• 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]

ric27 said:
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?
Click to expand...

WRONG.

even if TM started the physical altercation, he still had the right to defend himself.
 
Thunder said:
WRONG.

even if TM started the physical altercation, he still had the right to defend himself.
Click to expand...
As you should already know, it then becomes Self-defense, not SYG.
 
ric27 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Where is the evidence otherwise? Now...evidence aside...it is dark and you fear you are being stalked by an unknown person (and it turns out your fear is justified AND the guy happens to be armed). You REALLY want us to believe Martin didnt have a right (and reason) to be fearful, concerned, even angry?
 
Thunder said:
yes, its funny when you make statements of fact that are really speculation.
Click to expand...
Pathetic!

Now you are being dishonest.

I stated a qualifier. You neglected to quote it.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
no, that would be you...projecting again.
Click to expand...
:doh

More dishonesty on your part I see.

You again failed to quote within context.

But this is typical behavior for you, and is to be expected.
 
joko104 said:
Michael Moore: 'Doesn't Trayvon Martin Have the Right to Kill Zimmerman If Zimmerman Is Stalking Him?'
Click to expand...
Is there any sort of indication that Z was stalking M?
 
Muhammed said:
Is there any sort of indication that Z was stalking M?
Click to expand...
By Zimmermans own admission he was 'stalking' him. He states he was doing it out of a sense of civic duty...but it was nonetheless, stalking.
 
Thunder said:
you can accuse me of lying and being dishonest till the cows come home, but all it says is that you enjoy accusing people of being dishonest & lying.
Click to expand...
You were accused of lying because you were. Your claims were lies.

You were accused of being dishonest because your reply was dishonest because you did not quote the qualifier I made.


So yes, you did lie and you were being dishonest.
Stop doing those things, and you can't be accused of it.
 
Thunder said:
WRONG.

even if TM started the physical altercation, he still had the right to defend himself.
Click to expand...

M fled and was close to home....Z could retreat

Why come back and confront Z?
 
Thunder said:
he angrily pursued TM in his car and on foot.

that is stalking.
Click to expand...
There you go lying again.
There was no "angry pursuit"!


And there was no stalking.
That isn't a matter of opinion. The definitions do not apply. There was following. Not stalking.



VanceMack said:
By Zimmermans own admission he was 'stalking' him. He states he was doing it out of a sense of civic duty...but it was nonetheless, stalking.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
 
Thunder said:
he angrily pursued TM in his car and on foot.

that is stalking.
Click to expand...
Why would you presume that that's what happened?

Is there any shred of logical reasoning behind your ridiculous presumption?

If so, please do tell.
 
Excon said:
There you go lying again.
There was no "angry pursuit"!


And there was no stalking.
That isn't a matter of opinion. The definitions do not apply. There was following. Not stalking.



Wrong!
Click to expand...
I follow you...or maybe one of your children...on car and foot. How happy are you going to be about that? How comfortable are you going to be with it?
 
VanceMack said:
I follow you...or maybe one of your children...on car and foot. How happy are you going to be about that? How comfortable are you going to be with it?
Click to expand...
My happiness/unhappiness doesn't change the term or make it applicable.
 
VanceMack said:
I follow you...or maybe one of your children...on car and foot. How happy are you going to be about that? How comfortable are you going to be with it?
Click to expand...

and while you follow him, you curse him and those "like" him.

yeah, that's real comfortable.
 
Thunder said:
to ask him why he was being followed.

its an honest question, which GZ refused to answer and instead reached into his pocket.
Click to expand...

Clearly shows....M was not fearful of Z and M initiated the confrontation
 
Thunder said:
his angry state of mind is clear from the 911 tape.
Click to expand...
There is no indication of anger at all. Maybe some frustration, and that is all.
Since you know that, you are lying.
 
Thunder said:
and while you follow him, you curse him and those "like" him.

yeah, that's real comfortable.
Click to expand...
Not relevant...thats you forecasting. Trayvon Martin didnt hear those words or know his intent. He DID know he was being stalked.
 
VanceMack said:
He DID know he was being stalked.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
He knew he was being observed and followed.

The definition do not fit.
Neither the legal definition of the crime of Stalking, or the general definitions of stalking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom