• 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.

Let the evidence speak for itself vs Media Hype: Who wins?

Stardog said:
iLOL
Which of course is why you are responding to my commands.
Click to expand...
iLOL
Which of course is why you are responding to my commands.
 
Stardog said:
iLOL
Which of course is why you are responding to my commands.
Click to expand...
iLOL
Which of course is why you are responding to my commands.
 
Stardog said:
iLOL
Which of course is why you are responding to my commands.
Click to expand...
iLOL
Which of course is why you are responding to my commands.
 
Stardog said:
iLOL
Which of course is why you are responding to my commands.
Click to expand...
As usual, you fail again.
And even continue to tell untruths. Go figure huh?

I love it.

iLOL

You are wrong! Duh!



This is so much fun! So I will let the loser of this game he is playing to have the last word to further make himself look foolish. It is the least I can do. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
As usual, you fail again.
And even continue to tell untruths. Go figure huh?

I love it.

iLOL

You are wrong! Duh!



This is so much fun! So I will let the loser have the last word to further make himself look foolish. It is the least I can do. :lamo
Click to expand...

Fail post

No evidence presented.
 
Excon said:
:doh
iLOL

You fail again because you are wrong! As usual. Duh!



You should really try to learn the evidence before engaging your mouth with those who obviously know it better than you.
Click to expand...

Remember that here at DP, we are in the court of public opinion, NOT in an actual court.

In the court of public opinion, many people think that if GZ actually called into the police dispatcher, he was somehow or other working in concert with the police. He sort of "worked" for the police, even though a citizen, and in accordance with other such programs. So the question is raised, if GZ wasn't looking for advice or something else, why on earth did he bother to call?

You are technically correct that the phone call was unnecessary, the exchange between the dispatcher and GZ irrelevant and not compelling because it was 'advice' and not 'an order', but in the end that is pathetic reasoning considering that the end result was the death of another.
 
ric27 said:
Yes, he is entitled....

Z was in a public area *lawfully*. Z was assaulted and did nothing to provoke the assault. Z was fearful of serious bodily injury or death and had no duty to retreat

Both SYG and SD apply
Click to expand...

If GZ was stalking TM, then it seems that TM is also entitled to invoke the statute, eh?
 
Henry David said:
If GZ was stalking TM, then it seems that TM is also entitled to invoke the statute, eh?
Click to expand...

*If*....:(

There is no evidence Z was 'stalking' M.

Use the correct legal term
 
ric27 said:
*If*....:(

There is no evidence Z was 'stalking' M.

Use the correct legal term
Click to expand...

Please enlighten me sir. What IS the correct legal term?
 
"Patrolling his neighborhood"?
 
Patrolling his neighborhood in accordance with (I presume) written procedures, and against the advice of his presumed supervisor, the PD dispatcher?
 
Henry David said:
Remember that here at DP, we are in the court of public opinion, NOT in an actual court.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter, as actual facts hold sway in either setting.

Henry David said:
In the court of public opinion, many people think that if GZ actually called into the police dispatcher, he was somehow or other working in concert with the police. He sort of "worked" for the police, even though a citizen, and in accordance with other such programs.
Click to expand...
The facts say they are wrong. So it really doesn't matter if their thoughts are so convoluted they believe that crap.


Henry David said:
So the question is raised, if GZ wasn't looking for advice or something else, why on earth did he bother to call?
Click to expand...
: iLOL
Looking for advice?
How in the world do you get 'looking for advice' out of calling in to report a suspicious person?


Henry David said:
You are technically correct that the phone call was unnecessary,the exchange between the dispatcher and GZ irrelevant and not compelling because it was 'advice' and not 'an order', but in the end that is pathetic reasoning considering that the end result was the death of another.
Click to expand...
I never said it was "unnecessary". Those are your words.
And calling, what ever it is you were, "pathetic reasoning" is also ridiculous.
You do not hold people to standards they do not have to meet. Period.
Secondly, and pay attention because this goes right back to not knowing the evidence -
Zimmerman followed the suggestion and was returning to his vehicle when Trayvon came from his left rear, verbally confronted in his approach and attacked.
That is the problem that lead to his death. Trayvon's violent outburst. Not Zimmerman actions.


Henry David said:
If GZ was stalking TM, then it seems that TM is also entitled to invoke the statute, eh?
Click to expand...
There was no stalking.
Zimmerman's actions do not fit the legal definition to be stalking.
He was following.
 
Henry David said:
Patrolling his neighborhood in accordance with (I presume) written procedures, and against the advice of his presumed supervisor, the PD dispatcher?
Click to expand...
WTF?
Presumed supervisor?
WTF?
 
JackFrost said:
NW are not supposed to patrol.
Click to expand...

Not so much:

Citizen Patrols
An effective tool for some Watch programs to use is a citizen patrol. It is up to the community in conjunction with law enforcement to decide whether a patrol is needed. Citizen patrols are volunteers who walk or drive an area on a regular basis to report incidents and problems to the police and provide a visible presence that deters criminal activity. They have no policing powers, carry no weapons, are nonconfrontational, and always coordinate activities with law enforcement. A citizen patrol can cover a neighborhood, an apartment lobby or complex, a business district, or a park; some use bicycles, in-line skates, or cars to cover larger areas. They contact the police dispatcher through two-way radios or cellular phones donated by a local business. Cameras or video equipment may be used to record suspicious activity. Many patrols are based in a Neighborhood Watch program or work closely with one.
Click to expand...

Neighborhood Watch Organizer's Guide

especially armed
Click to expand...

This is true, but do you know if Zimm did patrol while armed? Is it illegal for him to patrol while armed, or just a guideline? Was Zimmerman patrolling on the day he ran into Martin?
 
buck said:
Not so much:



Neighborhood Watch Organizer's Guide



This is true, but do you know if Zimm did patrol while armed? Is it illegal for him to patrol while armed, or just a guideline? Was Zimmerman patrolling on the day he ran into Martin?
Click to expand...

Citizen patrols are volunteers who walk or drive an area on a regular basis to report incidents and problems to the police and provide a visible presence that deters criminal activity.
Click to expand...

Citizen patrol does not mean some cholo looking fool who is tatted up with gang affiliated theater masks following unarmed teenagers walking home from 7/11:lamo

New Page 2

^^That is citizen's patrol. A marked vehicle. A uniform. Yellow safety lights. Observe and report. All for the safety of the volunteer and unarmed teenagers walking home from 7/11.
 
JackFrost said:
Allegedly.
Click to expand...
No, it is not allegedly.
It is the evidence.
You have evidence that shows he wasn't?
What was that? You don't?
Then it stands. That is what he was doing.

Secondly, you said in that previous post, "NW are not supposed to patrol, especially armed.".
That just isn't true.
The patrol part was already dispatched by another, but the armed part is just wrong.

NW use guidelines not rules. So there is no "not supposed to" about it.

You have been debating this subject long enough to know that.
 
Excon said:
No, it is not allegedly.
It is the evidence.
You have evidence that shows he wasn't?
What was that? You don't?
Then it stands. That is what he was doing.

Secondly, you said in that previous post, "NW are not supposed to patrol, especially armed.".
That just isn't true.
The patrol part was already dispatched by another, but the armed part is just wrong.

NW use guidelines not rules. So there is no "not supposed to" about it.

You have been debating this subject long enough to know that.
Click to expand...

Correct, one CAN patrol with a gun, but must face the consequences for anything that happens as a result, say murdering a teenager.

An unarmed teenager walking home from 7/11 CAN be murdered you know:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom