DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on April 11, 2012, 10:38:09 PM
-
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 -- 5:26 PM EDT
-----
George Zimmerman to Be Charged in Death of Trayvon Martin, Law Enforcement Officials Say
The Florida special prosecutor will announce charges on Wednesday against George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, law enforcement officials said.
Angela B. Corey, the prosecutor, called a news conference in Jacksonville for 6 p.m. Wednesday to announce the charges against Mr. Zimmerman, 28, a crime watch volunteer, who fatally shot Mr. Martin, an unarmed teenager, in a case that has captivated the country and brought to the fore issues of race, violence and precisely what constitutes self-defense.
Critical to the decision of the prosecutor will be whether or not the shooting fell under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which gives wide leeway to people who claim self-defense, and which does not require people to retreat before using deadly force.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na (http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na)
-
Of course this racist, bigoted, pretend cop hasn't been found guilty, YET. And here in America, land that I love, we don't put 'em away 'til they are found guilty. But this gun nut IS guilty, and will soon be behind bars where he belongs.
BSB
-
Once the facts come out, race-baiters, haters, & dividers be damned,
I expect Mr. Zimmerman to be found not guilty!
-
I expect Zimmerman and Martin are surrogates for a trial about the stand your ground law.
-
I expect Zimmerman and Martin are surrogates for a trial about the stand your ground law.
===================================
I find this probable.
It will be most disheartening to "Christians" if a court rules that you cannot prowl the streets looking for suspicious Negroes and shoot them and get away with it. Hardly worth buying that seventeenth gun.
-
"surrogates for a trial about the stand your ground law."
It may not even go to court. Zimmerman may take a plea. If it does, however, IMHO it's too weak a case to set any precedent on the stand your ground law. If someone wants to defend their client on the basis of that law they'll need a less bias encounter.
BSB
-
The idea that they are charging him with second degree murder which could carry a sentence of life imprisonment would be strong motivation to cop a plea to a lesser offense especially when one considers the cost of mounting a defense was bandied about by the local stations as to why Corey charged the way she did.
On the other side of the coin is Zimmerman has lawyered up with a high powered Orlando defense lawyer who specializes in these types of cases and might have expenses covered by advocates and supporters of stand your ground laws might make my hunch a reality.
The core of Zimmerman's case is whether the prosecutors go after his affirmative defense of self defense and whether they have the witnesses to disprove his claim. I think the prosecution will focus on the time frame from the 911 call to the encounter and Zimmerman will focus on the time frame from the exchange of words, the punch, the headbanging and the shot.
What this announcement does it get the case back of the streets and into the judicial system, where it belongs.
Let the facts come out in the courtroom and not the press.
And hopefully then the system will have a chance to work.
-
Without knowing the facts of the case, until it comes out in court, I expect something along the lines of the Duke Lacrosse debacle, where Prosecuter Corey, pushed by furious public pressure by the black community, wants to pull a Nifong, and push a case that has little chance, if any, of getting a verdict for the crime he's alledged to have committed
And here's the kicker, which I've already opined before. Folks have already made up their mind that Zimmerman is guilty, and some racist bigoted pretend cop. And if he were to, "gasp*. be found not guilty, the fuel that those same folks have ginned up, will likely ignite the next version of Rodney King riots
Way to go
-
I listened to Corey's announcement and she is no Nifong. Her press conference Q&A was strictly by the numbers and she did not let the reporter lead her astray. No grandstanding. She basically said the next step is tomorrow when Zimmerman appears before the magistrate in Seminole County and then the case will proceed from there. Her mission on orders from the Republican Governor was to get this case off the streets and into a court room if the facts merited it. She thinks she can win this case based on the information at hand. We will find out as the witness come forwatrd and under penalty of perjury tell what they no.
-
As I said, the facts will come out, and when they do, IF Zimmerman is found not guilty....just watch the riots start
Hard to convict on 2nd degree murder, given what's required to reach that verdict, beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the timeline you opine that Corey will need to focus on, hardly highlights a person intent on killing, especially given Zimmerman's history of never having pulled his weapon on the multitude of other 911 calls made....not to mention the crimes that this "pretend cop" did prevent in his function as a neighborhood watch
-
Watch out for those darkies. Next thing you know they'll want to make it illegal to shoot 'em.
BSB
-
it's great exposing the racists that want to convict the hispanic before his trial.
-
Well I'm probably at least .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % hispanic there Tex, and proud of it.
BSB, remember the Alamo
-
Watch out for those darkies. Next thing you know they'll want to make it illegal to shoot 'em.
BSB
Not just an elitist, but a racist elitist. Who'd a thunk it?
sirs
-
This happened because a pretend cop was allowed to run about with a lethal weapon.
The law says, I believe that if you point a gun at someone in a threatening way, it is a mandatory prison sentence.
On the other hand, if you SHOOT that gun, you can just claim self defense and that you were standing your ground.
That is seriously screwed up.
Nevertheless, let the judicial system do its thing.
There will be many stupid things said as a result of this.
-
This happened because a pretend cop was allowed to run about with a lethal weapon.
Which he had every right to do, and legally cleared by the state to carry. YOU WEREN'T THERE. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT FACILITATED THE SHOT. The fact he had a right to carry his weapon isn't the why this happened, it merely allowed it to. A very distinct difference
It's going to be up to Corey now, to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman, devoid of ANY examples of prior pulling out his weapon and shooting at someone, had an intent on killing Martin, per the 2nd degree murder requirements, in the state of Florida
Good luck with that
Nevertheless, let the judicial system do its thing. There will be many stupid things said as a result of this.
Including the riots, if a not-guilty verdict is handed down
-
I know that he could not have shot anyone had he stayed in his effing car and had not been packing heat.
The fact that you can legally fart in an elevator after eating 15 deviled eggs and washing them down with a sixpack does not mean that you SHOULD fart in an elevator after eating 15 deviled eggs and washing them down with a sixpack.
Zimmerman was ass. Let the court decide whether to lock him up or not,
I'd be happy if they just disarmed him and barred him from any sort of law enforcement real or hobbyist, for life.
That would probably seem harsh to sirs, who would no doubt like to appoint him deputy to Arpaio.
-
I know that he could not have shot anyone had he stayed in his effing car and had not been packing heat.
Doesn't matter what you think or feel...HE HAD EVERY LEGAL RIGHT TO CARRY and GET OUT OF HIS CAR.....PERIOD
I'd be happy if they just disarmed him and barred him from any sort of law enforcement real or hobbyist, for life. That would probably seem harsh to sirs, who would no doubt like to appoint him deputy to Arpaio.
And Xo's success rate at being wrong, keeps hitting new highs
-
Which he had every right to do, and legally cleared by the state to carry.
YOU WEREN'T THERE. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT FACILITATED THE SHOT.
SIRS if some guy a foot taller than me had already broken my nose (aggravated assault)
and was then was bashing my head into the concrete (attempted murder)
I'd shoot his ass in NY minute!
-
I heard a caller on the radio generate her theory.....get this.....They were facing each other, Zimmerman simply shot Martin, and Martin fell forward onto Zimmerman, causing all the injuries to him, broken nose, skull abrasions & contusions, etc. She conceded there was no proof of such, that it was only a theory, but also said she had concluded that Zimmerman indeed not just murdered Martin, but that it was racially motivated. She just needed to concoct a theory, as outrageous as it was, to fit that template
-
Let's all send in drivel we heard on the radio.
It is sooo much easier than making up new drivel.
-
Drivel kinda like.......Obamination Care is only 1000 pages??
-
As I said, the facts will come out, and when they do, IF Zimmerman is found not guilty....just watch the riots start
Hard to convict on 2nd degree murder, given what's required to reach that verdict, beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the timeline you opine that Corey will need to focus on, hardly highlights a person intent on killing, especially given Zimmerman's history of never having pulled his weapon on the multitude of other 911 calls made....not to mention the crimes that this "pretend cop" did prevent in his function as a neighborhood watch
I'm am pretty sure that in Florida premeditation or intent to kill prior to actually killing is not required for 2nd degree murder charges. But since you are making the claim that it is, perhaps you could show where you got the information.
Sorry to be so late in responding. On the road.
-
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as
1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"
or
2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter
Findlaw.com (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-definition.html?DCMP=GOO-CRIM_Murder-2ndDegree&HBX_PK=2nd+degree+murder+charges)
Under Florida law, second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a person when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual
CBS News (http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/04/11/report-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-shooting-wednesday-afternoon/)
Gonna be interested to see what facts Corey is going to produce to portray Zimmerman as depraved & disregarding of human life, given the multitude of other times he has done precisely the same thing in contactiong 911, when responding to someone he perceived as suspicious, while he was carrying a weapon
-
I find this somewhat fascinating: to be guilty of second degree murder, one must be "depraved". Yet if one is INSANE, then one is not judged as guilty.
So apparently there is this continuum: sane..........................depraved.....................................insane.................legally insane...
But unlike blood alcohol, earthquakes and rainfall, there is no scale of measurement.
I think I will let the court hash this out.
Preventing Zimmerman from blasting other unarmed people he thinks look suspicious would be my idea of a good outcome.
If the court took away his gun, could he count on sirs or Christians to lend him their trusty Roscoe? Because it is everyone's right to go forth lethally armed, of course.
-
If the court took away his gun, could he count on sirs or Christians to lend him their trusty Roscoe? Because it is everyone's right to go forth lethally armed, of course.
UNTIL ONE HAS HAD THAT RIGHT REVOKED, BY WAY OF SOMETHING THEY'VE DONE ILLEGALLY. I guess you apparently missed that one as well, despite it having been referenced countless times :o Mine would be a Sig, not a Roscoe. Can't vouch for Cu4
-
Look, this never should have happened. Mr. Zimmerman was the adult here. Further, he was the possessor of the instrument that caused the death of an underaged boy who would have continued on to his destination had Mr. Zimmerman not interfered. If you are going to carry a firearm you had better not allow it to unnecessarily end someone's life. And looking at the event in total Mr. Zimmerman did not follow that commonsense rule. No matter what the courts decide Zimmerman is responsible for the death of a boy whose life had barely begun to unfold, and the cause of suffering for that young boys family. Losing a child is something parents never recover from.
BSB
-
Of course it shouldn't have happened. ::) The Courts will now determine if something illegal occured. If Zimmerman is found guilty, then so be it, and the repercussions that follow.
IF he's found not guilty, then all rights are returned, including ownership of a firearm, period.
Whether he's able to renew his CCW is another matter entirely. That'll be up to the state
-
I didn't anything about rights you fucking dumb asshole. Get a life sirs. Your post are a tedious bore. You are a tedious bore. Take 2 weeks off the computer at least to re-lube your brain, its all dried up.
BSB
P.S. and get rid of that stupid Reagan quote, we've all read it 50,000,000 times.
-
you fucking dumb asshole.
BSB that really crosses the line of decency & you should apologize.
ok to show frustration...but come on....really?....you know you are better than that.
-
HE HAD EVERY LEGAL RIGHT TO CARRY and GET OUT OF HIS CAR.....PERIOD
SIRS.....thought you might find this interesting....
(http://www.dragondoor.com/assets/1/33/NewsDimensionThumbnail/EdmontonSun%20logo1.PNG)
Most Americans back right
to use deadly force: poll
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/04/13/most-americans-back-right-to-use-deadly-force-poll (http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/04/13/most-americans-back-right-to-use-deadly-force-poll)
-
Mine would be a Sig, not a Roscoe. Can't vouch for Cu4
SW 38 Special (nightstand)
(http://di1.shopping.com/images1/pi/9d/22/26/48285576-200x200-0-0.jpg)
SW 357 Magnum w/laser sight (desk/office)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8t59jorH2DM/Rr5psNyKfcI/AAAAAAAAArU/hw4ozX40mDQ/s400/Model+66.jpg)
Mossberg Riot Saw-offed Shotgun w/pistol grip handle & laser sight (Work-Closet)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k07pirzBU34/TSyuvwdTtYI/AAAAAAAAGpY/qZ4uulfXKlI/s400/500%2BBreacher.jpg)
MAK-90 with Clinton Banned 30 Round Clips - Master Closet Home
Well over 1000 rounds
(http://www.capitolcityloans.com/images/Guns/mak90.jpg)
Remington Speedmaster 22 Semi-Auto Rifle - Farm
(http://www.tombstonetactical.com/images/remington/5594-1.jpg)
-
So, will you be lending one of those to Zimmerman if they don't give his back?
-
So, will you be lending one of those to Zimmerman if they don't give his back?
I don't loan my guns out.
If the Hispanic guy is found not guilty I hope he (like me) has
tear gas/pepper spray as his first line of defense in the future.
-
So your personal possession of firearms is more important than the principle that everyone go about packing heat.
Probably a rational decision. I agree that Zimmerman should have been carrying pepper spray rather than a pistol.
-
"BSB that really crosses the line of decency & you should apologize."
CU4, your decisions on when people have crossed the line of decency are a bit odd. When your buddy Kramer continually made reference to certain physical peculiarities of mine you remained silent. Further, you claimed that those comments were OK because my service record was doubtful. In other words not only didn't you ask Kramer to apologize, you give him your blessing and called me a liar.
When your colleague sirs can put up a string of posts that while they may differ from others opinion wise they are cogent and respectful, I'll congratulate him. Until then he's free game.
This place should be fun. You shouldn't have to continuely read posts that make you feel like you'd rather get a needle in the eye than continue reading.
BSB
-
Again to have EVERY LEGAL RIGHT to do something stupid does not mean that one is obliged to do something stupid. We all have every right to fart in elevators even when we know that we are armed with sulfurous SBD's (Silent but Deadly).
sirs is so utterly annoying, I am going to agree with BSB on this one.
I, too am tired of the stupid Reagan quote, and the stupid Reagan picture as well.
-
CU4, your decisions on when people have crossed the line of decency are a bit odd.
Not really.... to call a fellow 3DHS member a "fucking dumb asshole"
does cross the line of decency no matter what excuse or justification of:
"well so & so that got banned/suspended did something to me some time ago".
When your buddy Kramer continually made reference to certain physical peculiarities of
mine you remained silent.
Look I am not going to spend a whole lot of time searching proving you are wrong once again,
except you are flat wrong when you say I "have remained silent" as far as attacks on you.
Here are just a few I found in a quick search......
BSB in fact I have defended you saying you should not be banned and I called people out for
saying hurtful things to you concerning your service to our country. My exact words were:
"I also think Michael sometimes tries to be hurtful to BSB about his service to the country"
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=9943.msg104168#msg104168 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=9943.msg104168#msg104168)
BSB I have also posted that Kramer should be more civil towards you.
"I would advise Kramer that when XO, BSB, or Tee piss him off with their insulting
but I suppose more civil way take a deep breath and beat them at their own game.
Be nice conversationally"
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16135.15 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16135.15)
And BSB I also posted
Kramer really shouldn't make fun of whatever disability you have...."
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16135.30 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16135.30)
So you see you are wrong about me being silent,
and really BSB dont ya think SIRS is not Kramer
and deserves to not be called a "fucking dumb asshole"?
When has SIRS ever insulted you in that manner?
If it makes you feel better I will apologize if I didnt stand up for
you enough in the past...but you should apologize to SIRS.
-
Good lord, you lay down with dogs you get up with flees.
1. You only spoke up AFTER Kramer had been tossed for it. While it was going on you said NOTHING, ZIP, NADA.
2. In one of the post of yours that you reference you will see where you said that Kramer made the comments about a disability because he might not have believed it was true. Kramer never said that, he never implied that, nor did he believe that. He said what he said because he knew it was true. Therefore any BS about it not being true you pulled out of your ass.
3. I'm not making any excuses about what I said to sirs because there's nothing to excuse. He had it coming and I'd be perfectly happy to repeat it.
Just because you see life trough an antiquated pair of cheap binoculars that blur anything beyond the rail on your front porch, CU4, don't think the rest of us are so limited.
BSB
P.S. If you need the last word, by all means, have at it. After that, think we could move on?
-
After proving you wrong about me being "silent"
all we get are more excuses & justifications for such lame behavior
as calling someone as civil as SIRS a "fucking dumb asshole".
It's not even about me, Kramer, or others...it's about what YOU said to SIRS.
Diversion tactics about the past can not hide your own present day indecency.
The fact remains that SIRS never has attacked you in such a vile manner...NEVER!
but somehow you justify your non-sense by calling out others...
All it does is say a heck of a lot about you as a person.
And as long as that came out, yeah I am happy to "move on".
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/24e3ea78.jpg)
-
I am thinking that it is silly when A demands that B apologize to C because B has said something that A feels is wrong.
At best, (unless A is B's mother, mentor or guru) it would tend evoke an insincere apology.
-
I didn't anything about rights you fucking dumb asshole.
I DID. You best get some rest, as your ability to debate this issue is sorely lacking
P.S. and get rid of that stupid Reagan quote, we've all read it 50,000,000 times.
Hits a little too close to home?? Don't like it.......don't read it. Not a hard concept
PS....thanks C, for the assist, while was I vacationing in the mountains, with a group of friends. And here's a staggering fact for our fellow anti Bill-of-righters B & Xo, I had my weapon wth me at all times. Never once had to reach for it, ever once had to "brandish it", never once had to mention I even had it. In fact no one knew I had it with me. Pretty incredible how this "gun nut" could manage it, not shooting at anyone, doncha think? 8)
-
Sirs, I'd like to take a moment to express my heart felt apology for singling you out. I was wrong. The real truth is both you and CU4 are dumb fucking assholes.
BSB
P.S. Imagine being so fearful that you need to pack a weapon when going hiking with friends? And than imagine pointing out the fact that you didn't brandish it?
Good Lord.
-
I am thinking that it is silly when A demands that B apologize to C
Can you ever get facts correct?
No one "demanded" anything,
but nice try at changing reality to fit your fantasy land.
-
Sirs, I'd like to take a moment to express my heart felt apology for singling you out. I was wrong. The real truth is both you and CU4 are dumb fucking assholes.
BSB
P.S. Imagine being so fearful that you need to pack a weapon when going hiking with friends? And than imagine pointing out the fact that you didn't brandish it?
Let's take a rather astute look at the latest effort at "debating this issue", by our resident elitist know-it-all
Not only is it down to the levels of xO-like namecalling in bplace of debate, but adds the idiocy of thinking this "gun nut" was ready to defend himself from his friends.
Here's a newsflash B.....most of the time, we normal folks, who are at risk from some imminent danger. if not death, is from something, NOT a friend. Nor is being prepared some twisted notion of "fearful". USUALLY, danger is from a source, either a criminal or possibly a wild animal that is threatening me, my loved ones, or my friends. I mean, I realize that's a really strange concept, the idea of defending oneself. But it does kinda throw your whole "gun nut" perversion, into the debate trash heap, since I somehow managed not to either brandish it, point it, or even mention it :o
-
PS....thanks C, for the assist
SIRS it's ugly to see dysfunction manifest itself....
this time we saw it calling you a "fucking dumb asshole".
You and 3DHS deserve better....but with his history it
comes as no surprise. He will probably keep "digging"
until he is banned/suspended once again. Hope he can
over-come his insecurity and be civil to those that
are civil to him but happen to have a different political
conclusion. We shall see....
ps: love the Reagan quote!
-
Can you ever get facts correct?
No one "demanded" anything,
but nice try at changing reality to fit your fantasy land.
==========================================
Demands, suggests, advises... it's all the same.
If a person apologizes for something, the urge to apologize should come from within the party doing the apologizing. Other wise the sincerity is questionable, and an insincere apology is worse than none at all.
-
Can you ever get facts correct?
No one "demanded" anything,
but nice try at changing reality to fit your fantasy land.
==========================================
Demands, suggests, advises... it's all the same.
No, not even close. Even a "linguistics professor" would grasp the distinct differences
-
"USUALLY, danger is from a source, either a criminal or possibly a wild animal that is threatening me......"
Get threatened a lot by criminals and wild animals do you?
"I mean, I realize that's a really strange concept, the idea of defending oneself."
Sirs, I've had defend myself against more people in 30 minutes than most people would have to in 20 life times.
BSB
-
"USUALLY, danger is from a source, either a criminal or possibly a wild animal that is threatening me......"
Get threatened a lot by criminals and wild animals do you?
No, but if I am, I'll be able to defend myself.....THAT'S THE POINT.
And I knew you'd pull in your military experience as some last ditch effort to rehabilitate your sorely illogical debate approach to this issue, and the 2nd amendment. Your military history was never in doubt. I can't count how many times folks like myself and Cu4 have commended your service and sacrafice for this country. I'm confident you had to defend yourself more than I could ever dream of. NOT THE DAMN POINT. THE POINT IS THE IDIOCY OF YOU PROCLAIMING HOW OTHERS SHOULDN'T. And the Consitution, backs that point up
Sirs
-
"And I knew you'd pull in your military experience...."
Yeah, lets not use any personal experiences here in 3DHs, that wouldn't be fair.
And speaking of personal experience. Your quote from Reagan? Lets not forget that the only one in here who actualy killed a commie is me. So, yes, it hits close to home.
BSB
-
Again, not the damn point. But cudos on your x0-like deflection effort. I once again also invite you to ignore the Reagan quote, if it gives you such distress
-
A) I didn't deflect jack-shit.
B) You see, what we have here, to give recognition to one of my favorite movies, is a failure to communicate. The writers of the Second Amendment are dead and gone. Therefore, obviously, they can't communicate their intentions. Now, even sirs MAY be bright enough to realize that it isn't the letter of the law that is all important, but rather, it is the intention of the law. So, what we find in the Second Amendment is the writers intention to arm certain well regulated militias thereby having a preparedness in place that doesn't constitute a standing army. Now while sirs might be a Minuteman, you'd have to asks his wife, he is definitely not a member of any recognized militia. Nor is Mr. Zimmerman, the alleged child killer/racist and probable homophobe/Christian/conservative/gun-nut, at the center of this controversy.
So while it is OK for me to order and take possession of such a marvelous custom revolver as this ( http://www.dustinlinebaugh.com/gallery_content/001.jpg (http://www.dustinlinebaugh.com/gallery_content/001.jpg) ) it is not alright for just any uncouth member of the general population such as sirs, or Mr. Zimmerman, to do the same.
The Right Honorable BSB
-
I didn't deflect jack-shit.
Yea, you did. You tried to make this about you having been in the military, and that somehow give you some uber authorty on how others should or shouldn't defend themselves. Kinda like the asanine tact that someone can't criticize or comment on the military, unless they were in it. Your military experence is just that, and nothing more. We thank you for your service. Now, keep your damn hands off my 2nd amendment right, to defend myself, to which the Supreme Court agrees......it's not about some "militia". We, the people, not of the Government's armed services, is that "militia" You want to amend it? Well those "dead writers" put in place the precise mechanisms to do that.
Good luck with that
-
The need for guns in 1788 were very different from those of today. Hunting game and perhaps defending oneself from Indians and brigands was essential to a very large portion of the population, most of which did not live in cities.
I am 69 years old and have never had need of any firearm. I have shot and eaten rabbits, and shot rats for sport, but I was in no danger from either type of rodent.
For most gun nuts, gun ownership is mostly about something rather like a woman's desire to have many shoes and handbags that match.
-
Your opinion on what you find dangeous or your eating habits is duly noted, yet still trumped by BOTH the Constitution AND SCOTUS
But if you wish to highlight in the Bill of Rights, a Woman's right to possess a handbag, by all means, educate us
-
A woman's right to a handbag has never been questioned.
A woman with ten handbags will almost certainly get more from owning those handbags than a gun nut with ten guns.
Handbags require no ammo or permits.
The Constitution does not require anyone to own a handbag or a gun.
The US has virtually no accidental handbag deaths.
If Zimmerman had been packing a stylish handbag instead of a pistol, he would be a happier man today. Trayvon Martin would be much happier as well, or at least not deceased.
.
ONE gun could defend almost anyone. Owning TEN guns is not a self-defense issue: it is more like a style issue.
-
I am 69 years old and have never had need of any firearm.
so ya see SIRS
because he doesnt want or need one means
he wants to control whether you have one....
ControlFreakism 101
-
No one whose job doesn't require it, or isn't in Grizzly country, in these United States has any reason to carry a firearm. It's all in their head. And since we have the daily opportunity to see what's in sirs we know how strange the head of a gun nut can be.
It's like the saying, those who think they know, don't know, and those who know they don't know, know. Well, those who need to carry, like Zimmerman and sirs, shouldn't. And those of us who have no need or desire to carry, should be able to, but won't.
The Constitution wasn't written so that odd people can become even more odd.
Gun nuts are odd enough as it is, let them own their guns, but don't let them walk around with them.
BSB
-
A woman's right to a handbag has never been questioned.
And yet, you're the one questioning a right to a firearm, and that one is clearly referenced as such. So if you're going to pull the ludicrous comparison, you're the one that's going to have to provide us the constitutional right for women to have handbags, as that's not referenced anywhere in the Constitution, that I'm aware of.
Handbags require no ammo or permits.
Irelevent, since you do put things in them, which ironically could be ammo or some "permit"
The Constitution does not require anyone to own a handbag or a gun.
DANGER WILL ROBINSON...DEFLECTION ALERT. Not hard to keep up with these effors by you and B, but it does make you 2 look pretty......desperate, when you pull it. When, if ever, has anyone ever said anything about the Constitution "requiring anyone to own......ANYTHING"??
Ironically, on a related note, it's Obama and folks like yourself who are advocating that everyone is "required to purchase/own health care insurance". While you attempt to argue a point never made, where in the Constitution do you get that??
If Zimmerman had been packing a stylish handbag instead of a pistol, he would be a happier man today.
Irelevent, as that's not what he was carrying, nor were you there to have witnessed what did happen
ONE gun could defend almost anyone. Owning TEN guns is not a self-defense issue: it is more like a style issue.
More like a Constitutional RIGHT issue, actually
-
No one whose job doesn't require it, or isn't in Grizzly country, in these United States has any reason to carry a firearm. It's all in their head. And since we have the daily opportunity to see what's in sirs we know how strange the head of a gun nut can be.
Ha Ha....dont matter what you Control Freaks want.
The US Constitution says SIRS and tens of millions of other
law abiding American Citizens have the right to bear arms.
They knew way back when that future ControlFreakWhackjobs
would be born, and look here....here some of them are right in 3DHS.
Good luck changing the Constitution!
Reality sucks sometimes dont it!
-
No one whose job doesn't require it, or isn't in Grizzly country, in these United States has any reason to carry a firearm.
As flawed a reasoning as it is, your opinion, is duly noted
It's all in their head. And since we have the daily opportunity to see what's in sirs we know how strange the head of a gun nut can be.
Yea, one who's had one, all these years, has never needed to pull it, brandish it, or shoot it. Yea, really the iconic example of some supposed "gun nut". Well done, B
The Constitution wasn't written so that odd people can become even more odd.
Gun nuts are odd enough as it is, let them own their guns, but don't let them walk around with them.
BSB
It is ineed a pleasure to help educate B, and other like minds on this subject.
Be it the consitutional right for ANYONE (not convicted of a felony or found mentally unstable by a professional) can own a firearm.
Be it that if Zimmerman is found not guilty of any crime, his right to own a firearm is immediately returned
Be it the FACT that locations with far more liberal gun laws and CCW's have far less violent crime than locations with far more severe gun restrictions
Be it that the Constitution is a literally a contract between the Federal Government and "we the people", as in every individual that walks this great country, not some nebulous "militia"
Be it that the Constitution is specifically a set of LIMITATIONS SET UPON THE GOVERNMENT, per those "dead writers' B was referring to earlier
Be it that the Bill of Rights Specifically is referencing INDIVIDUALS. Every one of those rights, was specific to what the government was not allowed to do to an individual, without either some due process or some criminal act by the individual.
The 2 most important, the 2 at the TOP of the LIST, to these "dead writers" was the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom to own a Firearm. And yet, folks like B will twist, contot, and proclaim how appaently only the 2nd most important amendment to the Constitution isn't really an individual right....it really belongs to some nebuolus "militia", that *surprise* he apparently is part of. The rest of us can use harsh language as our defense
So endeth his AM lesson for today
-
No one whose job doesn't require it, or isn't in Grizzly country, in these United States has any reason to carry a firearm. It's all in their head. And since we have the daily opportunity to see what's in sirs we know how strange the head of a gun nut can be.
Ha Ha....dont matter what you Control Freaks want.
The US Constitution says SIRS and tens of millions of other
law abiding American Citizens have the right to bear arms.
They knew way back when that future ControlFreakWhackjobs
would be born, and look here....here some of them are right in 3DHS.
Good luck changing the Constitution!
Reality sucks sometimes dont it!
Indeed
-
(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Zimmerman%20Head.png)
-
(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Zimmerman%20Head.png)
OUCH!
Again....if someone had broken my nose and was bashing my head into concrete
I would not hesitate to shoot them to prevent horrible injury or my own death!
-
The DA is going to have a mountain of a time getting a jury to convict on a 2nd degree murder charge, beyond a reasonable doubt
-
The DA is going to have a mountain of a time getting a jury to convict on a 2nd degree murder charge,
beyond a reasonable doubt
Sirs.....looks like a famous Harvard Law Professor agrees with you!
(http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/breitbart_logo.jpg)
Dershowitz Blasts Zimmerman Prosecution:
"Not Only Immoral, But Stupid"
Friday April 20, 2012
With ABC News' release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans' head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was "so thin that it won't make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense."
After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn?t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a "grave ethical violation," since affidavits are supposed to contain "all relevant information."
Dershowitz continued, "An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."
When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, "We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it.
"I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors," Dershowitz said, "and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it's not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"
Dershowitz added, "I'm not taking sides, but I'm insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral)
-
The injurys that Zimmerman had might prove that he was in a fight , and this presumably would have had to have happened before the fatal shot.
Whether he had the right to expect the benefit of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law still depends on who threw the first punch.I expect witnesses who heard the shouting are going to be important , whose voice did they hear ?
If Mr. Zimmerman had not been armed , perhaps he would have died in this encounter and we would be hearing the story from the survivor Trayvon Martin. I imagine it possible that the "Stand our Ground" law might have also been invoked if Mr. Martin had been the survivor.
Is a neighborhood watch stubstantially diffrent from a well regulated milita?
I think it very unfortunate that people like Mr. Martin cannot safely walk about at night , no less than it is regrettable that Mr. Zimmerman cannot wander his own neighborhood at night either. Why did these guys start thinking each the other a threat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin)
-
Why did these guys start thinking each the other a threat?
=============================================
Zimmerman was clearly the cause of this,as he was looking for trouble and armed. When the police told him to back off, he did not do so,
If no one had been armed, odds are that no one would have died. Perhaps one of them might have been knocked unconscious.
-
When the police told him to back off, he did not do so,
And you know this how?
-
It isn't possible to kill someone by smacking their head onto pavement ?
If neither of them were armed I would expect Zimmerman to be the dead one, before the gun came into play he was the one on the underside of the pileup.
This doesn't mean I have decided Zimmerman is blameless , I havn't seen anything yet that proves or even indicates who was most at fault.
What would make Mr. Martin seem so suspicious to Mr. Zimmerman? Why would Mr. Martin think smacking Mr. Zimmerman was a good idea?
I can't tell whether Mr. Martin thought he was being mugged, or just got really angry when confrounted.
-
When the police told him to back off, he did not do so,
And you know this how?
=============================================
I heard the tape of the call Zimmerman made, of course.
He said he was going to follow Martin, and the 911 person said "we donlt want you to do that"
Then he followed Martin in his car, and got out of his car.
-
All of which was perfectly legal to do. He was under no legal order or requirement not to
-
He should have stayed in his effing car and done as the operator told him. I am sure that that is opne thing that both Zimmerman and Trayvon's parents would agree with.
You, again, have a right to dine on blood sausages and Limburger cheese and fart in any elevator you choose.
That hardly makes it wise.It hardly makes you a hero.
-
shoulda, woulda, coulda. He didn't have to. He had no legal mandate not to. period
-
You (XO) implied earlier the Police told Zimmerman not to follow.
That is in fact not correct.
They told Zimmerman "we dont need you to do that".
There was no fobidding of Mr. Zimmerman to follow.
There is no law against following
and the police did not tell him not to follow.
do we in fact know for a fact he followed the thug in his car?
I doubt Zimmerman was in his car or how could the thug have broke his nose?
So how do we know Zimmerman was not retreating to his car
when the thug attacked him, broke his nose, & started bashing his skull into the concrete?
Mr Zimmerman very well could have had no choice after his nose had been broken
but to shoot the thug bashing his skull into the pavement
-
Mr. Martin had the right to walk the sidewalk near his fathers home , no less did mister Zimmerman have the right to walk the sidewalks of his own neighborhood.
They also both had an equal right to be armed.
I would even contend that they each had a right to speak to each other.
Something really did go wrong , but it is useless to ask that the rights of either one should not have been exercised.
If I only knew which one of them crossed the line from suspicion to assault , then I could tell you which one should bear the blame .
-
If I only knew which one of them crossed the line from suspicion to assault , then I could tell you which one should bear the blame .
True Plane, but it was outrageous of the media to force-feed biased images to try
and feed a certain storyline.
This is what we got....dated pictures...several years old.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/6b448e09.jpg)
And this is what we could have got....current type pictures.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/4ccc5f56.jpg)
-
That is not a picture of Trayvon Martin, at least not the one who was shot by Zimmerman.
-
Who is it, then?
-
Someone else's photo from Facebook.
You can google it.
-
Sorry, your say so just doesn't cut it
-
That is not a picture of Trayvon Martin, at least not the one who was shot by Zimmerman.
Ok lets for the sake of argument blow your excuse #1 out of the water,
and move on to why didnt they use a more current picture?
Why not show the 3 time suspended from school thug's recent
twitter picture where he is shooting the bird and telling someone
on twitter to "shoot the mother fucker dat lied".
Why not show the thug with his twitter handle "no_limit_nigga"?
Why not show reality instead of some years old pic of when he was a boy?
Why are you and others on this witch-hunt afraid to deal with reality?
And in need to create some fantasy storyline?
(http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/2012/03/Photo_on_2010-06-17_at_16.05__2_DC-300x225.jpg)
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/second-trayvon-martin-twitter-feed-identified/ (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/second-trayvon-martin-twitter-feed-identified/)
-
Obviously, he clearly deserves the death penalty for flipping the bird on Twitter.
-
If you say so. I sure as hell wouldn't, but being as how racially insensitive you frequently are, I can grasp why you would
-
Obviously, he clearly deserves the death penalty for flipping the bird on Twitter.
Quit changing the subject and dodging.
Again what's wrong with reality?
Why show an old picture of a young boy when that's not the case?
Why try and create a fantasy around bogus images of what happened that day?
There was no young boy of that age involved in this altercation.
That picture is a lie!
It's a disgrace to mislead the public & inflame racial tensions
over disceptions attempting to bolster a storyline.
It is yet to be determined if Mr. Zimmerman had the right to self defense when
someone (not a young boy) had broken his nose and was bashing his head into concrete.
But that decision has already been made in many people's mind partly because of this
totally bogus photo of a young boy.
-
NBC should have been fined, for what they pulled
-
Zimmerman's nose does not look like it had ever been broken.
The facts of this case do not involve favorable or unfavorable photos. I am all for allthe facts getting out and someoen making a rational judgement in this case.
Flipping the bird does not merit the death penalty, even if done while Black.
-
Do you ever tire of these lame straman efforts?? :o
-
The first pic of trayvon flipping the bird doesn't even look like him to me. I stated this before one race overall has trouble identifying another. The majority of picture which folks think makes him look like a thug. Does not to me, he still looks like jake sisko of deep space nine. To pursue that the kid looks like a thug is a possible bad move.
-
The first pic of trayvon flipping the bird doesn't even look like him to me.
and neither does the several years old young boy picture of Trayvon look anything
like the guy that was suspended from school three times and was involved in this
altercation bashing George Zimmerman's head into the concrete. young little
smiling boys dont do this to grown men.
(http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/37/C536B9BEE8786C665AE54AF8D44433.jpg)
-
Flipping the bird does not merit the death penalty, even if done while Black.
And a law-abiding citizen keeping an eye on his neighborhood that has been riddled with recent crime sprees does not merit not having the ability to self defend while having his head bashed into concrete, even if done while Hispanic.
-
Note, however, who is dead.
That is not much of a head wound: I bumped my head working on a car once and it bled far more than that. In the police station photos, there was no blood on his head at all.
The claim is that Zimmerman broke his nose. It does not appear to be broken.
Perhaps the trial will clarify this.
It is clear to me that Zimmerman is no hero. Just a guy that had to learn the hard way not to pack a gun and go looking for trouble.
As the song goes,
"Don't take yer guns to town, Bill, leave them guns at home Bill, don't take them guns to town."
-
Note, however, who is dead.
And note who is being tried, convicted and condemned before all the facts have been presented at trial, if it even gets that far
You weren't there, period
-
Note, however, who is dead.
Note, who was bashing someone's head in the concrete.
They'd sure as hell be dead if they were doing that to me!
That is not much of a head wound: The claim is that Zimmerman broke his nose. It does not appear to be broken.
oh ok doctor sure....yeah it's just a scratch!....spin all you want.
Luckily the "not much of head wound" wasnt allowed to go further.
Your 20/20 hindsite about what would have happened had Mr Zimmerman
not stopped the thug from more head bashing into concrete is I am sure so clear!
(http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Zimmerman's%20head%20wounds.jpg)
-
You know what's really going to put sand in Xo's, and whole lot of other folks' undies, is if the Judge, per Florida law, determines there's no basis for a trial, based on the stand your ground/self defense statues, that currently exist
Then watch them go apoplectic :o
-
Well, we'll see what comes out at trial, if it goes to trial. In the mean time we'll hold in reserve our feelings about the crazed vigilante killer George Zimmerman who did wilfully and wantonly murder poor little under-age African-American Trayvon Martin in ice cold blood that dark night in the deeply southern state of Florida.
BSB
May God shine his sealed twin beam light of everlasting love and compassion on the Martin family and all of us who wrestle with the devil on a daily basis in order that we might serve our Lord and Saviour Jesus H. Christ. Hallelujah!
-
LOL....nice to see such an open mind, willing to allow the facts determine both the events and intentions of those involved. I pray that sand doesn't get too irritating ;D
-
I think it is significant that a news organisation might enter a dispute showing the nicest possible photo of one of the partys and the worst availible photo of the other.
It is ordinary for the news to take sides , but this combined with the creative edit of the 911 call is not merely taking sides , it is trying to create the case.