• 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.

Zim's Non-Lethal Options

year2late said:
I actually agree that pepper spray would not have been a good option in that case.

The only "good" option was not to follow a teen ...er....uh...suspect.... walking alone at night in a car then on foot. Let the uniforms do their job.
Click to expand...

He "started" to follow, was told by the NEN NOT to, followed that instruction and before he could return to his vehicle was ambushed sucker punched, subjected to <PER EYE Witness testimony> an "MMA style ground and pound" pummeling. At WHAT point should he have changed what he did?

I'm VERY VERY VERY glad I don't share a neighborhood with some of you posting here.
 
mike2810 said:
It is facinating that some refuse to admit that both TM and GZ made bad decisions and actions that night. I can think of many things TM could have done different regardless of what GZ did and the outcome most likely would have been different.

So please stop this stance of TM did nothing to esculate the situation.

Hopefully the "truth" as allowed by the evidence in court will come out and the jury will make a just decision of GZ guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...


I have often stated that both of them almost immediately got over their heads in terms of wisdom and ability. Where I disagree is trying to go back and do micro-analysis this instant to instant either as to what happened - or try to calculate the psychology of either or to play the game "in retrospect what Martin/Zimmerman SHOULD HAVE DONE IS..." is so much nonsense as that is not how human nature works.

I agree that comments of "if Zimmerman had not gotten out of his car..." etc are worthless. In f Martin had gone home... If Martin had not approached Zimmerman... If Martin had better parents.... are all worthless. Totally.

That could go on forever. There is no legal duty to be totally apathetic. It is not a crime to get out of your vehicle. It is not a crime to phone the police on someone. It is not a crime to ask someone "what are you doing here?"
 
joko104 said:
I have often stated that both of them almost immediately got over their heads in terms of wisdom and ability. Where I disagree is trying to go back and do micro-analysis this instant to instant either as to what happened - or try to calculate the psychology of either or to play the game "in retrospect what Martin/Zimmerman SHOULD HAVE DONE IS..." is so much nonsense as that is not how human nature works.

I agree that comments of "if Zimmerman had not gotten out of his car..." etc are worthless. In f Martin had gone home... If Martin had not approached Zimmerman... If Martin had better parents.... are all worthless. Totally.

That could go on forever. There is no legal duty to be totally apathetic. It is not a crime to get out of your vehicle. It is not a crime to phone the police on someone. It is not a crime to ask someone "what are you doing here?"
Click to expand...

You are correct, EVERYTHING that proceeded the fatal gunshot, legally, is irrelevant. Like it or not, the ONLY legal question here is, did George Zimmerman act as a "reasonable" person who feared great bodily harm or death in discharging his weapon. It doesn't matter if he had injuries, it even matter if he started the fight. You may not think it's ok or right or SHOULD be legal to shoot someone when you started the fight. The law, however, disagrees.
 
year2late said:
Non lethal option #1

Don't get out of the car and follow "the suspect". That way you do not create what you are trying to prevent.
Click to expand...

Non lethal option #2

Don't jump on someone and beat their head into the pavement if you don't want to be shot.
 
Oceandan said:
You are correct, EVERYTHING that proceeded the fatal gunshot, legally, is irrelevant. Like it or not, the ONLY legal question here is, did George Zimmerman act as a "reasonable" person who feared great bodily harm or death in discharging his weapon. It doesn't matter if he had injuries, it even matter if he started the fight. You may not think it's ok or right or SHOULD be legal to shoot someone when you started the fight. The law, however, disagrees.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman "started the fight." None. Zero. Nada. In fact, there is no evidence that Zimmerman hit Martin even once or that Zimmerman even tried to hit Martin.

Following someone, asking someone "what are you doing here?" etc - none of that justifies Martin assaulting someone. BUT that isn't directly relevant. The law does NOT recognize "fighting words." People can't have it both ways. They can not claim "there are no words that justify violence" and then say they think in instances in which they don't like what happened so there are.

BUT Even if Martin "believed" Zimmerman had a gun and was going for it when he hit slammed Zimmerman in the face, it does not matter what Martin thought whatsoever. All that would do is maybe justify Martin hitting Zimmerman. Martin isn't on trial. If so, that might be a basis to find him not guilty of assault. But he's not on trial.

No one, ever, has presented one iota of evidence that Zimmerman "started the fight" nor is Martin's motive for hitting Zimmerman directly relevant either.

If you have any evidence beyond-a-reasonable-doubt that Zimmerman "started the fight," present it. So far, for a year now, not one person has.

The head injuries establish reason for Zimmerman to fear serious bodily injury or death.

What seems lost to just about everyone is that it may be entirely possible that IN FACT neither Martin nor Zimmerman committed any crime that night. Martin may have had reason to hit Zimmerman. AND Zimmerman appears to possibly have had reason to shoot Martin - and "might" is all he needs.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman "started the fight." None. Zero. Nada. In fact, there is no evidence that Zimmerman hit Martin even once or that Zimmerman even tried to hit Martin.

Following someone, asking someone "what are you doing here?" etc - none of that justifies Martin assaulting someone. BUT that isn't directly relevant. The law does NOT recognize "fighting words." People can't have it both ways. They can not claim "there are no words that justify violence" and then say they think in instances in which they don't like what happened so there are.

BUT Even if Martin "believed" Zimmerman had a gun and was going for it when he hit slammed Zimmerman in the face, it does not matter what Martin thought whatsoever. All that would do is maybe justify Martin hitting Zimmerman. Martin isn't on trial. If so, that might be a basis to find him not guilty of assault. But he's not on trial.

No one, ever, has presented one iota of evidence that Zimmerman "started the fight" nor is Martin's motive for hitting Zimmerman directly relevant either.

If you have any evidence beyond-a-reasonable-doubt that Zimmerman "started the fight," present it. So far, for a year now, not one person has.

The head injuries establish reason for Zimmerman to fear serious bodily injury or death.

What seems lost to just about everyone is that it may be entirely possible that IN FACT neither Martin nor Zimmerman committed any crime that night. Martin may have had reason to hit Zimmerman. AND Zimmerman appears to possibly have had reason to shoot Martin - and "might" is all he needs.
Click to expand...

I would concur completely. Well stated.
 
Gladiator said:
Zim should have been carrying Pepper Spray.

Zim should have been carrying a stun-gun.

Zim should have had more effective training, such as Aikido, to better protect himself, if he was going to carry a handgun with hollowpoint bullets. In many forms of Aikido, you are taught to stay on your feet, and protect yourself against fists. Zim was a negligent student of MMA, letting himself get straddled on the gound. So negligent that Zim is unbelievable!!!

Policemen most all carry pepper spray for situations that can be handled without killing the opponent.

Pepper Spray companies should lobby for people carrying guns, to also have pepper spray.

Zim was negligent in many aspects of the situation leading to the death of Trayvon Martin

Zim had many ways in which he could have defused the situation with Trayvon Martin. Zim has not really appologized by acknoledging he could have done a number of things differently, to avoid killing Trayvon Martin.

Shooting someone is not a non-lethal options.

HowStuffWorks "Wound Ballistics"


//
Click to expand...

Pepper Spray/mace can affect me as well if indoors. It can also blow back in my face incapacitating me. Tasers are expensive running 300+ dollars for something that may or may not stop an attack. Not everyone takes martial arts or is young enough or healthy enough to engage in a physical altercation to simply defend themselves.

Now all that being said, lethal force is excepted and reasonable to defend against someone who is willing to commit a criminal act against you.

Your reasoning is absurd.
 
MaggieD said:
What if George Zimmerman had never been born? (We can what-if ourselves into oblivion - oh! and should all over ourselves too.
Click to expand...

So? Can we have his parents charged for raising an idiot?
 
Black Manta said:
Pepper Spray/mace can affect me as well if indoors. It can also blow back in my face incapacitating me. Tasers are expensive running 300+ dollars for something that may or may not stop an attack. Not everyone takes martial arts or is young enough or healthy enough to engage in a physical altercation to simply defend themselves.

Now all that being said, lethal force is excepted and reasonable to defend against someone who is willing to commit a criminal act against you.

Your reasoning is absurd.
Click to expand...


So it should be illegal for Police to carry pepper spray or stun guns, or flash-flash lights?

When Police encounter an unruly individual, they should rely upon their pistols, and inflict gun shot wounds, even when pepper spray, a stun gun, or flash-flash light would have obviously been sufficient?


Why do most policemen carry pepper spray in addition to a pistol?




//
 
Gladiator said:
So it should be illegal for Police to carry pepper spray or stun guns, or flash-flash lights?
Click to expand...

No. Please point out where I suggested this? Oh that's right I didn't.

Gladiator said:
When Police encounter an unruly individual, they should rely upon their pistols, and inflict gun shot wounds, even when pepper spray, a stun gun, or flash-flash light would have obviously been sufficient?
Click to expand...

No. They are sworn officers of the local or state government and take an oath and have special training. The average civilian does not and is not expected to under our (Florida) self defense laws.

Gladiator said:
Why do most policemen carry pepper spray in addition to a pistol?
Click to expand...

Because if the police as duly trained and sworn officer of the law went around shooting everyone, can you imagine the outcry? Besides we are trained to handle special situations and have backup 90% of the time. Civilians don't.

Your comments are still absurd as well as inaccurate and have nothing really to do with my statement.
 
joko104 said:
There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman "started the fight." None. Zero. Nada. In fact, there is no evidence that Zimmerman hit Martin even once or that Zimmerman even tried to hit Martin.

Following someone, asking someone "what are you doing here?" etc - none of that justifies Martin assaulting someone. BUT that isn't directly relevant. The law does NOT recognize "fighting words." People can't have it both ways. They can not claim "there are no words that justify violence" and then say they think in instances in which they don't like what happened so there are.

BUT Even if Martin "believed" Zimmerman had a gun and was going for it when he hit slammed Zimmerman in the face, it does not matter what Martin thought whatsoever. All that would do is maybe justify Martin hitting Zimmerman. Martin isn't on trial. If so, that might be a basis to find him not guilty of assault. But he's not on trial.

No one, ever, has presented one iota of evidence that Zimmerman "started the fight" nor is Martin's motive for hitting Zimmerman directly relevant either.

If you have any evidence beyond-a-reasonable-doubt that Zimmerman "started the fight," present it. So far, for a year now, not one person has.

The head injuries establish reason for Zimmerman to fear serious bodily injury or death.

What seems lost to just about everyone is that it may be entirely possible that IN FACT neither Martin nor Zimmerman committed any crime that night. Martin may have had reason to hit Zimmerman. AND Zimmerman appears to possibly have had reason to shoot Martin - and "might" is all he needs.
Click to expand...


It does not matter who started the altercation. There are several start and escalation points.

What is important is that Zim pulled his pistol and shot Trayvon in the heart. What was his justification?

Zim's head was off the concrete when Zim pulled his pistol.

The justification for Zim to pull his pistol, according to Zim was Trayvon was reaching for the pistol, and Trayvon told Zim he was going to die. Do you believe Zim? Will the jury believe Zim? Do you believe Zim's Air Marshall Friend?

Zim and his Air Marshall buddy are not credible, or believable, to me, and seem to shade the truth to suit their innocence. Will the jury give Zim the benefit of the doubt?

But the Zimmerman case shows that being armed with a pistol, can create problems, when failing to carry Pepper spray, which would have worked if Zim had sprayed Trayvon, before Trayvon straddled Zim on the ground. .


//
 
Gladiator said:
It does not matter who started the altercation. There are several start and escalation points.

What is important is that Zim pulled his pistol and shot Trayvon in the heart. What was his justification?

Zim's head was off the concrete when Zim pulled his pistol.

The justification for Zim to pull his pistol, according to Zim was Trayvon was reaching for the pistol, and Trayvon told Zim he was going to die. Do you believe Zim? Will the jury believe Zim? Do you believe Zim's Air Marshall Friend?

Zim and his Air Marshall buddy are not credible, or believable, to me, and seem to shade the truth to suit their innocence. Will the jury give Zim the benefit of the doubt?

But the Zimmerman case shows that being armed with a pistol, can create problems, when failing to carry Pepper spray, which would have worked if Zim had sprayed Trayvon, before Trayvon straddled Zim on the ground. .


//
Click to expand...

I pack 24/7 because I've seen, the worst society has to offer

As they say.....Better to have and not need then need and not have.

Now get to the range, that criminal should be dead!
 
Goshin said:
Depends on state law. I can get the same stuff the police carry here... but the thing is, pepperspray is not knockout gas... it is better than nothing but it does not always stop an attacker either.
Click to expand...

Still.would have been more effective than a cell phone...
 
ecofarm said:
1. 6 foot male
2. Roadside
3. Residential neighborhood (middle-class/gated community)
4. 7 pm
5. Car following

6. Diagnosis: ~"a mugger, rapist and home invader is about to get me! I can't go home because he'll know where I live! No time to call the cops! No point in going to a well lighted public place, no chance to knock on a neighbor's door - there's only one thing to do... Commando!"

That's ludicrous.

The only explanation is that he thought someone was after him for some reason (jewelry, fighting, drugs?), and (probably) the Hut egged his paranoid delusion on ("I didn't know it was deadly serious").
Click to expand...

Does he KNOW any neighbors?

Were there any well lighted places with other people nearby?

Do young blacks feel calling the cops is going to be guaranteed to be a good idea?
 
Texmex said:
Non lethal option #2

Don't jump on someone and beat their head into the pavement if you don't want to be shot.
Click to expand...

What if you jump on someone and beat them to KEEP from being shot?

Do they get to shoot you for trying to prevent them from shooting you?
 
ric27 said:
I pack 24/7 because I've seen, the worst society has to offer

As they say.....Better to have and not need then need and not have.

Now get to the range, that criminal should be dead!
Click to expand...


So it is impossible that you will ever be faced with a situation in which a teenager might get overly rowdy, that could best be handled with Pepper Spray?


if a Pepper spray situation did arise, might you be glad you had spray, in addition to a pistol?

I have never heard Zim express regret for not having non-lethal options available.

Why can't Zim and his Air Marshall buddy say "African-American"?


//
 
Gladiator said:
So it is impossible that you will ever be faced with a situation in which a teenager might get overly rowdy, that could best be handled with Pepper Spray?
Click to expand...

I've been through all that. I'm smart enough to know not to break, the law....but sometimes, I bend it

Mindset is key

if a Pepper spray situation did arise, might you be glad you had spray, in addition to a pistol?
Click to expand...

I don't carry spray...just my pistol and a few mags. A swift kick to the balls or a head butt to the nose is more effective

I have never heard Zim express regret for not having non-lethal options available.

Why can't Zim and his Air Marshall buddy say "African-American"?


//
Click to expand...

It's his first kill and the first one is always a bitch but he'll get over it
 
What if...? said:
Does he KNOW any neighbors?

Were there any well lighted places with other people nearby?
Click to expand...

If not a well lighted place with other people, then knock on someone's door. It doesn't matter if one knows them. It was 7 pm and thus very likely that any home with the lights on would answer. Given nowhere to go (why not home?), best to call the cops and knock on any front door with the lights on.

Do young blacks feel calling the cops is going to be guaranteed to be a good idea?
Click to expand...

If Trayvon got himself killed because young blacks fear calling the cops, even when they believe themselves to be in mortal danger, that's a serious issue to be addressed by society and none of Z's fault.
 
Texmex said:
Non lethal option #2

Don't jump on someone and beat their head into the pavement if you don't want to be shot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but which came first...Trayvon being on car and then on foot....or the altercation?
 
year2late said:
Yeah, but which came first...Trayvon being on car and then on foot....or the altercation?
Click to expand...

It isn't against the law to leave your vehicle.
 
sharon said:
It is against the law to create a dangerous situation and kill an unarmed minor.
Click to expand...
A person who is ready to bash someones head into the ground for no reason, creates his own dangerous situation, because you never know which "creepy ass cracker" is packing.
 
raindrop said:
A person who is ready to bash someones head into the ground for no reason, creates his own dangerous situation, because you never know which "creepy ass cracker" is packing.
Click to expand...

Rapists, muggers, thieves, pickpockets all stalk their victims.
 
sharon said:
Rapists, muggers, thieves, pickpockets all stalk their victims.
Click to expand...
Judge Alex who comments on the case everyday explained what stalking means in a court setting, (And it DOES NOT APPLY in this case) Maybe if you knew the proper definition of stalking, you wouldn't keep making the same mistake over and over again, let's see:
Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time

So unless you have any info proving that GZ actually knew TM and has been repeatedly following, watched or harassed him...........IT'S NOT STALKING! Get it?:doh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom