got out of his vehicle, until they were actually fighting?
LASTLY, why was the chief of police, and the state attorney at the scene on a sunday evening, which is almost unprecedented, if you, or, if you dont know why, what would be your best idea(S_) why?
Oh, and how many miles is it to the moon,
and why do they call them cookies, when you bake them, you dont cook them?



Thanks Jim.
Let me begin by stating the obvious-- this was a tragedy. I think I speak for everyone familiar with this case when I say it could have, and should have been avoided. Though my opponent will try to vilify George Zimmerman's lawful actions, I will show that Zimmerman was wholly within his legal rights during that fateful night, and it was Trayvon Martin's unlawful and violent actions which led directly to the night's tragic conclusion.

In this forum it is you, the reader, who shall be the jurist; you shall consider the available evidence to reach a conclusion at the end of this debate. There will be evidence presented concerning the actions of Zimmerman leading up the shooting; and though you may not have taken the same action under the same circumstance, that does not make the actions any less reasonable in the eyes of the law. The evidence will show that George Zimmerman acted upon an open and honest concern for the safety of his community, and for this alone, he was maliciously attacked by Trayvon Martin.

Upon asking what Martin was doing, Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and pounced on him, pinning Zimmerman on his back. A witness hears Zimmerman's cries for help, but no one intervened-- Martin continued the onslaught. Defenseless, bloodied and under attack, Zimmerman was faced with a decision that no one wants to make; poised to defend his own life, he acted in self-defense.

[logroller]

Welcome to my esteemed colleagues.!
I have a few questions for LR.
To make sure we are on the same page, I would like to have you present as detailed a description of what you think happened, based solely on what GZ has claimed happened.

hmm. Well, I don't represent Zimmerman, himself, and have no direct contact with him regarding his version of what happened. I'm not privy to anything more than you are. For an abundance of reasons, the burden of proving one guilty of a crime is upon the person who claims it is so; not the other way around. But in the interest of discovery, here's a tidbit.

Zimmerman's accountAccording to the Sentinel, here is what police disclosed to the newspaper:
Zimmerman was on his way to a grocery store when he saw Martin walking through his gated community.
Martin was visiting his father's fiancee, who lived there. Zimmerman called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Martin as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.
Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Martin on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman whether he was following the teenager, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.
There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.
Zimmerman told them he had lost sight of Martin and was walking back to his SUV when Martin approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words. Martin asked Zimmerman whether he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police.
Martin then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose.
Zimmerman fell, and Martin got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, Zimmerman told police. Zimmerman began yelling for help.
Several witnesses heard those cries, and there has been a dispute about from whom they came: Zimmerman or Martin.
Attorneys for Martin's family say Martin was the one yelling, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman. One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Martin on top, pounding him, and the witness was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.
Zimmerman then shot Martin once in the chest from very close range, authorities said, according to the Sentinel.
When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody cuts on the back of his head. Paramedics gave him first aid, but he said no to going to the hospital. He got medical care the next day.http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/police-leak-details-of-george-zimmermans-account-of-trayvon-martin-shooting/1222087


...
LASTLY, why was the chief of police, and the state attorney at the scene on a sunday evening, which is almost unprecedented, if you, or, if you dont know why, what would be your best idea(S_) why?
...
I care not to speculate upon any specific authority's involvement. If you feel it is germane to the discussion, state why you think it is so. Make your case; I can't do it for you!

[LuvRPgrl]

OK, so we have a basis from which to work. I think its important with a limited number of posts.
As for burden of proof, thats a bit tricky in this case, as to who the burden is on.
Because "stand your ground" is an affirmative defense, the shooter has to give su;fficient reason for having shot the person.

Now, for our purpose, I think it would be save to say that if anyone is reading this, then simply persuading them to believe Zimmerman did, or did not act in self defense, is enough.
Neither of us will be able to "prove" anything, partly because we are not privy to much of the evidence and investigation.

But to say, with our limited info, a person can ask themselves, after reading all the posts,,,"Do I think it was more likely or not, or less likely than not, that Zimmerman was acting in self defense. Which is more likely to have happened.

If Zimmerman lied in his description given to the police so far, then that would pretty much seal the case that he was not within the law of "defending himself", but instead acted in wreckless abandon without proper consideration for the safety of the person he was chasing.
The only reason Zimmerman would lie is because he knows that the truth will convict him, its the only reason he would have for lying.
Hence, Zimmerman lying = zimmerman guilty.



hmm. Well, I don't represent Zimmerman, himself, and have no direct contact with him regarding his version of what happened. I'm not privy to anything more than you are. For an abundance of reasons, the burden of proving one guilty of a crime is upon the person who claims it is so; not the other way around. But in the interest of discovery, here's a tidbit.

Zimmerman's accountAccording to the Sentinel, here is what police disclosed to the newspaper:
Zimmerman was on his way to a grocery store when he saw Martin walking through his gated community.
Martin was visiting his father's fiancee, who lived there. Zimmerman called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Martin as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.
Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Martin on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman whether he was following the teenager, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.
There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.
Zimmerman told them he had lost sight of Martin and was walking back to his SUV when Martin approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words. Martin asked Zimmerman whether he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police.
Martin then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose.
Zimmerman fell, and Martin got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, Zimmerman told police. Zimmerman began yelling for help.
Several witnesses heard those cries, and there has been a dispute about from whom they came: Zimmerman or Martin.
Attorneys for Martin's family say Martin was the one yelling, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman. One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Martin on top, pounding him, and the witness was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.
Zimmerman then shot Martin once in the chest from very close range, authorities said, according to the Sentinel.
When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody cuts on the back of his head. Paramedics gave him first aid, but he said no to going to the hospital. He got medical care the next day.http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...ooting/1222087 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/police-leak-details-of-george-zimmermans-account-of-trayvon-martin-shooting/1222087)



I care not to speculate upon any specific authority's involvement. If you feel it is germane to the discussion, state why you think it is so. Make your case; I can't do it for you!

Regarding the issue of the chief of police, and the STATE ATTORNEY going to the scene of the crime is a strong indication that something odd was going on. The highest prosecutor of the state of tens of millions of people does not, DOES NOT show up at a murder scene of two unkowns, so to speak, AND ESPECIALLY ON A SUNDAY NIGHT.

The most plausable explanation is that they were called by someone aware of the incident, and went to protect one of the persons involved. Otherwise, there is no reasonable explanation that anyone has come up with to explain the presence of the state attorney, and chief of police.

The reason I mention this is because the lead detective on the case was quoted as saying, he didnt believe all of Zimmermans story, and wanted to arrest him.
Many questions arise as to how the police handled the investigation.

WHAT A POLICE DEPT WOULD DO WHEN INVESTIGATING A POSSIBLE MURDER, SIMPLY BECAUSE ITS BASIC PROTOCOL.

Canvass the neighborhood and interview ALL persons
who had any input as to what happened. SANFORD POLICE DID NOT INTERVIEW MANY WITNESSES, EVEN WHEN THE WITNESSES CONTACTED THE POLICE DEPT.


Do a toxicology on both the shooter and the victim. THEY FAILED TO DO SO
Take pics of anyone who claimed to have been beaten. THEY FAILED TO DO SO
Even if no arrest is made, interogate the person who did
the actual shooting, it is routine. THEY FAILED TO DO SO,.
Lie detector test THEY FAILED TO DO SO.
Take pics of the dead persons body. THEY FAILED TO DO SO

DID THEY CONFISCATE FOR EVIDENCE:
THE GUN `````````` `NO.
SHOOTERS SUPPOSED BLOODY CLOTHES NO.
CELL PHONES NO.

What physical evidence did they confiscate? None that I know of.

Because of this, any idea that since the cops didnt arrest or charge Zimmerman, is a strong indication he didnt do it, and that there was no reason to believe he did.

next post, Im going to explore how the physical altercation went, according to zimmerman, so if there is anything you want to add or subtract , for any reason whatsoever, to the explanation Zimmerman gave above, I would appreciate it if you do so now.
I know you probably wont want to change anything, but I needed to ask, so that if and when, I expose part or all of that statement to be in error or implausable, you cannot go and retract what was said, and continually change the story as you would need to.

Lastly, for now, the only evidence or information that shows zimmerman acted in self defense is his statement, and the statement of one eyewitness, whose statement is also very suspect as to being true or accurate, and, if in fact it does exist, his wounds on nose and head.

[logroller]

OK, so we have a basis from which to work. I think its important with a limited number of posts.
As for burden of proof, thats a bit tricky in this case, as to who the burden is on.
Because "stand your ground" is an affirmative defense, the shooter has to give su;fficient reason for having shot the person.
Not tricky at all. Burden of proof is on the accuser. As to stand your ground; I never stated stand your ground applied; rather, it was just self-defense, with no consideration of stand your ground. The only way stand your ground would apply were if Martin would have assaulted him, and Zimmerman gave chase. All accounts indicate it was one physical altercation. So stand your ground doesn't apply.



Now, for our purpose, I think it would be save to say that if anyone is reading this, then simply persuading them to believe Zimmerman did, or did not act in self defense, is enough.
Neither of us will be able to "prove" anything, partly because we are not privy to much of the evidence and investigation.

But to say, with our limited info, a person can ask themselves, after reading all the posts,,,"Do I think it was more likely or not, or less likely than not, that Zimmerman was acting in self defense. Which is more likely to have happened.
Well, that's not really the way crimes are decided-- its beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense; not likelihood that it wasn't.

IF Zimmerman lied in his description given to the police so far, then that would pretty much seal the case that he was not within the law of "defending himself", but instead acted in wreckless abandon without proper consideration for the safety of the person he was chasing.
The only reason Zimmerman would lie is because he knows that the truth will convict him, its the only reason he would have for lying.
Hence, Zimmerman lying = zimmerman guilty.

"If"....I've yet to see ANYTHING which indicates he lied. Hypotheticals can be fun. If you were getting your head bashed in to the pavement... would you feel you were facing great bodily injury? I'll reuse this 'If x is false..' logic though, stay tuned.



Regarding the issue of the chief of police, and the STATE ATTORNEY going to the scene of the crime is a strong indication that something odd was going on. The highest prosecutor of the state of tens of millions of people does not, DOES NOT show up at a murder scene of two unkowns, so to speak, AND ESPECIALLY ON A SUNDAY NIGHT.

The most plausable explanation is that they were called by someone aware of the incident, and went to protect one of the persons involved. Otherwise, there is no reasonable explanation that anyone has come up with to explain the presence of the state attorney, and chief of police.

The reason I mention this is because the lead detective on the case was quoted as saying, he didnt believe all of Zimmermans story, and wanted to arrest him.


The most plausible explanation would be that the State Attorney is responsible for criminal prosecution in the State of Florida; naturally, they would be called by someone aware; like, the police. I say, would be, because my opponent's above argument is speculation based on blatant falsities. The quote of a lead detective which he's referring to was a letter from Martin's family; which is without foundation. The accusations of a meeting where the lead detective was overruled by the State Attorney is outrightly false; and letters written by the initial State Attorney to the Florida Dept of Justice have stated NO SUCH MEETING TOOK PLACE.
Trayvon Martin’s parents allege in a letter sent to the U.S. Department of Justice that Brevard-Seminole State Attorney Norm Wolfinger met with the Sanford police chief within hours of the teen’s death and that together they overruled a detective’s recommendation that the shooter, George Zimmerman, be charged with manslaughter. The letter claims a lead investigator filed an affidavit stating that he didn’t find Zimmerman’s story credible.

The prosecutor, Norm Wolfinger, called the allegations “lies” and said no meeting took place.“I’m outraged by the outright lies contained in the letter,” Wolfinger said in a statement. “I encourage the Justice Department to investigate and document that no such meeting or communication occurred.” http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/20120403/NEWS01/304030031/Wolfinger-outraged-over-allegations-letter-from-Trayvon-Martin-s-parents

Many questions arise as to how the police handled the investigation.

Questions, or blind allegations-- let's see.


WHAT A POLICE DEPT WOULD DO WHEN INVESTIGATING A POSSIBLE MURDER, SIMPLY BECAUSE ITS BASIC PROTOCOL.

Canvass the neighborhood and interview ALL persons
who had any input as to what happened. SANFORD POLICE DID NOT INTERVIEW MANY WITNESSES, EVEN WHEN THE WITNESSES CONTACTED THE POLICE DEPT.


Do a toxicology on both the shooter and the victim. THEY FAILED TO DO SO
Take pics of anyone who claimed to have been beaten. THEY FAILED TO DO SO
Even if no arrest is made, interogate the person who did
the actual shooting, it is routine. THEY FAILED TO DO SO,.
Lie detector test THEY FAILED TO DO SO.
Take pics of the dead persons body. THEY FAILED TO DO SO

DID THEY CONFISCATE FOR EVIDENCE:
THE GUN `````````` `NO.
SHOOTERS SUPPOSED BLOODY CLOTHES NO.
CELL PHONES NO.

What physical evidence did they confiscate? None that I know of.

Of course there are limited amounts of information made public during the course of an investigation, but some things were. I don't know what "many" witnesses means to you; but the police report (http://mit.zenfs.com/102/2012/04/69081607-29132322.pdf) listed 6 witnesses, which is more than few IMO, 'many' I would say is more accurate. It also stated the gun WAS taken into evidence. He WAS taken back to the police station for questioning; remember that surveillance video from the police dept? SO to apply your, IF X is false, logic-- none of your accusations are to be taken seriously. And a lie detector test??? Police don't give lie detector tests--- EVER. Only persons applying for high-level public law enforcement are given polygraphs. I suppose since he wasn't water-boarded either; they police haven't done their job.:rolleyes:


... any idea that since the cops didnt arrest or charge Zimmerman, is a strong indication he didnt do it, and that there was no reason to believe he did.

Excellent closing argument there.


next post, Im going to explore how the physical altercation went, according to zimmerman, so if there is anything you want to add or subtract , for any reason whatsoever, to the explanation Zimmerman gave above, I would appreciate it if you do so now.
I know you probably wont want to change anything, but I needed to ask, so that if and when, I expose part or all of that statement to be in error or implausable, you cannot go and retract what was said, and continually change the story as you would need to.
Here we go-- more speculation on how those who actually witnessed the events with their own eyes are wrong. I need not fabricate stories as my opponent does; I speak only to the available facts and common sense!

Lastly, for now, the only evidence or information that shows zimmerman acted in self defense is his statement, and the statement of one eyewitness, whose statement is also very suspect as to being true or accurate, and, if in fact it does exist, his wounds on nose and head.

The only thing is A, ...and B....oh yea, and C... if you want to believe the police report.

[jimnyc]

It appears this debate has hit a snag and finished prematurely. I'll put up a vote anyway so that members can vote on what they saw thus far and who they think better proved their case...