• 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.

Michael Moore says Martin has right to kill Zimmerman [W: 264]

J

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Michael Moore: 'Doesn't Trayvon Martin Have the Right to Kill Zimmerman If Zimmerman Is Stalking Him?'

[video]http://www.mrctv.org/videos/michael-moore-doesnt-trayvon-martin-have-right-kill-zimmerman-if-zimmerman-stalking-him[/video]


The new "right to kill" standards of Democrats and the left is interesting. It particularly contradicts then claiming GZ committed murder under the "right to kill" standard.

Actually, there is no such thing in law as "the right to kill." There is the "right to use reasonable force," which may include "deadly force."

The infatuation with the word "kill' in relation to people the left and Democrats hate is revealing. But does Michael Moore still speak for anyone but Martians?
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Michael Moore: 'Doesn't Trayvon Martin Have the Right to Kill Zimmerman If Zimmerman Is Stalking Him?'

[video]http://www.mrctv.org/videos/michael-moore-doesnt-trayvon-martin-have-right-kill-zimmerman-if-zimmerman-stalking-him[/video]


The new "right to kill" standards of Democrats and the left is interesting. It particularly contradicts then claiming GZ committed murder under the "right to kill" standard.

Actually, there is no such thing in law as "the right to kill." There is the "right to use reasonable force," which may include "deadly force."

The infatuation with the word "kill' in relation to people the left and Democrats hate is revealing. But does Michael Moore still speak for anyone but Martians?
Click to expand...

Moore is a big asinine ****ing piece of ****
 
Michael Morre is for lackof a better term... An American hating communist, so what did you expect from him?
 
He's trolling the conservatives. Looks like it is working. ;)
 
Meh, nobody knows what really happened. If Zimmerman was stalking Martin with malicious intent, and attacked him, Martin would have the same right to self defense as anyone else. I don't think anyone is arguing that, which leads me to believe another lame documentary is going to be released in the near future.
 
The new "right to kill" standards of Democrats and the left is interesting. It particularly contradicts then claiming GZ committed murder under the "right to kill" standard.

Actually, there is no such thing in law as "the right to kill." There is the "right to use reasonable force," which may include "deadly force."

The infatuation with the word "kill' in relation to people the left and Democrats hate is revealing. But does Michael Moore still speak for anyone but Martians?[/QUOTE]

joko104 said:
Michael Moore: 'Doesn't Trayvon Martin Have the Right to Kill Zimmerman If Zimmerman Is Stalking Him?'

[video]http://www.mrctv.org/videos/michael-moore-doesnt-trayvon-martin-have-right-kill-zimmerman-if-zimmerman-stalking-him[/video]

How utterly stupid.. Trayvon had no right to kill, George.. Only complete idiots are anxious to kill anyone.. Either they are out of control and behaving irrationally...and there is NO evidence Trayvon was like that.
Click to expand...
 
ric27 said:
Moore is a big asinine ****ing piece of ****
Click to expand...

Grim17 said:
Michael Morre is for lackof a better term... An American hating communist, so what did you expect from him?
Click to expand...

Bi-partisan support!

Moore is a douchenozzle of epic proportions. He neither represents the left nor the Democrats.
 
joko104 said:
Michael Moore: 'Doesn't Trayvon Martin Have the Right to Kill Zimmerman If Zimmerman Is Stalking Him?'

[video]http://www.mrctv.org/videos/michael-moore-doesnt-trayvon-martin-have-right-kill-zimmerman-if-zimmerman-stalking-him[/video]


The new "right to kill" standards of Democrats and the left is interesting. It particularly contradicts then claiming GZ committed murder under the "right to kill" standard.

Actually, there is no such thing in law as "the right to kill." There is the "right to use reasonable force," which may include "deadly force."

The infatuation with the word "kill' in relation to people the left and Democrats hate is revealing. But does Michael Moore still speak for anyone but Martians?
Click to expand...

I guess when you have "more money than God," as many Hollywood types do, you're of the mistaken belief that people actually care what you think. Lokiate's nailed it. Here comes another documentary.

But, on the other hand, Michael Moore's belief that Martin could have killed Zimmerman under SYG laws and walked away has some truth to it, in my opinion. Zimmerman may or may not ask for dismissal on the basis of SYG, but if he does? I think it's pretty much a slam dunk that he'll lose...because he is seen as having "started it" AND because this case has taken on a life of its own that can only be sorted out in a courtroom.

It's not hard to imagine, though, that if Martin inflicted a one-punch homocide, he'd have walked away a free man under SYG. (I use the one-punch homocide example because Martin wasn't armed.)
 
joko104 said:
The new "right to kill" standards of Democrats and the left is interesting.
Click to expand...

You're gonna have a hard time getting the details correct with that large of a brush, lol.
 
First, what Michael Moore says doesn't matter. It doesn't reflect what liberals believe, just as what Anne Coulter says doesn't reflect what conservatives believe.

But all the replies in this thread thus far - especially the OP - completely misses the very valid point Moore is making here. He's saying that if Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force because he feared for his life, then Martin also had the right to use deadly force if he feared for his life. And that would mean that attacking Zimmerman was permissible under stand your ground law. Moore isn't saying Martin should have tried to kill Zimmerman, he's pointing out how dumb it is to believe that Zimmerman acted properly as the defense for him would imply that if Martin did indeed fear for his safety, attacking Zimmerman was lawful and justified, yet then caused Zimmerman to fear for his own safety and thus it was then lawful and proper for him to kill Martin. I agree with him on that, it's a stupid idea to permit killing somebody as a preventative measure. And it's a stupid idea because it's like saying that any time two people get into an altercation, they then have the right to kill each other, like it's a showdown right then and there. Ridiculous.
 
Mustachio said:
But all the replies in this thread thus far - especially the OP - completely misses the very valid point Moore is making here. He's saying that if Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force because he feared for his life, then Martin also had the right to use deadly force if he feared for his life.
Click to expand...
And under the law he is incorrect.
Which makes you incorrect.

Under the circumstances as known, Trayvon could not have killed Zimmerman and claimed SYG.
 
joko104 said:
Michael Moore: 'Doesn't Trayvon Martin Have the Right to Kill Zimmerman If Zimmerman Is Stalking Him?'

[video]http://www.mrctv.org/videos/michael-moore-doesnt-trayvon-martin-have-right-kill-zimmerman-if-zimmerman-stalking-him[/video]


The new "right to kill" standards of Democrats and the left is interesting. It particularly contradicts then claiming GZ committed murder under the "right to kill" standard.

Actually, there is no such thing in law as "the right to kill." There is the "right to use reasonable force," which may include "deadly force."

The infatuation with the word "kill' in relation to people the left and Democrats hate is revealing. But does Michael Moore still speak for anyone but Martians?
Click to expand...
Despite Moore's poor choice of words, I think he makes a fair point overall. What is lost in this debate is that Martin may very well have been acting completely reasonably himself. And if that is the case, who is at fault for this death? If the fault is on neither Martin nor Zimmerman, because they were both acting in good faith in self defense, then the problem would seem to be with the law/system that doesn't do enough to discourage instigating these types of encounters.
 
Sarcogito said:
He's trolling the conservatives. Looks like it is working. ;)
Click to expand...

:lol: Didn't even have to look at the "lean" section to see who the Conservatives were. "Ooh! Michael Moore is a big fat slob who hates Amurrica and is a Communist!"

Same old song, different day. "I Hate Michael Moore = I love Amurrica."
 
Excon said:
And under the law he is incorrect.
Which makes you incorrect.

Under the circumstances as known, Trayvon could not have killed Zimmerman and claimed SYG.
Click to expand...

we KNOW that GZ angrily pursued TM in the dark & rain.

we KNOW that TM asked him "why are you following me?", and GZ refused to answer this simple & honest question.

we KNOW that GZ reached into his pocket after refusing to answer this simple & honest question.

Yes, TM had the right to Stand His Ground.
 
Thunder said:
we KNOW that GZ angrily pursued TM in the dark & rain.

we KNOW that TM asked him "why are you following me?", and GZ refused to answer this simple & honest question.

we KNOW that GZ reached into his pocket after refusing to answer this simple & honest question.

Yes, TM had the right to Stand His Ground.
Click to expand...
You have a mouse in your pocket that believes that same preconceived and biased narrative that you do?



Of course you are wrong!
There was no angry pursuit. :doh iLOL
Following to keep under observation until police arrive, is not even considered pursuit, but following for a legitimate purpose.

Zimmerman never refused to answer, that is your spin on it to fit your narrative.
And then presenting a question made in a hostile, belligerent and confrontational manner as being a "simple & honest question" is dishonest to an extreme.

And then a person reaching into their pocket, is not a reason to sucker punch anyone.

No! Trayvon could not claim SYG under the known circumstances.

So you can stop lying.

Trayvon came from behind and attacked Zimmerman.
SYG would not apply.
 
Superfly said:
:lol: Didn't even have to look at the "lean" section to see who the Conservatives were. "Ooh! Michael Moore is a big fat slob who hates Amurrica and is a Communist!"

Same old song, different day. "I Hate Michael Moore = I love Amurrica."
Click to expand...

The intention is not kill but to stop the threat. Lethal force is the quickest and most reliable means of eliminating the threat whenever someone presents an immediate threat to your life.... and is pinned to the degree of force, not the instrumentality.

The issue isn't whether Z stopped, the threat with a short or long weapon, a bat or a bottle of whisky but whether Z use of force tracks with his state's criteria for the use of such force.

Z fits all criteria of self defense/immunity statute in Florida
 
Thunder said:
that is a lie that not even GZ argues.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
Zimmerman indicated that Trayvon came at from the left rear.

But I do understand what you are trying to say.

You think Trayvon just sort of moseyed up to him, stopped and then asked his question.
Rest assured it didn't go down like that.

Remember, things were happening quickly.

Trayvon approached from the left rear in a hostile and aggressive manner, asking his question as he approached.
After Zimmerman provided his answer and was reaching in his pocket, Trayvon arrived and continued with a sucker punch.


Unless Zimmerman says otherwise, that is what the evidence supports.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Michael Moore: 'Doesn't Trayvon Martin Have the Right to Kill Zimmerman If Zimmerman Is Stalking Him?'

[video]http://www.mrctv.org/videos/michael-moore-doesnt-trayvon-martin-have-right-kill-zimmerman-if-zimmerman-stalking-him[/video]


The new "right to kill" standards of Democrats and the left is interesting. It particularly contradicts then claiming GZ committed murder under the "right to kill" standard.

Actually, there is no such thing in law as "the right to kill." There is the "right to use reasonable force," which may include "deadly force."

The infatuation with the word "kill' in relation to people the left and Democrats hate is revealing. But does Michael Moore still speak for anyone but Martians?
Click to expand...
Whoa whoa whoa. Damn you for putting me int he position to have to defend Michael Moores position...but how is his comment any different than those that believe Zimmerman had a right to defend himself? Trayvon Martin should ABSOLUTELY have had a right to defend himself as well...especially in light of Zimmermans actions.
 
VanceMack said:
Whoa whoa whoa. Damn you for putting me int he position to have to defend Michael Moores position...but how is his comment any different than those that believe Zimmerman had a right to defend himself? Trayvon Martin should ABSOLUTELY have had a right to defend himself as well...especially in light of Zimmermans actions.
Click to expand...

yes, even the enemy during wartime has the right to defend themselves.

and even if TM did start the fight, he still had the right to defend himself.
 
Thunder said:
yes, even the enemy during wartime has the right to defend themselves.

and even if TM did start the fight, he still had the right to defend himself.
Click to expand...

To be legally justified (M's physical attack on Z).... M had to reasonably fear an imminent attack by Z.

Wheres your evidence of that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom