On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:25:13 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message

stuff snipped

If the feds get involved and both the state and DOJ pursues
prosecution he could get time in both jurisdictions. State for murder
/ manslaughter and a weapon charge during a felony ( Florida a gun
crime gets you mandatory time). Feds for civil rights violations.

Double jeopardy does not apply in separate charges under different
jurisdictions.

DOJ will assist in the prosecution for a strong state prison sentence.

In this case, I believe the shooter is a self-appointed citizens
guardian watch dog - a Vigilante.

I always thought that would make a great name for a car: The Dodge
Vigilante!

FWIW, I agree totally with your definition. So does Merriam Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante

Definition of VIGILANTE
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime
summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly :
a self-appointed doer of justice

Examples of VIGILANTE
the danger of these self-appointed vigilantes is that they sometimes go
after innocent people

Origin of VIGILANTE
Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-,
vigilans First Known Use: 1856

Have you seen the promos for the new movie "Lockout?" They stole your idea
for a prison in space (I think it was you).

Not my idea, but a fiction writer. Freeze the crooks, orbit in space
so when we find a cure for crime we can bring them down for the cure.

I gotta check out Lockout ... thanks.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
. ..
To me, the telling part of the story is that the shooter followed the kid,
rather than let the police handle it. One news outlet, listening last
night
on the radio. The kid was aware someone was following him.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1049933

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...oting-spreads/
The news has some details. My sense is that Zimmerman was overly
agressive,
and my further sense is that Zimmerman didn't have reasonable cause to
shoot
the kid. However, I'm not given all the details any more than any other
viewer at home.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

If you had a Taser, it would be much more appropriate in a situation
like Sanford. If the guy coming at you was into body building or
boxing, yes, he could take you out with one punch. But . . .

If you are the local vigilante, you should have had at least some
basic training on what to do. You should also carry some pepper spray
and perhaps a Taser.

It will be interesting to see what the final investigation reveals. At
17, the kid may have been mouthy as many would be, but he does not
look like he could be much of a physical threat.



Considering that we don't have ANY witnesses to the first part of the
exchange, there is NO WAY to derive ANYTHING of use from inference.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 23:44:36 -0400, "
wrote:




Did he really need a gun or would have a Taser been a smarter weapon
to carry?

Where did that come from? Where in the law does it require the victim to
weigh precisely the level of force to use?


Common sense, not the law. He is an experienced Neighborhood Watch
guy that has a record of many encounters. With his experience, he
should be able to determine what level of force may be needed. The
police do these days, using a Taser instead of a gun in many cases.

The law may be on his side, but is it worth the risk taking a life is
something non lethal can solve the problem? Bullets are very permanent
in a temporary situation. If the assailant pulled a gun or knife,
yes, I'd pull the trigger. Maybe we'll find out some day what really
happened.

Considering the success level of Tasers, I'll leave it to you to carry one.

"gonjah" gonjah.net wrote in message
net...
On 3/25/2012 10:26 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
:

On 3/25/2012 9:26 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:39 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:54:30 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:11:40 -0500, Jim
wrote:

defense with a handgun has the least risk and best success for
one's self,which is what you the defender is concerned about,not
the wellbeing of your attacker.
If I can stab an attacker, with a small blade. and hit the jugular
I'll save some ammo.
more likely,you may not get the chance to stab,particularly with a
guy with a long reach like a 6foot plus person has. you might hit a
button or other hard object that stops your blade. you more likely
might just wound him and REALLY anger him.

For the $.25, I'd prefer not to have to clean the blade.
A boy lost his life.


through unwise actions of his own choice.

Regardless of what M did you can't deny Z should not have followed M.
Yes,I can.

Or do you think it's okay to harass innocent young men because they
are black and wearing hoodies?
there was no "harassment".

he DID NOT KNOW the suspect was innocent. in fact,he thought the
opposite.
He called police to have them determine if he was innocent or not.
If he was "hunting" blacks,he could have just shot the kid and claimed
self
defense,THEN called police.
That's the part you seem to ignore. M *was* doing NOTHING wrong. He
was targeted and followed by an older man for no reason other than he
was black.

not "targeted",nor "harassed". followed,yes. and lawful.
since the neighborhood had experienced a high level of thefts and
burglaries recently,it was reasonable.

Guess what?
blacks commit crimes FAR out of proportion to their numbers in the
population.Geraldo was right;when you see surveillance video of
robbers,it's usually blacks in hoodies.

the police logs for Sanford are very high in such crimes.
It's the crime center of Seminole County.


Huh? M had every right to be where we was and was doing nothing wrong. So
you follow him? You live in a very paranoid world.

Unlike you, who seems to live in a very naïve and ignorant world

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:26:24 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:




Or do you think it's okay to harass innocent young men because they
are black and wearing hoodies?

there was no "harassment".

We don't know that. He may have been verbally taunting the kid, or
the kid may have been taunting him. We don't know that.


Since you don't know, all your speculation is just bloviation






not "targeted",nor "harassed". followed,yes. and lawful.
since the neighborhood had experienced a high level of thefts and
burglaries recently,it was reasonable.

He should have maintained a distance too. Both should have until he
police arrived. This would not have happened if they were 50' apart.
Who closed the gap?


How do you know he didn't
Either one or both did not maintain distance
And unless a witness surfaces to the first part of the incident anything
other than Zimmarman's testimony will remain SPECULATION..





Guess what?
blacks commit crimes FAR out of proportion to their numbers in the
population.Geraldo was right;when you see surveillance video of
robbers,it's usually blacks in hoodies.

So? Half the kids in school these days wear hoodies. All
ethnicities.

A good reason to discourage your kids from wearing one.

"gonjah" gonjah.net wrote in message
net...


There is evidence of a adult, with a handgun, following a unarmed boy who
was apparently doing nothing wrong. Z followed M because he was black and
wearing a hoodie. He was told by dispatch he didn't need to follow him. Z
went looking for trouble and he found it. Z instigated the confrontation.
It was very poor judgement on Z's part. That much we know. The attack?
That remains to be seen. So far, IMO, Z brought it on by following M
against the advice of the PD.

So by your definition, if Zimmerman had been unarmed, everything would have
been hunky-dory ??
Highly doubtful
You'd just find another excuse...

The only thing about your repetitious posts is that you really don't know
much and presume a whole lot.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
...
Is there anyone on the site who has personal knowledge of the
circumstances or are all comments based upon varying media reports,
talking heads, blogs, etc, that so far, is constantly being modified.


Why throw a wet blanket on a perfectly good debate, by asking for facts?



It's not a debate
It's mostly ignorant bleating about suppositions.

"Han" wrote in message
...


Yes, I can perfectly see how one can be suspicious. I am too if I see
someone who does not belong in my neighborhood, but I won't go chasing a
kid in the dark with a gun in my hand.


Where do you get that "gun in hand" stuff ??

And luckily, the police will be
here in minutes if I call them. I have a cell phone and can stay back
far enough without losing sight of the individual. It hasn't yet been
necessary.


Self-congratulating is a bad habit
It tends to lead to hubris.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:32:25 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On Mar 24, 8:56 am, Han wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote
innews:Xhjbr.3
:

You know what's sad, to me. The various racists, and anti freedom
activists will take this case, and try to use it to remove freedoms
from the responsible citizens of the USA

When 9,999 responsible citizens carry guns, and use them
responsibly. No one calls for more freedom. But, one vigilante
commits murder on the street, and the anti freedom activists call
for loss of God given freedoms.

This Zimmerman case does not belong in these "statistics". He was
known
to the police as someone who stalks around imagining hoodlums. He
should
have been talked to in the most strict terms, and told that he
shouldn't stalk, and that if he was found to carry a weapon during
stalking that he would get a summons of some kind, and that his
weapon would be confiscated.

I was thinking along similar lines.
I would like to see what exactly took place during the 47 other
times Zimmerman called 911 during the past year. Like you say,
I've heard media reports that say almost all of them were calls
that involved nothing of substance. If it's true that he did make
large numbers of calls about nothing, then the police should
explain why they didn't sit him down and have a talk, explaining
that what he was doing was wasting their time. I would expect
that if I called the cops 47 times about stuff that turned out to
be nothing that I'd probably get such a talk and if it didn't stop,
be charged with some nuisance crime.



Something needs to be done to ensure responsible people carry weapons
if they want to, but that irresponsible people don't. This kid
should not be written of as unavoidable collateral damage.

Unfortunately I don't think that's possible. If you look at the big
picture, the ability to carry in those states that have it has lead
to preventing a lot more crimes than it causes. There is always
going to be some incident like this, no matter what you do. The
most they can do to help is to try Zimmerman and hopefully send
a message to anyone else trying to play cop.

That should be left up to legislators. If they permit "unstable" people
to carry firearms (whether through loopholes in the laws or other
negligence), then the state should be responsible for the injuries
committed by the "unstable" citizens. Since IANAL, I have no definition
for "unstable".


Please explain to us how a State can "permit" the exercise of a right ??
DO you need a "permit" from the state to exercise your right to free speech
or religion ?

Nope. If you're Catholic, you're simply not allowed to.

And this while the ONLY RIGHT CLEARLY STATED in it's OWN Amendment is
the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.


(Note: I don't like anyone covering their head and/or face when
walking in public).

--

Geraldo Rivera is taking a lot of heat for saying that he won't let
his kids go out dressed in a hoodie and he doesn't think any
parent should. He says people associate it with gang bangers
and criminals and that makes it more likely that something like
what just happened could occur.

The local NYCity news (ABC7) had a short item about how black parents
told their kids to unciver their heads when going into a store, keep
their hands out in the open, and never stand too close to other people,
and how they repeated those admonitions to their teenagers on a daily
basis. Seems like good advice, and a sorry testimony to the state of the
citizenry.


It's not a "sorry testimony to the state of citizenry"
It's a testimony to the fact that there are criminals who wear a certain
garb and behave in a certain way, and it's wise for parents' to make sure
that their kids do NOT dress or behave in a similar fashion.
Frankly in my opinion it's a testimony to wise parenting.

Include several actions, and the children can grow up to be successful, rather
than dead by 20.

The key to me in this case is that it's hard to imagine
Martin presented such a threat
to Zimmerman that he had to use deadly force. I would
also like to see pics of him from that night. I heard that he did
have facial injuries, but not sure if that is true or how extensive.
For him to have any case at all, he better have a face that's
all messed up. I also wonder where that pic that the media
is all using came from, if not from that night?

Yep!


The evidence now available is that Trayvon was beating on Zimmerman, who was
on his back on the ground.
A 6'2" High School football player is a DEFINITE threat to anyone being beat
on by such while on his back on the ground

People should stop going by what they imagine and start looking more
carefully at the available facts.

Why? That makes it impossible to race bait. That's all the pro-Trayvon types
are doing (here and elsewhere).

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:33:11 -0400, Hugh Jass wrote:

Personally, I don't give a ****. I wouldn't wear a hoodie in Florida nor
would I wear the waist of my pants down around my knees.

.... and that's a fact jack

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Han wrote:

ALL volunteer watch people are told not to confront anyone (I was on
one for a while when we lived on Long Island). I also heard that was
the case in Sanford (sp?). Moreover, those watches should not carry
any weapons whatsoever. Period. The fact that Zimmerman did carry a
firearm, did follow the kid, and did confront him AND struggled with
him means to me (but I'm not on the jury) that Zimmerman is guilty as
sin.

Not "ALL". The instructions given to volunteers in New York are probably
wildly different than those given to a collegue in other states. For
example, in my state, the law is:

TEXAS PENAL CODE
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using
deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable
property:
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or CRIMINAL
MISCHIEF DURING THE NIGHTTIME... (emphasis added)

A cop, instructing neighborhood watch wardens, would be way off base
telling citizens they should not carry a weapon or used deadly force when
they clearly have the statutory right to do both


That's no big surprise
Many police departments have a long history of ignoring the law, one way or
another.

On 26 Mar 2012 18:04:18 GMT, Han wrote:

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

Please explain to us how a State can "permit" the exercise of a right
?? DO you need a "permit" from the state to exercise your right to
free speech or religion ?
And this while the ONLY RIGHT CLEARLY STATED in it's OWN Amendment
is
the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

That is certainly one view of the problem. One I do not wholeheartedly
endorse. It is in my opinion (and I believe that of some of the states I
have been in) that it is a privilege or right that needs to be requested
and is subject to some kinds of oversight.

Fortunately, it's not up to an immigrant from socialist Europe to decide what
the Constitution *clearly* says. If you like Europe's laws so much better,
why are you here? You've never answered that question.

You may remember that a lady was arrested when she pulled out a pistol (I
believe) when she wanted to enter the 9/11 memorial in NYC. Her weapon
was confiscated, since she didn't have a New York State license to carry.
She probably got off lightly but here is the first google result I found.
Don't get insulted by the "pistol_whipped". The rightwing Post can't help
sensationalizing things:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/m...hipped_at_wtc_
1x32hgT52UNhxkP36ZYAgJ

No one ever said New York was a bastion of liberty. Rather the opposite, a
leftist loser state, like Illinois (the only state where a carry permit is
impossible).

Han wrote the following on 3/26/2012 4:50 PM (ET):
Oren wrote in
:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:05:00 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

Florida has it's "Stand Your Ground" law protecting lawful
self-defense.
A Castle Doctrine State.

A snippet: (check the actual law - just a sample)
...
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

“(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of
themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be
infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by
law. (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding
weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at
retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, “purchase”
means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the
retailer, and “handgun” means a firearm capable of being carried and
used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed
weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the
provisions of this paragraph. (c) . . . anyone violating the
provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony. (d) This
restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.” Article
1, Section 8.

The legislature of the State of Florida, in a declaration of policy
incorporated in its “Weapons and Firearms” statute, recognizes that
adult citizens of the state retain their constitutional right to keep
and bear firearms for hunting and sporting activities and for defense
of self, family, home, and business and as collectibles.

Article 1, Section 8.

Just a question, what is this "mandatory period of three days" for, in
the 4th line above, section (b)?


Google 'gun sales - cooling off periods'

--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:50:40 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

It's up to the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, not you.

But it has CLEARLY DONE SO on this issue
Read Heller and MacDonald to get up to speed on this

'08 and '10 respectively.

.... then read the 2nd Amendment of the Nevada State Constitution.

spit bunch of gun gabbers :-\

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:16:14 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Han" wrote in message
.. .
"HeyBub" wrote in
news

In the case of guns, the U.S. is unique in asserting that "the right
to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed." Some states and city
jurisdictions take one extreme view of guns and require governmental
permission, of one sort or another, to own or buy a gun, other
jurisdictions do not.

I'm not in favor of a Wild West mentality in cities.


There you go being ignorant again
The so-called Wild West was a MUCH SAFER place than Eastern Seaboard cities,
like Boston, New York, etc during the same period
And with all the States that have relaxed if not dumped their restrictions
on carry over the last 30 years, that paranoia about "Wild West mentality in
cities." is just that IGNORANT PARANOIA. that is COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED BY
ANY evidence.

Evidence. Lefties don't need no steenkin' evidence! They have their precious
"feelings".






Slowly, but surely, the notion that self-defense as an unassailable
right is creeping 'cross the land and that personal weapons tending to
assert that right should not be challenged.

That is very regrettable, IMO (and I do know there are other opinions).

Why is it "regrettable" ?


I can just see someone getting in an argument on a crowded subway
platform (and I've seen arguments). Would you want to see anyone, anyone
at all, start shooting.


OH YAWN !
You really need to do some self-education BEFORE you continue spouting such
ignorant Brady Bunch talking points.






Regrettably, there will be accidents or misfortune connected with the
unfettered availability of guns. That's the price we must accept, just
like traffic accidents are the price for driving.

Avoidable accidents should be avoided. We have seatbelts and airbags
now, right?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 4:52 pm, DD_BobK wrote:
On Mar 23, 11:16 pm, harry wrote:





On Mar 23, 10:37 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

gonjah wrote:

There is no evidence of oil lamp lanterns and pitch forks.

That guy is guilty as sin. He was told by the police not to pursue
the guy but he did anyway.

Nope. He was told by a 911 operator, who is NOT a cop, "We don't need
you to
do that."

The shooter, however, was on the scene - the 911 operator was not. He
decided to follow. Sure enough, the suspect entered a dark passageway
and
the neighborhood watch warden followed. Suddenly, the suspect turned.
Something metallic is his had flashed in the dim light. The watch
warden, in
fear of his life, discharged his service weapon in an attempt to stop
the
threat.

At least that's the way his statement is going to read.

"is going to read?" You really are mentally deranged.

Harry-

Cannot you perceive the voice of experience?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would have thought there was very little room to manipulate "facts".
The kid was young, small and unarmed and not breaking any laws.

17 & a 6'2" High School Football player, is neither young nor small.


The "perp" had no reason to follow him and was told not to.

Says you
Who are you again ??

Ballistics evidence will no doubt prove he shot the kid.

Since NO one denies that Zimmerman shot Martin, what's the point, dummy ?

No doubt it is known exctly when/where the incident occured.

yawn
Don't you know ANYTHING about the case ?
Or are ou a professional ignorant bloviator ?

The perp has a history of irrational behaviour.


NOPE

It's a loony country when a kid with a candybar gets shot in the
street by a paranoid nutcase with a history, the police take no action
and some people are making excuses for him.


AH here we go
harry, the dummy, launches into is Anti-US diarrhea..

The really sick thing is the people who are not worried about the kid
and his family, they are worried it might lead to restrictions on
carrying guns.

And that just gets your knickers into knots, doesn't it ?


Evil sick *******s.

Well, better that than being a dummy like you

"Han" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Did you know one cannot carry a concealed weapon in a post office or
Social Security branch? We hope to adjust this federal silliness in
the next administration.

You also cannot carry anything like a weapon into a VA hospital. ANd
for good reason. There were too many incidents of hospital employees
assaulted and sometimes killed. For the benefit of the good people
working in VA hospitals, I sure hope they won't relax those
prohibitions.


Yep. That's another rule that must yield, because, as you point out,
people are assaulted and killed in VA hospitals. This mayhem means
that visitors, staff, and even patients should be armed; for their
protection and the protection of others.

I sure hope you're kidding, if only for the memory of the doctor who got
shot and killed by a disgruntled vet in a wheelchair. By all accounts he
was the nicest, most caring doctor you could wish for.


Is that justification for everyone being defenseless against the next
criminal ?
That's just stupid

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:12:38 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:




"Stand Your Ground" means you have no legal obligation to retreat from
anywhere you have a lawful right to be.

Zimmerman had a complete and absolute right to be within inches of the
deceased. As such, he had no duty to retreat and every right to respond to
an assault with deadly force.

I don't know that's what happened, but the point is that SYG has zip to do,
legally, with chasing or following someone.


You are absolutely right. What we don't know, however, if Trayvon was
also standing his ground from an assault. My guess, and it is only
a guess, both could have retreated a little and avoided this.

There is a big information gap from the phone calls to Zim on the
ground.

"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On 26 Mar 2012 11:01:44 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 26 Mar 2012 01:02:14 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
om:

On 25 Mar 2012 21:14:42 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:3uidndaAX8U14vLSnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@earth link.com:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Did you know one cannot carry a concealed weapon in a post
office or Social Security branch? We hope to adjust this
federal silliness in the next administration.

You also cannot carry anything like a weapon into a VA
hospital. ANd for good reason. There were too many incidents
of hospital employees assaulted and sometimes killed. For the
benefit of the good people working in VA hospitals, I sure hope
they won't relax those prohibitions.


Yep. That's another rule that must yield, because, as you point
out,
people are assaulted and killed in VA hospitals. This mayhem
means that visitors, staff, and even patients should be armed;
for their protection and the protection of others.

I sure hope you're kidding, if only for the memory of the doctor
who got shot and killed by a disgruntled vet in a wheelchair. By
all accounts he was the nicest, most caring doctor you could wish
for.

The current laws sure helped him! rolls eyes

That happened BEFORE there was this type of security.

...and noting has ever happened again, since that security?

Nothing really serious that I know about. Plenty of scuffles. Around
that time they also changed the label of the outfit to "police" from
security guard. If you ever get to First Ave & 23rd Str, NYC, make a
visit and ask to see the confiscated weapons.

Oh, good grief. A law makes the criminals play nice. You are a
dreamer.

It's called self-defense. Or don't you agree that preventing is better
than resurrecting?


Disarming the law-abiding is NOT "self-defense" by even the most twisted
definition

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:28:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:




As to not breaking any laws, that is probably true in the beginning.
However by Zimmerman's account, he was returning to his car and
Martin attacked him. There is an eye witness to the actual event,
apparently the only one who saw what happened. That witness told
the media that:

A - He saw the struggle with Zimmerman on his back on the ground,
with MArtin on top.

B - The calls for help were coming from Zimmerman.

But we still don' tknow what happened prior to that. Was he returning
to his car after calling the kid racist names? Did he provoke the kid?
Not saying that would make it right, but it would make it
understandable. Something had to have happened between them and one
or both are wrong.


Zimmerman's friend, who happens to be black, has gone public to state that Z
was not in any way against blacks
SO the possibility of Z going off the deep end with "racist names" are
most unlikely.

"harry" wrote in message
...


Anybody that carries a gun is paranoid.

So by that stupid definition, hunters that carry guns are paranoid ?
The Police are paranoid ?
Soldiers' are paranoid ?
The Queen's bodyguards are paranoid ??

Apparently EVERYONE ELSE in the world is paranoid, except for you harry..

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
harry wrote:

Did you know one cannot carry a concealed weapon in a post office or
Social Security branch? We hope to adjust this federal silliness in
the next administration.

Anybody that carries a gun is paranoid.

Not exactly. "Paranoia" is a (usually) delusional state that, at its base,
depends on the belief in the malice of others. Merely fearing that
something bad may happen is not necessarily delusional.

If your mother tells you "Brush your teeth before bedtime or Dick Cheney
will sneak into your bedroom and suck your blood!" is she being paranoid?
Of course not. If, on the other hand, you believe her, you certainly are.


Well, his believing everyone with a gun is paranoid, is definitely paranoid
of it's own right...
That would explain a lot about our Brit dummy.

On 26 Mar 2012 18:04:18 GMT, Han wrote:

the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

That is certainly one view of the problem. One I do not wholeheartedly
endorse.

When you came to America, was there an Oath you took? Something to do
with protect and defend the Constitution.

....
my dog is armed and refuses to take his medication

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:44:53 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 3/26/2012 3:42 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:05:22 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

The only thing I can say for certain is Z exercised extremely poor
judgement by not following the directive of the dispatch.
He wasn't given a directive. It was an opinion.... We don't need you
to do that....

It's a loose definition but I'd take it as a directive. Z should have too.

Fortunately, Z is not as stupid as you are. You'd likely be dead. No loss
when a racist gets it, though.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:55:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:01:29 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

I won't leave but I won't see your post anymore. Thanks for your comments.

Jim T

You signed Jim T. Are you the same Jim T from Texas, the guy with a
10K gallon pool and clay soil? That Jim T?

Why are you trolling?

Good catch. It all makes sense.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:43:41 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 3/26/2012 3:39 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:37:31 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

We had some shootings near by and I happened to hear the shots. When I
called 911 they didn't tell me: "Can you go over there and get a better
look."
They should have.
Not really. The legal and financial implications if John Public did that
and got shot would be staggering. The probably tell people to not do
something, all the while hoping they will.


I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Getting a lot of that from the
self-defense w/o evidence crowd.

Dumb****, In the absence of evidence, it *is* self-defense. What a clueless,
racist, asshole. You do harry proud.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
news
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:44:41 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:






Sorry,but fact is,blacks,particularly younger black males,commit
crimes far out our proportion to their percentage of the population.

But rational people don't presume guilt just because someone is black.

Did he presume GUILT? Of what? He told police the kid -looked
suspicious,and mentioned certain -behaviors- to back it up. and he asked
that THEY check him out.

But that has nothing to do with the self-defense done by Zimmerman.
even if Zimmerman profiled the kid,that does not meet the standard for
"provocation" that would negate a self-defense claim.

here's the applicable Florida statue that I came across on Wiki today;

776.04 Use of force by aggressor. -The justification described in the
preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission
of, a forcible felony; or

(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or
she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she
has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the
use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the
assailant; or
(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the
assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to
withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or
resumes the use of force.

It's been cited several times now by police that Zimmerman had
returned to his SUV when he was attacked. IOW,he WITHDREW from following
Trayvon.(no mention of any confrontation,either.)
the news report I read today said that Zimmerman was approached by Trayvon
after he got back to his SUV,and Z pulled out his phone to call police
again when Trayvon punched him,and he fell to the ground,where Trayvon
jumped on him and began pummelling him,and banging his head into the
sidewalk.(I wondedr if police found Z's blood and maybe hair in that area?)
Zimmerman's injuries support that according to police.


sure,the young man had every right to be there,etc,but the watch man
had every right to keep an eye on an unknown wandering their
neighborhood,even to ask him what he's doing there.

He has the right to watch, but unless he has police authority, I don't
think he has the right to question. That can be confrontational and
start a problem.


Baloney; any person can walk up to anyone and politely ask them questions
that are not provocative or "confrontational". Asking what a stranger is
doing in a gated community is not "provocative",unless you have a big chip
on your shoulder;aka attitude. For that mater,you don't know if the guy is
approaching to ask you directions.
Especially if you mention you're part of the neighborhood watch,which does
confer some legitimate reason to ask such questions about your being there.
(I wonder if they have some jacket,hat or other identifying clothing that
lets people know you're Neighborhood Watch?)

So I guess this depends on your definition of "provocation" sufficient to
disallow self-defense.
Asking what you're doing in a gated neighborhood is not IMO,"provocative"
in that manner. To a -reasonable- person....

BTW,did you know Zimmerman and his wife was mentoring a black single mom's
two boys? Until he had to go into hiding,that is.also Zimmerman's black
frfiend is backing him up.
Does that sound like Z is a racist?

It's ironic that the family was bitching today about background checking
their dead son...that peoplre really don't know much about,and that they
use a younger,much nicer "innocent" picture than what he had on his
Facebook page.




All the teen needed to do was ask why he was being followed,or call
911,or knock on a door and yell for help.
Instead,he chose confrontation and attack,and it happened to be a guy
who was lawfully armed and who defended himself.

We don't know for sure who was confrontational yet. Could have been
either one.


You keep harping on that,but you and I both know there's NO witnesses or
evidence for that,and in that light,Zimmerman doesn't get charged under
Florida law.
there's also a part of the Stand Your Ground law that provides immunity
from arrest or charges,provided there's no reasonable evidence of
provocation. (IOW,that would stand up in court)
there is none.

And it's becoming clearer and clearer that Trayvon was the initiator of
hostilities.

Oh,one other new bit of info;Trayvon's suspension was for pot in school.
they found some small bits of MJ in a plastic baggie in his effects.
One more thing his parents probably didn't know about their sweet innocent
kid.

This is just another Tawana Brawley or Duke U fiasco.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:04:51 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 3/26/2012 3:54 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In astnet,
gonjahgonjah.net wrote:


I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Getting a lot of that from the
self-defense w/o evidence crowd.
The he is guilty until proven innocent crowd has been getting their digs
in, as well.


The vile has been coming primarily from the "sd" types. Enough is enough.

You could always go back where you came from.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:43:59 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"gonjah" gonjah.net wrote in message
...
On 3/25/2012 9:06 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/25/2012 7:51 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed
man. Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch
potato at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old
football player winning the fight.
True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that
Zimmerman is the adult here. Another thing is he followed Martin.
Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every right
to know what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did *not* have
the right to attack him, however. Why can't you get these simple
facts through your thick head?
He was told by the dispatcher "he didn't need to do that." You know
what? He didn't need to do that.


SO WHAT?

Someone got shot. That's what.


AND ?
Since we are still unclear as to WHY and under what circumstance Martin was
shot, on has to wonder why that is somehow an issue..

Easy; race baiting.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:52:16 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 3/26/2012 2:43 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:51:44 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:42 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/25/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:40:43 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

Zimmerman is 28 and looks from the photo to be a full grown armed man.
Martin was 16 and 140lbs.
How tall are these people. If Zimmerman is a 28 year old couch potato
at 5'6 and 240 pounds, my money is in the 17 year old football player
winning the fight.

True enough but I have even more trouble with the fact that Zimmerman is
the adult here. Another thing is he followed Martin. Why?
He was on the neighborhood watch. As a resident, he has every right to know
what's going on in his neighborhood. Martin did *not* have the right to
attack him, however. Why can't you get these simple facts through your thick
head?
He watches MSNBC? With two producers, that makes three people that
watch it.

Odd. I've noticed most of the pointless insults are coming from the self
defense crowd.

Pointless? You *are* a racist. Simple fact. It's disgusting. You're
disgusting.

Very interesting. I'm sure some pointless insult will follow.

No insults. Facts. You are a race-baiting asshole.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:01:13 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:




"could have" doesn't cut it in a court of law.
if anything,that absolves Zimmerman,as he's presumed to be innocent
until PROVEN guilty. People are reversing that and making Zimmerman
guilty until proven innocent,and that IS one intent of the Stand Your
Ground law;to assure the presumption of innocence until there's proof
the suspect committed a crime that they would be arrested for.
Otherwise,it's "arrest 'em all and let the court sort it out",and the
ODC's rights are violated.

Police had/have no evidence of Zimmerman confronting,provoking,or
attacking Trayvon,and thus he was rightfully released.
The investgation did continue,as police still have Zimmerman's gun
held as evidence. charges can still be filed,if new evidence appears
to show a crime was committed,but that is highly unlikely.

Assumptions are being made on both sides. I don't know who may be
guilty, none of us do. Anything anyone says to the contrary is pure
conjecture. I see that you do have one fact straight, "presumed"
innocent. Some are saying he is with not facts. Let's find out.


POLICE are saying (have said) that they have no facts or witnesses
suggesting Zimmerman did anything wrong. NO "assumptions" there.

when the independent investigators say the same thing,the blacks will
probably riot.
Of course,that is a sort of blackmail in itself.
"arrest and try him,or we'll riot" IS implied.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:57:40 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

Nor is it an excuse to remove Zimmerman's right to self-defense

If the authorities have taken his weapon, they have taken his "right
to self-defense".

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
news
On 3/26/2012 11:38 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
William wrote in
:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:21:46 -0500, wrote:

Is there anyone on the site who has personal knowledge of the
circumstances or are all comments based upon varying media reports,
talking heads, blogs, etc, that so far, is constantly being
modified.
Any further info on the neighbor whose survelliance camera caught
some/all of the instance? Holding out for big pay from media, or
just BS?

I haven't heard of that one,it's new to me.
If true,police would have requested(seized?) it as evidence,or gotten
a copy for evidence.

few surveillance cams are good at night or at longer
ranges,however.nor do they usually do audio.


I haven't heard of any. Sounds like BS,


my gated apartment complex has 2-3 cameras watching each entrance,but I
found out they don't see too well at night. not good enough to get a plate
number.
AFTER my Integra GS-R was stolen....one month after the gates went into
operation,in 2007. My neighbor's motorcycle was stolen at 11 AM;the gates
are open during the day,I saw it go down. Police are useless.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article ,
Oren wrote:


Not my idea, but a fiction writer. Freeze the crooks, orbit in space
so when we find a cure for crime we can bring them down for the cure.


Wasn't that also more or less the premise for Demolition Man (although
they kept the crooksicles closer to home). Sandra Bullock in that tight
cop's uniform (sigghhh)

I gotta check out Lockout ... thanks.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:29:49 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

The only thing I can say for certain is Z exercised extremely poor
judgement by not following the directive of the dispatch.
It was *NOT* a directive, moron!

A directive is defined as an order "or" instruction.

...he was given an opinion

Not even that. It was just a statement.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:55:14 -0400, Norminn wrote:

On 3/26/2012 1:06 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:09:24 -0400, wrote:

On 3/26/2012 8:14 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In astnet,
gonjahgonjah.net wrote:




"Stand your ground" doesn't apply because Z followed M. I'm sure you're
aware, but just in case.
I am not as sure with the key point being "followed". If they were
both out walking and Z was following at a distance and M turned and came
after him, the SYG would most certainly apply.

They weren't both out walking, as I have read. Zim dialed 911 while in
his vehicle and described the BLACK male as "suspicious"...hands on the
waistband of his pants...."AND HE'S BLACK".

I'd like to see the reports where he placed this emphasis on his conversation.
IOW, you're lying.

Not lying, and the emphasis was mine....

You're stating your (racist) interpretation as fact. That *is* a lie. You're
just another race-baiting asshole.


of almost 50 911 calls, a number
of them were about black males who didn't sound like they were causing
trouble. The call about one who matched description of a burglary
suspect, obviously, would be appropriate.

More race-baiting. Do you have any other arguments? The fact is that there
is no evidence that it was anything other than a righteous kill. ...and
plenty of evidence that it was.

HE WAS TOLD POLICE WERE ON
THE WAY, SO NO REASON AT ALL TO ESCALATE THE SITUATION!

So what? He didn't.

How did Martin get dead, dip****?

I know you're not too bright, but maybe answering this once more might help
you learn: He made the *STUPID* mistake of attacking someone with a weapon.

Zim was told he didn't "need" to follow Martin.

But he was perfectly within his rights to do so.

Get out of his vehicle and approach Martin?

Idiot. It was Martin who approached Zimmerman.

That would, possibly, give
Martin the "stand your ground" basis for physical contact. Z. has a
history of violence, including a restraining order!

Cite.

Martin was there to visit family!

Irrelevant.

As opposed to buying/selling drugs, hanging with hoods, burglary, etc.

Did he beat Zimmerman, or not?

SYG may operate in favor of Martin, not Zim!

Really? It's going to bring him back to life? You're a moron.

Possibilites, without evidence, to discuss the issue.

Good God, you're a moron. A race-baiting moron.

Zim had attended training for
neighborhood watch, which discourages (some ban) carrying weapons.

Irrelevant. They can't ban someone from legally carrying a firearm. They're
not some uber-legal authority.

From
the sound of the 911 (that isn't complete evidence), Martin was doing
nothing that entitled Zim to approach or confront him.

If you will bother to read the evidence at hand, he didn't. It was MARTIN who
confronted, and pummeled Zimmerman. Zimmerman shot him in self defense. SYG
had nothing to do with it. He *couldn't* retreat.

Being a black
teen, being approached by a heavier, bigger male late at night would
make him....do what?

You're an idiot. Martin was a 6'3" athlete.

And that would make the kid immune to fearing for his safety or fighting
an attacker....

....and he died for his stupid mistake. Darwin had something to say about
this.

The kid screamed just before being shot and
whatever a "reliable witness" was at the time is questionable...another
non-black?

Moron, the eyewitness account says it was Zimmerman who screamed for help. Get
your facts straight, then perhaps you can pull your head out of your ass, you
racist old hag.

Take your meds, asshole.

You're allowed your racist opinions. You're *NOT* allowed your own facts,
dumb****!

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:30:22 -0400, "
wrote:





Exactly. All speculation. Let's wait for the investigation.

Then why are *you* speculating? Rather hypocritical, no?

But I drew no conclusions.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:30:44 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

Personally, I don't give a ****. I wouldn't wear a hoodie in Florida nor
would I wear the waist of my pants down around my knees.



that is the clue these folks ignore;
one can wear a hoodie,and not look like a thug,or they can wear the
"gangsta" style clothes and look and get treated like a thug.
Just like if you dress and look like a bum,you get treated like one.

Do you think police don't operate that way? a reasonably dressed person is
going to get better treatment than someone who looks "gangsta".

Don't laugh. I was a rookie for one day. An inmate orderly was
standing in my hallway.

WTF are you doing?! I asked him. "Boss, I'm moppin' the floor".

No you ain't until you put some clothes on over the leopard panties.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:11:24 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:55:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:01:29 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

I won't leave but I won't see your post anymore. Thanks for your comments.

Jim T

You signed Jim T. Are you the same Jim T from Texas, the guy with a
10K gallon pool and clay soil? That Jim T?

Why are you trolling?

Good catch. It all makes sense.

Jim T stepped on his dick and I caught him -- neener neener

Little known fact. The baggy and droopy fashion style is imitating the jail
house. Where belts are prohibited, and where people are seldom issued the
correct clothing size. So, when I see the baggy, droopy, hoodie and saggy
type. I immediately wonder how recently and how long has that person been in
jail.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:33:11 -0400, Hugh Jass wrote:

Personally, I don't give a ****. I wouldn't wear a hoodie in Florida nor
would I wear the waist of my pants down around my knees.

.... and that's a fact jack