Another Stellar Day for Gun Owners

I've noticed that you haven't introduced your paranoia about Muslims into this thread yet. Since you are being irrelevant anyway it might be a good time to raise the the specter of some evil Islamic influence being at work in all of this. In league with the "Democrats" of course under the leadership of the SocialistCommunistFascistMuslimRadicalbackchristianKenyanbornRacist Obama. Having done that you can go away and infest another thread with your predicable ravings knowing your work is done on this one.

 

I have never heard anyone in the media or elsewhere link Zimmerman's political affiliation with this incident. What exactly does his political affiliation have to do with this situation specifically? You have really lost me on this one. Are you saying that he shot this teenager because he was a Democrat? Really, what is the connection you are trying to make?

 

It appears to me that this is the connection he/they are trying to make. And they apparently feel the connection is valid based on the fact that Booth shot Lincoln. What more proof do we need? I'd like to think that this is a RW attempt at jerking our chain but given our history with them and the window they have created for us into their own special reality I think chances are about 7 to 3 in favor of their being serious on this one.

 

Of course not. Why would the lame street media do anything what-so-ever to in any way defame a Democrat?

Absolutely nothing just like Loughner's political affiliation had nothing to do with his actions.

See previous answer.

 

OK please tell me if I have this right some of you believe that he should have been taken in to custody at the scene until the events had been investigated and some of you think that he shouldn't have been taken in to custody at the scene until the events had been investigated. Do I have this right so far?
Now lets forget all political affiliation or anything else simply focus on what should have happened to the man who pulled the trigger when the police arrived on the scene of the killing (we are agreed I take it that a killing actually took place?)

 

He should have been taken into custody and, I believe, charged with manslaughter at the least.

I am pro-gun for home defense, sport, etc. And I have no issues with Neighborhood Watch groups. But Armed Enclave Hunting Groups? Not so much.

Strut around and watch your little secure compound all you want for 'undesirables' and call the cops on everyone you see who doesn't look like you or doesn't seem to 'belong' inside your gates. Fine.

But when you confront an unarmed citizen walking in your neighborhood and then kill them, it seems like a crime to me. And while I am not big on the whole 'Hate Crime' thing, this seems likely to have been and "assault, injury, or murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion" to me.

 

UHM?!?! Makes you kind of wonder, doesn't it? Lame street media making up their own news. Who would have ever thought

 

I understood what you were saying with Probable Cause regarding not arresting Zimmerman in the first place.
However, if the police arrive on a scene out in the street where one person is dead and another person has a gun then I would hope that the person with the gun would be brought into questioning, which I think was done based upon a video that was shown, and then brought up on a lesser charge as the police investigate the entire affair. The charges can always be dropped whereas a complete understanding of the events that took place could be gathered. Now as was pointed out the media is distorting the truth.
Other factors on why the police blew this by not completely investigating from the start.

1.Why would a witness for Zimmerman now want to step forward and risk the wrath of black led racism by Sharpton or Spike Lee where death threats and the like would take place.
2. How can anyone believe a witness against Zimmerman when money, fame, political and private agenda's now fall into play.



a clean investigation should have taken place within the 24 hour period and an objective picture would have been drawn on what happened that night.

As for me, it looks as if Zimmerman started a chain of events that went horriblely out of control and led to a death. He may be looking at Manslaughter for the most damaging aspect is when he was told by 911 not to follow the now deceased.

 

I am continually amazed by the RW in this country. If you look at the facts, not just what people have been guessing at, but the irrefutable facts, they are:

Zimmerman:
A man with a trouble past that included assaulting a police officier, a girlfriend with a restraining order against him, an employer that had to let him go because he was too aggressive as a security guard.
A man that was heard on a 911 tape saying, "F****ing Coon" and "They always get away with it."
A man that has called 911 like 56 times including for an open garage door.
A man that was told not to follow the victim by the 911 operator and ignored the order.
A man that admitted he shot an unarmed child with a 9mm hand gun in the chest.

Martin:
A kid guilty of walking to the store.
A kid that has some suspensions from school
A kid that was wearing a hoody.


Now why would the RW jump to defend a guy like Zimmerman. What could possibly be their motivation?

 

Interesting, but not even the lying twisted left wing media is reporting anything like that and youtube tapes have been altered. See my comments above for NBC.

911 operators do not give orders.

I do not know about anyone else, but the only thing I am trying to defend Zimmerman from is the false accusations from people like you and the lying lame street media. When and if there is evidence unadulterated and/or not fantasized, he should be fully punished. Until then, even his past "crimes" have no bearing on his guilt

 

Guns are not the problem. Attitudes are just look what this Islamic citizens patrol did.....

Acid Attack Claims Two Afghan Kids’ Lives

According to the news service, the victims are a girl believed to be around 12 years old and a boy aged about 15. Officials said that the youngsters died after being doused with acid. They also had acid thrown into their mouths, CNN said.
"Their bodies and faces were burnt by acid," provincial police chief Zorawar Zahid was quoted as saying by AFP.

CNN reported that the bodies were discovered in Nani village, the Andar district of Ghazni province, and that villagers alerted the Afghan National Army who brought the dead children to Ghazni hospital.. However, the people who discovered the bodies believed that the horrific attack was brought on as a result of a "friendship" developed between the two children.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/322397/20120401/acid-attack-claim-lives-two-children-killed.htm

 

I don't blame the acid. I blame the person who threw the acid.

 

As far as the news is concerned I haven't heard of those distortions until now. The kid was 17 years old and I hadn't heard it suggested otherwise so I don't see, or at least didn't see, any misrepresentations of that sort.

My judgement is based on three critical points:

• The shooter failed to heed a lawful order.
• The shooter had no authority over the kid.
• The kid had the right to defend himself.

I've detailed why those are relevant in a previous comment, and while I'm not saying the cops are under the obligation under the law to arrest the guy, I believe there is cause to arrest him.

 

It's ironic that you replied that way, 'cause last night I saw part of an episode of Roseanne where DJ (a very young boy) copies everything his slightly older sister Darlene says. But that's what very young children do. What's your excuse? "I know you are but what am I"?

Childish.

What facts are you saying are not true? Was the kid 17? I believe he was. Do you say different? Did the shooter ignore a lawful order? I believe he did. Do you think he had the right to ignore the lawful order? I don't. Did the shooter have the right to confront the kid? I don't, not after (the cops) told him not to. Did the kid have a right to defend himself? I believe he did. Do you?

But no, be a child about it. Copy me again.

 

What conclusions do you think didn't occur?

I conclude the shooter saw a suspicious person (the kid) and called the police. Don't agree? I don't care if you do.

I conclude the police (the contact on the phone) told him not to follow/confront the kid, I heard that on tape. Don't agree? I don't care.

I conclude the shooter ignored that lawful order and you say it wasn't a lawful order, but I don't care... IMO it was.

I conclude that since the shooter confronted the kid.

I conclude the kid resisted, that he and the shooter became involved in a fistfight.

I conclude that since the shooter was told not to confront the kid, and the kid had the right to defend himself from someone who was confronting him, the shooter is guilty of starting a fight that ended in death.

What conclusions have you come to? As far as I can tell you don't have any. I don't care.

 

Just wanted to point out a few things from my perspective:

I see the racial aspect in the news, but I'm able to seperate the issue of race in the matter myself and can focus more on the legal issue of "standing your ground".

I have to disagree. Yes, the race thing is being overblown again, but the legal issues are important to get right. They definitely need better defining.

 

The 911 operator is not "the police", nor have any "authority" over anyone, and has no such thing as a lawful order to be given. Not only that, but the police cannot give such an order either.
Just what evidence do you have as to who confronted whom? I have heard none so far save the witness who saw the opposite.
Yes, "the kid" had every right to defend himself if he was confronted. However, "the shooter" had just as much right to defend himself if he was confronted. The fact that one was following the other at one point in this scenario is zero proof of who confronted whom. Until you have that, there is no proof of any crime.

BTW, I do not have enough evidence to come to any conclusions except that the lame street media has been creating evidence to try to make a story.

 

I think I saw that episode, too. Roseanne was acting boorish and churlish in much the same way you're acting. Maybe you should get a sitcom of your own.

 

Not even the police can give a lawful order? Where the hell did you hear that? lol ...Whatever, be my guest and tell a cop he/she has no right to tell you what to do. Hope you enjoy being tasered.

I stand by my view that the "order" given to the shooter by 911 is lawful, and can (or at least should) be used in court to show how the shooter had intent. By failing to cooperate with those instructions, any justification for the killing using self-defense as a defense is moot, it no longer can be considered as a viable defense, IMO. The kid, at that point (the point of the 911 call), was no threat to the shooter.

Proof? None. Legally it's up to the police investigators to gather the evidence, and that evidence is the "proof" you're asking me to provide... so how can I? But I'm not affiliated with the legal system in Florida, or have any need to provide proof since I'm stating my opinion only.

I form that opinion using the evidence I can see, discounting evidence that is bs (like the lack of a visible wound on the shooter in a grainy video), and use common sense to work out the most likely scenario.

So, you ask who confronted whom? Really? You are implying the kid went out of his way to confront an innocent man. I consider that unrealistic given the evidence of the 911 call and the fact that the shooter felt compelled to protect his area. It's more likely that the shooter was aggressively protecting his "beat", than a random act of violence by the kid.

It's highly likely the shooter did not want the suspicious person to get away. Or do you think the shooter was fine with that? The evidence indicates the shooter wanted an investigation of a suspicious person. No cops around? Then it's highly likely the shooter believed it was up to him to keep the kid within sight.

It's highly likely the shooter followed the kid, in order to keep an eye on him. Disagree? I'm fine with that lol

It's highly likely that led to a confrontation between the two of them. Someone got shot in the chest... it would be insane for you to say no confrontation could have occurred, so it's safe for me to say you also agree with this point. I could be wrong though lol

It's highly likely that led to a physical altercation. The shooter wanting the kid to stay put, the kid wanting the shooter to leave him alone. Admittedly, this isn't certain, but I consider it highly likely to have occurred. It is highly likely the wounds the shooter had afterwards came from a physical altercation before the shooting.

It's highly likely that the kid put up a decent enough fight where the shooter, the armed man, felt in danger. Again, uncertain but highly likely given that the shooter had wounds, the nose in particular. When your nose gets hit, it lessens your ability to defend yourself. Your eyes get teary and the facial nerves are a distraction as they all fire off. It's not inconceivable that the kid got the shooter in the nose and that hit made the shooter reach instinctively for his weapon. Conjecture? Yep. That's the idea. You don't like me conjecturing? I don't care lol

It's highly likely that the shooter realized he may have his gun taken away from him by the kid. Getting your nose tweeked in a fistfight is temporarily debilitating. It distracts a person, causing them to lose focus. Now, if you went into that fistfight with a gun, and you get your nose popped, then you are an idiot. Yes, the gun can be used against you. Yes, for several moments the shooter was at a disadvantaged that way. Do I have proof? Of course not!

It's highly likely the shooter decided to make sure that his gun wasn't used against him. Like I said before, bringing a gun to a fistfight is stupid. The correct thing to do was to have the weapon ready and never get too close to the subject. Given that there is evidence that the shooter had injuries, he failed to properly use his weapon... and that led to the possibility of the weapon being used against him. Incredibly dumb IMO.

So yes, I conclude the shooter was defending himself, but his defense can't be called "stand your ground" when you are the aggressor. By not cooperating with the police, as he should have, he opened himself up for the charge of manslaughter. Will he be found guilty? I have no idea, but IMO he should be.

I have no proof, only my opinion of what most likely happened. Don't like my opinion? No problem, ignore it and move on to something else. This is in the realm of public opinion, and not in a court of law afterall.

You have issues with the media, as do I. I don't believe everything I hear or see on the news. Instead I work under what I consider most likely to be true given the evidence that is reliable... and then I make my conclusions. That said, I don't consider my conclusions to be 100% accurate. They are only speculation using the available evidence and my "common sense".

 

Really? More childishness?

For the record: DJ was eventually stuffed into a clothes hamper by Darlene, who sat on top of the lid and gave DJ a "taste of his own medicine" by repeating all his pleas to be released back at him. So I don't think you actually have seen the episode, or at least remember it well enough to give a quality retort... instead relying on the reputation of Roseanne as obnoxious, and linking my behavior to hers.

Weeeeaaaaak. lol