• 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!

Why do they seem so determined to also make it racial?

Where Obama blew it on his analysis of the GZ/TM situation was in acknowedging that race should have been involved in the dicussion at all.
Meh, it was already involved. Race became involved long before Obama weighed in.

To have a truley "post racial" society one must look at this case as the jury did - a case involving an aggressor and a defender.
I agree completely. But we don't have a post racial society. And both sides are responsible for continuing the problem.

This was not some pre-arranged fight, as portrayed by many the media (and the prosecution), in which one party had the advantage of being legally armed and thus that fact alone establishes their intention of killing someone.
I agree with this as well. But at the same time, I think we would both agree there's a strong possibility had Zimmerman not been armed, there would not have been an altercation at all.

The problem I have with the entire situation is the idea a civilian can kill another civilian legally. It's a tough position, because Zimmerman very well could have feared for his own life. I do not discount that fact at all. But at the same time, Zimmerman still pursued Martin and Zimmerman still killed someone. The idea of following and killing someone being legal is just tough to swallow. I'm not sure if I can provide a better alternative, but it still doesn't sit well.
 
Meh, it was already involved. Race became involved long before Obama weighed in.

The FBI determined that there was no racial motivation.

The problem I have with the entire situation is the idea a civilian can kill another civilian legally.

You cannot be serious.

The idea of following and killing someone being legal is just tough to swallow.

There's nothing wrong with following a stranger in the neighborhood to see what they are up to. If that person attacks, one may defend themself.
 
The FBI determined that there was no racial motivation.
But the media did. We can discuss the technicalities or we can discuss the realities.

You cannot be serious.
I am. As should any citizen.

There's nothing wrong with following a stranger in the neighborhood to see what they are up to. If that person attacks, one may defend themself.
There's something wrong with following someone which results in the engagement of two people with one killing another.

Obviously one should have the right to defend themselves should they feel as if their life is threatened. But a boy DIED. This cannot be overlooked. It simply does not sit well with me the idea I could follow someone, engage in an altercation and then kill someone legally. Like I said, I don't know if I can solve the problem. But there's something which just seems wrong about it as well.
 
But a boy DIED. This cannot be overlooked.

Who overlooked that? No one. Cease the hysteria.

It simply does not sit well with me the idea I could follow someone, engage in an altercation and then kill someone legally.

There's nothing wrong with following a stranger in ones neighborhood. If that stranger attacks, blow the mother****er away.
 
Who overlooked that? No one. Cease the hysteria.
You seem to be. You seem to say it's okay for a boy to die as long as certain conditions are met legally.

There's nothing wrong with following a stranger in ones neighborhood. If that stranger attacks, blow the mother****er away.
...I'm just going to let this statement speak for itself. People who love guns more than people will agree with you. People who love people more than guns will disagree with you. That's really all there is to it.


EDIT: To be clear, I'm not passing judgment so much as I am simply stating the two different sides.
 
Who overlooked that? No one. Cease the hysteria.



There's nothing wrong with following a stranger in ones neighborhood. If that stranger attacks, blow the mother****er away.

It never ceases to amaze me that merely being observed and followed is seen as justification for a violent attack yet being violently attacked is not seen as justification for armed self defense.
 
You seem to be. You seem to say it's okay for a boy to die as long as certain conditions are met legally.

...I'm just going to let this statement speak for itself. People who love guns more than people will agree with you. People who love people more than guns will disagree with you. That's really all there is to it.


EDIT: To be clear, I'm not passing judgment so much as I am simply stating the two different sides.

People who think that violent attacks are warranted for being followed love violence as a solution to a perceived problem, people who view responding to violence with greater violence as a right of self defense love being left unattacked. Two different sides indeed. ;)
 
Bottom line from lib/msm point of view:

1. White/Hispanic man kills black teen in self defense= Racially motivated killing

2. Black teens kills white men riding bike/going to Eagle Lodge= Gang violence & need for gun control
 
You seem to be. You seem to say it's okay for a boy to die as long as certain conditions are met legally. .

I am saying it's ok to kill a boy under certain circumstances. As such, how could I be overlooking that a boy died. I mean, come on, it's right there.


...I'm just going to let this statement speak for itself. People who love guns more than people will agree with you. People who love people more than guns will disagree with you. That's really all there is to it.


EDIT: To be clear, I'm not passing judgment so much as I am simply stating the two different sides.

It has nothing to do with loving objects. You're just demonizing. I has to do with it being legal to defend oneself. It seems to me that you think people should be able to attack others without legal provocation and the ambushed are not allowed to defend themselves.

I don't love guns. I do follow 6'1 male strangers in my neighborhood to see what they are up to. If I'm attacked for being a concerned neighbor, I will use any and all force to defend myself.
 
I am saying it's ok to kill a boy under certain circumstances. As such, how could I be overlooking that a boy died. I mean, come on, it's right there.
No, that's not how I meant it. I meant you seem to not have any regards for the life being taken. As if we should just ignore this was a human being, with parents and other family who loved him. With friends who care about him. That's the part which cannot be overlooked.

Trayvon Martin is dead. His parents will never get him back. His friends will never get to talk to him again. We cannot simply say, "well, he attacked so the mother f***er deserved to die". There has to be more human compassion.

It has nothing to do with loving objects.
I think you're kidding yourself if you believe that. I think you're kidding yourself if you don't believe much of the support for George Zimmerman (besides the racial element) was based around the fact he used a gun, a legally concealed carry firearm, to slay the boy.

I has to do with it being legal to defend oneself.
Which I've already said is why it makes it SO difficult.

It seems to me that you think people should be able to attack others without legal provocation and the ambushed are not allowed to defend themselves.
It seems to me you haven't read my posts very well.
 
No, that's not how I meant it. I meant you seem to not have any regards for the life being taken. As if we should just ignore this was a human being, with parents and other family who loved him. With friends who care about him. That's the part which cannot be overlooked.

No one overlooks that. Stop demonizing others.

Trayvon Martin is dead. His parents will never get him back. His friends will never get to talk to him again. We cannot simply say, "well, he attacked so the mother f***er deserved to die". There has to be more human compassion.

Emotional much? No one is saying he deserved to die. People are saying he deserved to get shot, and they're correct.

I think you're kidding yourself if you believe that. I think you're kidding yourself if you don't believe much of the support for George Zimmerman was based around the fact he used a gun, a legally concealed carry firearm, to slay the boy.

Again with the demonizing? Why can't you accept the stated positions of others? Why do you need to assign BS motives to people with different perspectives.

Which I've already said is why it makes it SO difficult.

You don't believe you have a right to defend yourself?

It seems to me you haven't read my posts very well.

I'm not the one discarding the stated motives of others and substituting BS demonization.
 
No one overlooks that. Stop demonizing others.



Emotional much? No one is saying he deserved to die. People are saying he deserved to get shot, and they're correct.



Again with the demonizing? Why can't you accept the stated positions of others? Why do you need to assign BS motives to people with different perspectives.



You don't believe you have a right to defend yourself?



I'm not the one discarding the stated motives of others and substituting BS demonization.


The bolded question is one that I have asked previously but nobody seems to want to answer it and the prosecution certainly didn't bring it up in the Zimmerman-Martin instance. My version of it - Didn't Trayvon have the right to "Stand his Ground"? Zimmerman was openly carrying his weapon. Don't you think Trayvon could have felt threatened and thought that attacking before the gun could be drawn was needed?

Under Florida's law, one only has to feel threatened to take deadly action against another person(s)
 
The bolded question is one that I have asked previously but nobody seems to want to answer it and the prosecution certainly didn't bring it up in the Zimmerman-Martin instance. My version of it - Didn't Trayvon have the right to "Stand his Ground"? Zimmerman was openly carrying his weapon. Don't you think Trayvon could have felt threatened and thought that attacking before the gun could be drawn was needed?

Under Florida's law, one only has to feel threatened to take deadly action against another person(s)

Being followed, as a 6' male stranger in a neighborhood, at 7pm, roadside, is not justification to attack someone. Trayvon has no reasonable belief that he was about to be attacked.

I can't believe that people would propose being followed under such circumstance is justification to attack someone. That's crazy.

Can I go to a neighborhood and when someone follows me attack them? Obviously not.
 
Being followed, as a 6' male stranger in a neighborhood, at 7pm, roadside, is not justification to attack someone. Trayvon has no reasonable belief that he was about to be attacked.

I can't believe that people would propose being followed under such circumstance is justification to attack someone. That's crazy.


Floridians have shot people in their driveways when the person had simply made a mistake in turning into the wrong one.

Have you seen the paths taken by Zimmerman and Martin? George was doing a lot more than simply following along the "roadside". Anyway the case has been decided and it will be discussed with no change in the jury's decision.

The 2011 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI

CRIMES

Chapter 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE​
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
 
Floridians have shot people in their driveways when the person had simply made a mistake in turning into the wrong one.

Have you seen the paths taken by Zimmerman and Martin? George was doing a lot more than simply following along the "roadside". Anyway the case has been decided and it will be discussed with no change in the jury's decision.

Yeah, I'll go to the hood in the early evening and when someone follows me I'll attack them. And you'll defend me, right?

hahaha
 
What does that have to do with the Trayvon Martin case? or with my questions?

It has to do with your ridiculous idea that being followed in a neighborhood, roadside at 7pm, is justification to attack someone.

If I can't do that, why can Trayvon? I could go to a neighborhood any day and be followed (because I'm a stranger and concerned neighbors wanna check out what I'm up to), does that justify me attacking people? Of course not.
 
No one overlooks that. Stop demonizing others.
But you are overlooking that, or more appropriately, sweeping it under the rug. It's okay to kill a "mother f***ker" and everyone should be fine with it. That's your entire premise.

Emotional much?
Damn straight. The question is why aren't you more emotional about the fact a young man lost his life? Do you have such little regard for human life and those affected by his death?

No one is saying he deserved to die.
Yes you are! That's exactly what you're saying.

People are saying he deserved to get shot, and they're correct.
Oh...right. Because as we all know there's a very low chance of death from being shot at point blank range. :roll:

Again with the demonizing? Why can't you accept the stated positions of others?
Do you realize how ironic this comment is coming from you, the person who started the argument with me and consistently ignores my position so you can argue?

You don't believe you have a right to defend yourself?

I'm not the one discarding the stated motives of others and substituting BS demonization.
No, you're the one who is just ignoring exactly what I said. I'll post it again, just for you.

The problem I have with the entire situation is the idea a civilian can kill another civilian legally. It's a tough position, because Zimmerman very well could have feared for his own life. I do not discount that fact at all. But at the same time, Zimmerman still pursued Martin and Zimmerman still killed someone. The idea of following and killing someone being legal is just tough to swallow. I'm not sure if I can provide a better alternative, but it still doesn't sit well.

Seriously, actually read it this time. And then I think we'll know who is the one doing the "substituting BS demonization".
 
It has to do with your ridiculous idea that being followed in a neighborhood, roadside at 7pm, is justification to attack someone.

If I can't do that, why can Trayvon? I could go to a neighborhood any day and be followed (because I'm a stranger and concerned neighbors wanna check out what I'm up to), does that justify me attacking people? Of course not.

Getting out of his truck and tracking down Trayvon on foot, AFTER Zimmerman was told to wait, is not doing anything by the "roadside".
 
Slyfox, everyone recognizes that a young man was killed. I'm not saying he deserved to die. He did, however, deserve to get shot. If I follow a stranger in my neighborhood to see what they're up to and he attacks me, I will use whatever force necessary to defend myself.
 
Getting out of his truck and tracking down Trayvon on foot, AFTER Zimmerman was told to wait, is not doing anything by the "roadside".

Z was told that following was not necessary after he was out of the vehicle, do try to get your facts straight. He still had every right to follow.

Again, there is nothing wrong with following a 6' male stranger in ones neighborhood to see what they're up to.
 
Slyfox, everyone recognizes that a young man was killed. I'm not saying he deserved to die.
Your quote from before suggests differently.

There's nothing wrong with following a stranger in ones neighborhood. If that stranger attacks, blow the mother****er away.

Were you wrong then or wrong now?

He did, however, deserve to get shot.
No, he did not. He did not deserve to be shot, just like Zimmerman did not deserve to be attacked. But Martin did attack Zimmerman (as best we know) and Zimmerman was LEGALLY within his rights to shoot and kill him.

But that's the part I'm talking about which is unsettling. It is legal to follow someone, get into an altercation with the unarmed minor and then kill them. As I've said before, and you seem to finally understand, I understand there's a strong possibility Zimmerman feared for his life. I'm not saying I have a better alternative to the law. I agree Zimmerman was legally within his rights. But what I am saying is there is something very unsettling about the entire case, where a man can follow and slay another legally.
 
Getting out of his truck and tracking down Trayvon on foot, AFTER Zimmerman was told to wait, is not doing anything by the "roadside".

Once again, he was already out of the vehicle when told that following was not necessary (he was not told to wait, and if he was that would not matter). Of course, he still had every right to follow a 6' male stranger in his neighborhood to ascertain the stranger's intentions.

Being on a sidewalk next to the road is still pretty much roadside. It's not like it was a female being followed in a parking lot at night downtown.

Once again, there's nothing wrong with following a 6' male in ones neighborhood to ascertain their intentions.
 
Your quote from before suggests differently.

Were you wrong then or wrong now?

I'd blow the ****er away (to use a colloquialism). I don't care whether he dies or not, that's on him.

It is legal to follow someone, get into an altercation with the unarmed minor and then kill them.

Yes. There's nothing wrong with following a 6' male in ones neighborhood to ascertain their intentions. If that person attacks, lethal force is justified.
 
I'd blow the ****er away (to use a colloquialism). I don't care whether he dies or not, that's on him.
disappointed.gif

Yes. There's nothing wrong with following a 6' male in ones neighborhood to ascertain their intentions. If that person attacks, lethal force is justified.
On a side note, why do you keep bringing up Trayvon's height? What does that have to do with anything?
 
Back
Top Bottom