• 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!

Should the Government

Should the Government have the power to take this life?

  • Yes, only if loss of life is imminent.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No.

    Votes: 19 82.6%
  • Yes, to prevent both property damage and loss of life.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No. The Government should kill the rioters. ;)

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Total voters
    23
They vowed to kill if they didn't get this person.
Me personally would wait until they did.

Well then they are subject to possible charges stemming from issuing death threats, until they actually kill there is no way to now if they would actually go through with it.

This is tyrannical and goes against our freedoms. We cannot go down this road and start issuing punishments (especially death sentences without even a whiff of due process) for potential crimes. It is absolutely tyrannical and is anathema to what our nation is founded upon.
 
Last edited:
What OUR government should be doing is excaping from the kill-kill-kill mania in which we are locked into and institute some real gun laws, keeping guns from the hands of me, the Zimmermans, and the Martins in our society.
The NRA be damned.

So what, do you expect criminals to comply with anti-gun laws? It doesn't work in Great Britain! BTW! The government has no right to take away our guns!!!
 
maybe those who riot want a real justice rather than a life and they try to attract attention of people by means of such bluff

Murdering innocent people and destroying and steal property that is not yours is akin to wanting real justice? That makes as much sense as someone beating the **** out of their spouse and saying its to speak out against spousal abuse. Or that someone is speeding and speaking out against using adequate suntan lotion. The whole Rodney King riots in LA didn't have dick to with injustices, it was the rat scum of society using what ever excuse they wanted to justify stealing property, hurting innocent people and destroying property.
 
Murdering innocent people and destroying and steal property that is not yours is akin to wanting real justice? That makes as much sense as someone beating the **** out of their spouse and saying its to speak out against spousal abuse. Or that someone is speeding and speaking out against using adequate suntan lotion. The whole Rodney King riots in LA didn't have dick to with injustices, it was the rat scum of society using what ever excuse they wanted to justify stealing property, hurting innocent people and destroying property.

but in this case , i believe that all they want is not a life but a true justice system.
 
but in this case , i believe that all they want is not a life but a true justice system.

Sure they want a "true justice system" just like the rat scum of society in LA wanted as they were looting and burning businesses, assaulting innocent people, and vandalizing property. People who do that sort of stuff do not want a "true justice" system. Its just nothing more than an excuse to cause harm to innocent people.
 
OscarB63 made the following comment in jest, and it got me wondering.
Kill Zimmermam NOW or there will be riots.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...attacked-zimmerman-2-a-40.html#post1060344097

Question.
If a person's death would prevent riots that would result in many more deaths and property damage; Should the Government have the power to take this life?
Yes, only if loss of life is imminent.
No.
Yes, to prevent both property damage and loss of life.
No. The Government should kill the rioters.​



Why?
Why not?

Not only no, but Hell NO.
Killing an individual to appease a group should never happen, without showing just cause via the legal/justice system, and that would be independent of any group pressure whatsoever. The very thought pisses me off.
 
OscarB63 made the following comment in jest, and it got me wondering.
Kill Zimmermam NOW or there will be riots.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...attacked-zimmerman-2-a-40.html#post1060344097

Question.
If a person's death would prevent riots that would result in many more deaths and property damage; Should the Government have the power to take this life?
Yes, only if loss of life is imminent.
No.
Yes, to prevent both property damage and loss of life.
No. The Government should kill the rioters.​



Why?
Why not?

What? Are you talking a hypothetical person or Zimmerman himself? If you're asking if the government should have the right to murder an individual who has not been charged or convicted of a crime just to prevent a riot, that's ludicrous. Of course the government has no such right and should never have such a right.

People who riot and cause property damage, injury, death ARE guilty of a crime. If and when they perpetrate that crime, regardless of the reason for the riot, they should be arrested and tried for those crimes. Certainly they should not be gunned down in the streets by a hail of police automatic weapons fire until no bodies are left standing or twitching.

I'm not getting the reasoning behind this OP, frankly. It's puzzling.
 
Not only no, but Hell NO.
Killing an individual to appease a group should never happen, without showing just cause via the legal/justice system, and that would be independent of any group pressure whatsoever. The very thought pisses me off.
Then be pissed off.
At some point the percentage of the populace would be too great for the Gov to refuse or end up killing them en masse.



What? Are you talking a hypothetical person or Zimmerman himself?
Although the statement made about Zimmerman was the catalyst for my question, I thought it was clear I was talking about a hypothetical.



People who riot and cause property damage, injury, death ARE guilty of a crime. If and when they perpetrate that crime, regardless of the reason for the riot, they should be arrested and tried for those crimes. Certainly they should not be gunned down in the streets by a hail of police automatic weapons fire until no bodies are left standing or twitching.

I'm not getting the reasoning behind this OP, frankly. It's puzzling.
Actually I am glad you are puzzled.

At some percentage point the Gov. would have to listen to the people or end up killing them en masse.
 
OscarB63 made the following comment in jest, and it got me wondering.
Kill Zimmermam NOW or there will be riots.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...attacked-zimmerman-2-a-40.html#post1060344097

Question.
If a person's death would prevent riots that would result in many more deaths and property damage; Should the Government have the power to take this life?
Yes, only if loss of life is imminent.
No.
Yes, to prevent both property damage and loss of life.
No. The Government should kill the rioters.​



Why?
Why not?

absolutely not!

Sent from my YP-G1 using Tapatalk. My YP-G1 is a very nice device that hardly ever explodes or shoots jets of burning acid at my face. Samsung has done a good job in that respect in building it. However one has to consider hamsters in regard to android as cyborg hamsters are very cool. Imagine how fast an Android hamster could run in their exercise wheel for example.
 
Then be pissed off.
At some point the percentage of the populace would be too great for the Gov to refuse or end up killing them en masse.

Then so be it. I would never support killing an innocent man to appease the masses, without due process and legitimate conviction, completely separate from the influences of the masses. This is a question of whether the end justifies the means, and the end never justifies the means if the means required are unethical.
 
Then be pissed off.
At some point the percentage of the populace would be too great for the Gov to refuse or end up killing them en masse.




Although the statement made about Zimmerman was the catalyst for my question, I thought it was clear I was talking about a hypothetical.



Actually I am glad you are puzzled.

At some percentage point the Gov. would have to listen to the people or end up killing them en masse.

The part of my post responding to that presumption is the same part of my post you chose not to quote or address:

"If you're asking if the government should have the right to murder an individual who has not been charged or convicted of a crime just to prevent a riot, that's ludicrous. Of course the government has no such right and should never have such a right."
 
Last edited:
The part of my post responding to that presumption is the same part of my post you chose not to quote or address:

"If you're asking if the government should have the right to murder an individual who has not been charged or convicted of a crime just to prevent a riot, that's ludicrous. Of course the government has no such right and should never have such a right."

Its way too easy to abuse.
 
Thatnk you all for participating in my first Poll.
It appears to me that I could have worded my question better.

What I was trying to get at was, once a situation reaches a certain point (not if that point is ever reached) the Gov has only two choices.
Abide by the people's wishes or suffer the consequences.
 
but in this case , i believe that all they want is not a life but a true justice system.

It looks to me like they don't want justice, but rather want revenge, based on an emotional reaction to a case they did not witness. This is the problem with how the media has been presenting this event from the beginning. People are making wild assumptions without having the facts of what happened.
 
What I was trying to get at was, once a situation reaches a certain point (not if that point is ever reached) the Gov has only two choices.
Abide by the people's wishes or suffer the consequences.

My personal standpoint is one of principle. We have a system of laws in this country, and the wishes of the group should never override the system of justice. Every man is entitled to his day in court, no matter how damning the anecdotal evidence or how emotionally charged the population. In this country, our justice system was devised to protect the individual, not concede to the emotions of the group.
 
It looks to me like they don't want justice, but rather want revenge, based on an emotional reaction to a case they did not witness. This is the problem with how the media has been presenting this event from the beginning. People are making wild assumptions without having the facts of what happened.

unfortunately media is the second most powerful force apart from money but it never uses its influence on people fairly.
 
unfortunately media is the second most powerful force apart from money but it never uses its influence on people fairly.

If they could leave out their biases, and stick to known facts, it would go a long way toward being journalism rather than gossip rag trash.
 
No.

Hell no.

Not under ANY circumstances.

Up to and including space aliens threatening the total destruction of the solar system unless they do.
 
Back
Top Bottom