• 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.

Blood Tells No Lies...& Gravity: Evidence Indicates GZ On Top!

mak2 said:
I have carried a firearm most of my life. When I do I dont get to make bad decisions. TM should have been able to, skittles and Dew are not that deadly. Again I know very few facts, but Zman shot TM and TM was a minor and is dead. Not much there to discuss as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

Oh how macho of you. Since you obviously don't think that you need a gun, why do you carry one?

And of course that is in the Marine manual. "Always check the age of an agressor before shooting to insure the person is at least age 18. Violation of this order will be considered murder. You may not use deadly force against any attacker who is not at least age 18 or openly displaying a weapon under any circumstance. There are no exceptions."

What page is that on again?

Apparently you carry a gun just to show it off. Most people carry a firearm in case they are violently attacked.
I think you would agree that no one should be allowed to join the military until they are at least age 20, because until then they are just "kids."
 
Last edited:
TM was not armed. Killing him takes a lot of explaining. This post is silly.
joko104 said:
Oh how macho of you. Since you obviously don't think that you need a gun, why do you carry one?

And of course that is in the Marine manual. "Always check the age of an agressor before shooting to insure the person is at least age 18. Violation of this order will be considered murder. You may not use deadly force against any attacker who is not at least age 18 or openly displaying a weapon under any circumstance. There are no exceptions."

What page is that on again?

Apparently you carry a gun just to show it off. Most people carry a firearm in case they are violently attacked.
I think you would agree that no one should be allowed to join the military until they are at least age 20, because until then they are just "kids."
Click to expand...
 
That is exactly the point. IF Zimmerman was 80 years old and the kid was trying to beat him up in his wheelchair, I too would be on Z's side, kill him. But Z is a full grown adult male, and put himself in the position. TM was not armed. How can you defend killing him? By the way, I know the same facts you do. Z killed TM, TM was unarmed and a minor. I think I have said before I would have to be in fear of my life to shoot someone, but you cant bring guns to fistfights with kids.
mike2810 said:
and the critical part of your state is " I know very few facts,".

and once again no acknowledgement that TM's decisions also led to the final outcome.

Glad to see your a responsible gun owner. Now let me ask you, if you were in an altercation that at some point you feared for your life, would you use your firearm?
Click to expand...
 
I admire Zman's patience. I would have shot that kid long before he did. The law only requires that you are in reasonable fear for your life or serious injury. The law does not require you to be taking your last breath before you fire.

Looking at the overall picture, Tvon was killed by his supporters whom we see on here, endlessly braying their message that he did nothing wrong, no matter what he did wrong, he did nothing wrong. They are enablers and encouragers of the exact type of behavior that gets people like Tvon killed. Their morally bankrupt statements encourage other kids like Tvon to follow the exact same course of action because they are excusing them up front. The tragedy is that they will never admit their culpability in this regard.

If someone such as the liberal posters on here, would have taken Tvon aside prior to this incident and told him to get his head out of his ass and get back on the straight and narrow path, he might be alive today. Apparently, not a single one did. Their preference is always to blame others for what they themselves could have prevented.

I am glad not to be in their shoes.
 
It requires a reasonable person to be in fear of their life. Shooting someone that is not armed makes that much more difficult to prove.
 
My biggest problem with LLMPapa is that he doesn't allow comments on his videos, so nobody can debate his "points". It's hard to take anything he says seriously because of that.
 
mike2810 said:
and the critical part of your state is " I know very few facts,".

and once again no acknowledgement that TM's decisions also led to the final outcome.

Glad to see your a responsible gun owner. Now let me ask you, if you were in an altercation that at some point you feared for your life, would you use your firearm?
Click to expand...

And once again no acknowledgement that GZ's decisions also led to the final outcome.
 
Jerry said:
And it was totally justified. Not that GZ is some kind of model citizen or anything, but he killed a gang-banger, and that should always be rewarded. You should be able to go to a sporting goods store and buy a hunting license and bag tag for gang members and legally hunt them just as you can game. The more gang-banger and wannabees die, the better.
Click to expand...

What evidence do have that he was a gang banger?
 
hawke812 said:
Sir Isaac and Witness 18 For The Prosecution - YouTube

Bring On The Pics, Part Two - YouTube

Bring On The Pics, Part One - YouTube

The bloody pictures are horribly damaging to GZ's version of events. W18 stated the larger man was on top just before the shot, later identified as GZ. He can lie about what was said, but his lies have zero effect on gravity.

The absence of any blood on TM's hands blast his other lie about TM trying to suffocate him. Blood is transferable. This fact can not be refuted.
Click to expand...

Wow..trying to use gravity to claim that Z was on top despite your admittance that T had no blood on him. If you're using gravity to support your position then perhaps you should actually understand how gravit works. Like the fact that blood will fall and go down. Not up. If Z was on top at the time of the shot then blood would definately have been on T. Being that T was the one actually on top then naturally the blood would not have fallen "up" in order to get on him. IE being on top would mean less of a chance of blood falling onto him due to gravity.

Duh.
 
mak2 said:
It requires a reasonable person to be in fear of their life. Shooting someone that is not armed makes that much more difficult to prove.
Click to expand...

Just because one is not armed with a weapon does not mean that they cannot kill.
 
Muhammed said:
Click to expand...


Is there a transcript of the LD test? Couldn't find one and had to listen to the audio. The guy asked very few detailed questions. In fact I counted only two important ones that Z could answer truthfully but still didn't explain who started the fight, where it happened and exactly how it escalated inot a shooting.
 
What if...? said:
Except you ignore the forty feet or so Z stumbled down the path AFTER being punched in the nose.

By the reenactment.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think the nose punch happened much later, when Z was on the ground.
 
mak2 said:
TM was not armed. Killing him takes a lot of explaining. This post is silly.
Click to expand...

Fists are considered a weapon and when used properly, a deadly weapon.
 
mike2810 said:
and that is why I have said the trial and the jury will decide. Unlike you, who have GZ tied to up to the needle already.

So if the jury lets GZ go, will you accept the decision?
Click to expand...

1. I am not officially involved, so there is nothing inherently wrong or illegal with me predicting the outcome of the case.
2. I have never said anyone else outside of the judicial system will decide the case.
3. If the jury finds GZ not guilty, I will accept the decision. When have I stated otherwise?
 
I have pretty much always been a gun nut and hung out with many like minded people on other fourms. Before this case I never heard this argument couched this way. Remember way back when Mike Tyson got arrested for getting out of his car and walking back to the driver behind he and punching him in hte nose for honking at him? I made the comment at another fourm I would have been outta ammo by the time he got to my car. I remember them unanamousily getting on me for shooting a guy in a fistfight. I still think shooting Mike Tyson because he is going to punch you (or bite your ear off) is perfectly legally and morally acceptable in that cirmcumstance. I also beleive the old guy that shot someone because they were messing with his grandchild and was agressively approaching him was very justified in shooting the unarmed but violent agressor. The old guy could not stand so shoot him. Z is a full grown man, T is a minor, it is quite possible at some point Z was in fear for his life, but I believe I will have to see more than a bloody nose and saying the kid was banging his head on the pavemnt. I think a bit more of a fight woudl be in order. Regardless, no matter who you are, if you put yourself in a situation you have to kill someone, esp a minor, you better be damn sure you have too. I dont think George had to. At least from what I have seen so far. Oh yea, all those guys giving me a hard time for saying I would have popped an unarmed iron Mike are 100% behind George. I cant understand why.
spanky said:
Fists are considered a weapon and when used properly, a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...
 
spanky said:
Is there a transcript of the LD test? Couldn't find one and had to listen to the audio. The guy asked very few detailed questions. In fact I counted only two important ones that Z could answer truthfully but still didn't explain who started the fight, where it happened and exactly how it escalated inot a shooting.
Click to expand...
If you look at the layout of the neighborhood of where the shooting happened, Zimmerman's recount of the events leading up to the shooting sound very plausible IMO.

I don't buy the left-wing narrative that Zimmerman was a racist white guy on a Negro hunt.
 
I always thought the blood pattern on Zimm may be problematic for him for the simple reason it doesn't match up exactly to his version of events. There was a point when Z was on top of TM, after he shot and then rolled him off, this could result in the blood from the back of his head dripping to the side and then down. But Z says TM pounded his head into the concrete, then he tried to maneuver over to the grass, then there was the gun reaching and struggle part, then he shot. If he was on the wet grass it would have smeared the blood and we don't see this. Now maybe he was lifting his head up during that time but then the blood should have dripped straight down, not to the sides.

The blood pattern suggests that the majority of bleeding happened when Z was looking down with his head somewhat parallel to the ground. It suggests Zimm got on top of TM right after his head sustained injury. I'm open to conjecture from Z supporters on how this might have happened.
 
Last edited:
Muhammed said:
If you look at the layout of the neighborhood of where the shooting happened, Zimmerman's recount of the events leading up to the shooting sound very plausible IMO.

I don't buy the left-wing narrative that Zimmerman was a racist white guy on a Negro hunt.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. Z's version looks plausible up until the point where he and TM confront each other at the T of the two sidewalks. A lot of what Z says after that doesn't make sense.
 
hawke812 said:
And there you have it folks.
He shows again that he knows not of which he speaks.



And there you have it folks.
He shows again that he knows not of which he speaks.



And there you have it folks.
He shows again that he knows not of which he speaks.
Click to expand...
:lamo:doh:lamo

And there you have it folks.
What was that Forest Gump saying?
 
spanky said:
Neither do I. Z's version looks plausible up until the point where he and TM confront each other at the T of the two sidewalks. A lot of what Z says after that doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Blasphemy! Do not question the almighty Zimmerman you heathen!
 
spanky said:
Personally, I think the nose punch happened much later, when Z was on the ground.
Click to expand...
Nothing says that a latter punch to his head is not the one that broke his nose.
 
hawke812 said:
I think Forest Gump said:

"Stop posting ad homs Excon, and post something constructive to the discussion." - Forest Gump
Click to expand...

And again demonstrating that you know not what an ad hom is. :slapme:
Go figure, huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom