• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Zim's Non-Lethal Options

Boo Radley said:
You still don't know that. You make many mistakes in your reasoning, and yes, we've covered that before.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
The mistakes in reasoning are all yours, and yes, that has already been established.

But so we can again establish that you know not of what you speak, please provide evidence of a fight.
I assure you, you can not .
The only evidence provided is that of an attack. Not a fight.

™ approached Zimmerman at a hurried pace, yelling a question at Zimmerman, and when he arrived upon him immediately struck him, knocking him to the ground.
That is an attack.
He further compounded his attack by then jumping on top of Zimmerman, hitting him and slamming his head into the ground.

This is an attack. Not a fight.

I am sure you know this, but choose to disregard it.
 
Excon said:
Wrong!
The mistakes in reasoning are all yours, and yes, that has already been established.

But so we can again establish that you know not of what you speak, please provide evidence of a fight.
I assure you, you can not .
The only evidence provided is that of an attack. Not a fight.

™ approached Zimmerman at a hurried pace, yelling a question at Zimmerman, and when he arrived upon him immediately struck him, knocking him to the ground.
That is an attack.
He further compounded his attack by then jumping on top of Zimmerman, hitting him and slamming his head into the ground.

This is an attack. Not a fight.

I am sure you know this, but choose to disregard it.
Click to expand...

We don't know that. Sorry.
 
Excon said:
:doh
That is the evidence. Nothing has been submitted to refute it. Yes we do know that.
Click to expand...
Not refuting isn't equal to it being true. You fail to grasp this simple truth.
 
Boo Radley said:
I do. They're opposed to killing.
Click to expand...

No one.... not even your local priest/reverend/rabbi has to continue to endure a beating because of an expectation that *they're opposed to killing*

The priest/reverend/rabbi's innate instinct will lead them to self-preservation and life
 
ric27 said:
No one.... not even your local priest/reverend/rabbi has to continue to endure a beating because of an expectation that *they're opposed to killing*

The priest/reverend/rabbi's innate instinct will lead them to self-preservation and life
Click to expand...

Never heard the expression "turn the other cheek"?

But you don't have to kill not to be beaten.
 
OscarB63 said:
sorry, in our justice system it is.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not. They don't declare it true. They declare unable to refute. There is a difference. Not guilty doesn't mean innocent either.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, it's not. They don't declare it true. They declare unable to refute. There is a difference. Not guilty doesn't mean innocent either.
Click to expand...

semantics..... if you cannot prove it is not true, you have to accept that it is.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
Nonsense! The defense argued Martin hit first and the prosecution argued Zim hit first.

George Zimmerman Witness Can't Say Who Threw First Punch

Pay attention.

We don't KNOW, the difference is that I know I don't know, you are just calling your opinion knowledge.
Click to expand...
:naughty
No they didn't.
The prosecution provided Zimmerman's account to the jury.
They did not argue that he hit first, nor could they.

You must be under the impression that Rachel Jeantel testified to something which she didn't and couldn't. :doh
:lamo
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
semantics..... if you cannot prove it is not true, you have to accept that it is.
Click to expand...

No, you don't. I can't prove there isn't a Santa Clause or little green vulcans running the country, but I don't have to accept there are. We only have one side of the story,and he has reason to exaggerate, if not lie. We should only take it for what it is. Nothing more. That may mean we have to say not guilty, but that doesn't equal he told the truth.
 
ecofarm said:
You think it's speculation that Martin believed a mugger/rapist/murderer was after him?
You think it's speculation that the follower was, actually, a concerned neighbor and not a mugger, rapist or murderer?

The kid freaked out and attacked a concerned neighbor. It could have happened in any neighborhood and to any concerned neighbor. It just so happens that this time the neighbor had a concealed carry permit. That's just tough luck for Martin and, I suppose, good luck for whomever might have been the target this time or next.
Click to expand...

Of course it is speculation. Do you know Zim was acting s a concerned neighbor? Of course not. Do you know what Martin thought the follower?

We KNOW very little.

Zim followed Martin out of suspicion Martin was committing crimes, an altercation ensued, Martin was killed and Zim suffered injuries that required very little medical attention.

We know more from before and after, but we know very little more about the time during the incident. Reports, recordings, and other testimony regarding the actual incident is inconclusive and contradictory.
 
Lets say we create a control test.

A Traybot gets assaulted and it does not stop until they shout stop (which will simulate using lethal force) how many do you suspect will say stop?

Now they know this is a test but to get a realistic response you will actually be trying to beat them to death. Full mount, reigning punches and elbows, slamming head against the concrete etc.

Its easy to look at his wounds now and say " oh that's not that bad" but if your Zimmerman mounted and getting punched, you don't know what Martin is capable of, at what point the assault would stop. There is no referee to pull him off when Zimmerman gets knocked out. What's to stop Martin from then going and grabbing a rock, finishing the job and then leaving him there and heading back to his house.

Fearing for your life is not just about what has happened, but what could happen next.

If he saw Martin on his phone, how did he know Martin didn't call some friends and they could come and join the fight at any minute.

Say what you will. If I get attacked by a stranger in a dark alley, I will use maximum violence to stop the assault. I did not asked to be attacked nor would I be held to some silly expectation of a fair fight.
 
Last edited:
Paratrooper said:
Lets say we create a control test.

A Traybot gets assaulted and it does not stop until they shout stop (which will simulate using lethal force) how many do you suspect will say stop?

Now they know this is a test but to get a realistic response you will actually be trying to beat them to death. Full mount, reigning punches and elbows, slamming head against the concrete etc.

Its easy to look at his wounds now and say " oh that's not that bad" but if your Zimmerman mounted and getting punched, you don't know what Martin is capable of, at what point the assault would stop. There is no referee to pull him off when Zimmerman gets knocked out. What's to stop Martin from then going and grabbing a rock, finishing the job and then leaving him there and heading back to his house.

Fearing for your life is not just about what has happened, but what could happen next.

If he saw Martin on his phone, how did he know Martin didn't call some friends and they could come and join the fight at any minute.

Say what you will. If I get attacked by a stranger in a dark alley, I will use maximum violence to stop the assault. I did not asked to be attacked nor would I be held to some silly expectation of a fair fight.
Click to expand...

How did GZ know that cupid or the police might not momentarily appear?
 
sharon said:
How did GZ know that cupid or the police might not momentarily appear?
Click to expand...

HE didn't which makes the idea that he went gunning for Martin to kill him doesn't make sense.

He would have had witness from the Sanford Pólice Department watching.
 
sharon said:
How did GZ know that cupid or the police might not momentarily appear?
Click to expand...

He didn't which makes the whole theory that he intentionally stalked and gunned Martin down absolutely ridiculous.

It seems illogical that he would observe and give directions to law enforcement they could show up and observe a crime in progress that he was about to commit.
 
Paratrooper said:
He didn't which makes the whole theory that he intentionally stalked and gunned Martin down absolutely ridiculous.

It seems illogical that he would observe and give directions to law enforcement they could show up and observe a crime in progress that he was about to commit.
Click to expand...

You said it so much better than I did.
 
note to self: If you are going out to stalk, chase down and kill an unarmed black kid....

1. don't call the police until AFTER you have committed the act. that way you have plenty of time to get your story straight before they show up and you don't run the risk of giving away your intent

2. don't allow the kid to scream for help for 40 seconds before you shoot him. that way no possible witnesses will be alerted and drawn to the scene
 
OscarB63 said:
note to self: If you are going out to stalk, chase down and kill an unarmed black kid....

1. don't call the police until AFTER you have committed the act. that way you have plenty of time to get your story straight before they show up and you don't run the risk of giving away your intent

2. don't allow the kid to scream for help for 40 seconds before you shoot him. that way no possible witnesses will be alerted and drawn to the scene
Click to expand...

Yeah! He just shoulda done a drive-by.
 
ric27 said:
Too noisy

Just get a .22 pistol with silencer and one to the head....
Click to expand...
Oh dear! I guess George just wasn't thinking.
 
hell, he could've just ran him down in the street with his truck and then claimed Trayvon darted out in from of him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom