"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

So you are claiming that this vet killed the doctor because he was
allowed to have a firearm ??
Exactly HOW was that doctor killed ??

At the time, possession of the firearm may have been illegal or not.
I don't know whther that vet had a license. However, disabled as he
was, he managed to enter the hospital in his wheelchair with the gun
because there was NO weapons screening at the time as there is now.
He proceeded to find
the doctor and just shot him. As if it were an ambush of sorts.

I think that answers all your questions.


So you admit that the rule to ban guns that was already in place did
NOT work to protect the doctor or prevent the attack

Interesting that you promote a rule that has been shown not to work
So CLEARLY, your position is not a rational one based on what
works. It's
instead based on the wishful thought that MAYBE it works and thus it
should be kept.



If arming personnel were the answer, the only result would have been
more deaths in this case.


Classic cliché line that is UNSUPPORTED by DATA
That type of "Blood in the Streets", "Shootouts like the OK Corral"
have been trotted out in EVERY SINGLE State that considered relaxing
it's carry laws, by the hoplophobe gun controllers
It's IRONIC that it has NEVER BEEN SHOWN to come true
In actual fact the OPPOSITE has occurred

By the way, you do know that law-abiding armed citizens shoot more
than twice as many criminals as police do, and yet al those
well-trained police shoot almost 6 times as many innocent bystanders
as those "untrained" law-abiding citizens..
Your confidence is placed in the hands of the wrong people

And your arguments are based on individual incidents instead of the
whole picture.
Can you say "statistical fallacies" ?

I know. It's just too bad for the dead ones, they were just collateral
damage.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jl22bu$ai7$1
@dont-email.me:

You claimed to have worked in a VA lab.
Did you have to study statistics to get there ?
If so, have you forgotten the simple rule of statistics that individual
incidents are NOT representative of trends or facts that apply to large
numbers ?

Statistics are generally used to bring up a point, and yes, I have
studied statistics enough so that I know when to feel confident in the
calculations in Excel and when to go to an expert.

One doesn't need to know any statistics to feel safer in that VA hospital
now with the enhanced security than right after this incident. Yes, it
was just a single fact. But I have seen the collection of confiscated
"weapons" in the police office, and I have observed a few people (one was
really gross) who were invited to leave the premises or surrender what
they tried to carry in (whether with or without any malice).

Let me ask you: You are not allowed to carry a weapon in the VA, unless
you are police, and authorized to do so. If you were a doctor in the
emergency room facilities would you want the police to confiscate weapons
carried by patients, visitors or other employees, or not? No
modification of these conditions, please.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Fine. A few days ago, a perfectly fine captain of an aircraft went
nuts and almost caused the deaths of 250 (I think) people. Some time
ago, the then legal owner of a pistol shot up a bunch of peacably
gathered people resulting in deaths and injury. Gabby Giffords was
one of the injured. The shooter was subdued before more harm was done
by physical restraint, only because he couldn't reload his weapon.

All perfect examples of how a person who was considered fine and
capable can go berserk, for lack of a better term.

And a few days before that, a flight attendant went a little funny in
the head and started warning the passengers to say their prayers,
they're gonna die.

There have been, however, far more passengers who went nuts than
flight crew.

Based on the probabilities, would you advocate removing firearms from
the flight deck crew?

Just asking.

Since there is a heavy duty fireax in the cockpit, I would not be in
favor of firearms carried by cockpit crew. I do know that absence of
firearms in the cockpit is generally the case now, with exception of some
cockpit crew who have been very specially trained. At least that is my
perception. Those current regulations are fine with me, especially if
they could somewhat enhance the checking of the psychological stability
of the crews, both cockpit and flight attendants.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:


Regarding your question on Giffords, I do consider that regrettable
incident collateral damage, she was an innocent victim - as far as we
know.

So than we can empty insane asylums. That'll save money.

Already been done. That was the result of the Community Mental Health
Act back under JFK. Stared deinstutionalization. Over 500,000 beds
closed during the first 20 years, with more that followed. For instance,
the place I worked had 45 beds in the acute unit when I started in '85.
It is now 14 and there may be no Psych Unit at all in the new hospital.


OK, now we should get rid of the FDA as well. Merck should sue them for
taking Vioxx off the market, those few people that died shouldn't really
matter. And so on and so forth.

Actually they should. The side effect profile for Vioxx is exactly
the same as for every other NSAID, even those currently on the market.

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

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:08:28 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
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 :-\

I'm not sure he's a "gun grabber"

He's not. He has said as much here before.

It's more like he didn't pay attention during his citizenship classes. Which
30+ years ago were supposed to be much more thourough about such things,
than they are these days.


Every American *should* go and see the U. S. Constitution, make it a
family day.

But you can tell, he has that New York attitude, that has festered after
over 100 years under the Sullivan Act


I just looked at prohibited items. Much of them are also prohibited
by sates laws. For example; my knife collection, prison collection
items are prohibited by law if I carry them.

NY does have a Peace Officer law. LEO's (even retired) don't need no
stinking papers.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:

snip
OK, now we should get rid of the FDA as well. Merck should sue them
for taking Vioxx off the market, those few people that died shouldn't
really matter. And so on and so forth.

Actually they should. The side effect profile for Vioxx is exactly
the same as for every other NSAID, even those currently on the market.

Indeed, the general profile is very similar. It may be that Vioxx was a
bit worse than most, but it is similar. I believe the black box warnings
on all NSAIDS have been updated. Most interesting is that the real
mechanism(s) for these subgroups that are more prone to cardiovascular
complications is not (yet) fully known.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Oren wrote in news:2t99n7dlaijsj7ueve8ri5q3iocv1n1rkj@
4ax.com:

Every American *should* go and see the U. S. Constitution, make it a
family day.

Both, the ship and the paper.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Bill Kniess wrote in
:

Han wrote in
:

" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:29:34 GMT, Han wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote in
.3.44:

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.

At the moment, because of the deficiencies in the police handling
of the case, there is a suspicion by some of the police swiping
the case under the rug, and giving Zimmerman a free pass.

Of course there is. Race-baiters have to make a living.

On the other hand, there is also a suspicion of a Tawana
Brawley-like incitement to riot.

Don't be an idiot.

I'm afraid that the lack of real conclusive evidence as to what
led to the fisticuffs will leave each side with its supporters.

Bull****. The race-baiters fanned the flames (read: incited to
riot). The NC lacrosse case was the same deal.

It is unfortunate that we won't hear Martin tell his side.

Stupid move and he died for it. Too bad, but the gene pool is
cleaner.

At the moment the "evidence" AFAICT is very thin on either side.

For sure the Sanford PD really botched this one - by not collecting
the proper evidence, it's likely there will not ever have the facts.

The gun should have been confiscated, clothing collected for blood
analysis, gunshot residue checked on both Martin and Zimmerman,
inspection of Martin's hands (I hav enever seen anyone come out of a
fight with pristine hands and knuckles), Zimmerman should have been
examined by a physician for his nose and back of head, etc. The
forensics would have either proven or disproven Zimmerman's account.
The forensics never lie. Yet other beauty of forensics is that the
past life of either person has no relevance in finding the truth.

Bill Kniess


Zimmerman's gun WAS confiscated and is STILL being held as evidence.
same for his clothing.
Zimmerman was handcuffed,taken into custody,held for several hours while
police investigated. I'm sure crime scene photos were taken for
evidence,not that they would be released to the public this early.
Zimmerman also received medical treatment from EMTs at the crime scene,and
I believe he had stitches to close the wound on the back of his head.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Bill Kniess wrote in
:

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.

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.

From what Zimmerman's father said last night on Fox35,Trayvon was wandering
around behind some townhomes,not just walking home from 7-11.
Places he was not supposed to be.


He did NOT have the right as a watch member to "ask what he's doing
there".

Yes,he did,same as any other adult. However,I don't believe any questions
were ever asked. Trayvon disappeared from Zimmerman's sight(that's on the
tapes IIRC),and that is when he returned to his SUV to wait for police to
arrive,and when he was attacked.

Watch members are NOT to interact anyway with the
"suspicious" subjects. Their job is to observe and report to the
police, then follow any directions given by the police.


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.

As P stated, you are absolutely correct.

What if he were asking or going to ask for directions??
there's a lot of questions that are NOT "confrontational".
Unless you have a big chip on your shoulder,or are doing something wrong.



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.

He may have been lawfully armed in that he has a permit to carry, but
the precepts of the neighborhood watch program do NOT include members
carrying.

Do you have a citation for that?
In the light of the Trayvon attack,it certainly seems prudent to go about
armed after dark.
Plus,I'm probably a bit more familiar with Sanford that most of you folks,I
live only 15 miles away,and have travelled through it many times. It's a
high crime area,the entire city. In some areas,people have BARS on their
windows and doors.

Further it is best when waych members work in pairs, so
there will be at least one who can act reasonably.

Zimmerman acted reasonably.
He defended himself from a vicious,unreasonable attack.
He also fired only ONE shot. That was verified by the officer that took
possession of and cleared his gun.
That shows restraint.

One more item;
Zimmerman and his wife were a mentor to a black single mom and her two
children.
does that sound like a racist?



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



there is NO evidence of any "confrontation",nor was his following Trayvon
any "provocation".
There IS evidence and witness testimony of Trayvon attacking Zimmerman.

also,note that Trayvon was caught at his school possessing a burglar
tool(flat bladed screwdriver,a prybar used by thieves) and 12 pieces of
womens jewelry,so it's very possible Trayvon WAS looking for homes to
burgle when Zimmerman saw him.
I wonder if that is how his gold "grill" was paid for?

Trayvon was suspended multiple times,for vandalism,drug possession,and was
found in possession of a burglar tool and the womens jewelry,he was NOT any
"good kid".


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article ,
Han wrote:

Indeed, the general profile is very similar. It may be that Vioxx was a
bit worse than most, but it is similar. I believe the black box warnings
on all NSAIDS have been updated. Most interesting is that the real
mechanism(s) for these subgroups that are more prone to cardiovascular
complications is not (yet) fully known.

Basic problem with Vioxx was that Merck had run afoul of some of the
activitist groups and Merck did a bad PR job. The AGs at the time said
Merck had covered up some of the side effects, yet they were mentioned
in the pivotal trials. Politics over science.

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

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:

Indeed, the general profile is very similar. It may be that Vioxx
was a bit worse than most, but it is similar. I believe the black
box warnings on all NSAIDS have been updated. Most interesting is
that the real mechanism(s) for these subgroups that are more prone to
cardiovascular complications is not (yet) fully known.

Basic problem with Vioxx was that Merck had run afoul of some of the
activitist groups and Merck did a bad PR job. The AGs at the time said
Merck had covered up some of the side effects, yet they were mentioned
in the pivotal trials. Politics over science.

My take is that Merck put at least some trials that they didn't like the
outcome of in the round file, or hid them where they wouldn't be looked
for. Also they very aggressively marketed their drug, which they needed
to do since theirs was the second Cox-2 inhibitor on the market. Note
that Celebrex, the first one, is still being sold.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:55:09 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
Oren wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:46:20 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On 27 Mar 2012 20:18:23 GMT, Han wrote:

I wasn't really thinking of visiting Mexico. But (if I read
between the lines correctly) it is reassuring that you think it is
safe to visit those states even if unarmed. I don't think I can
just go into an Arizona gunshop and buy a firearm, even with a
3-day waiting period, since I'm not a resident of the state.

Buy a hand gun in Nevada. Only in two counties it has to be
registered within 72 hours.


You actually put up with this "registration" ****?



... me? You talkin' too me? looks around

Move to Texas or some other civilized place.


Why?

Because we don't have gun registration, gun licensing, mandatory gun
handling classes, Firearm Identification Cards, waiting periods, and other
assorted silliness. In Texas, you can carry a gun in your home (of course)
without it being locked up, unloaded, or disassembled. You can carry a gun
at your place of business. You can carry a gun in your car.

If you go to the trouble of getting a concealed handgun license (CHL), you
can carry a gun on your person almost anywhere. Below is a short list of
prohibited places:

* Jails
* Courtrooms
* Schools
* School athletic events

That means you can carry your sidearm into a police station, library,
church, city hall, county motor pool, the state capitol, governor's
office, or just about anywhere else.

As a matter of fact, our legislature passed a law specifically PROHIBITING
any agency of government - state, city, county, what-have-you, from
restricting CHL holders in any way.

Of course there is the pussy-whipped FEDERAL facilities that frown on
weapons. These include the post office, Social Security Office,
blah-blah-blah, but not National Parks, Corp of Engineer projects and
lands, and a few other places.



That should all be changing (for the better) in the years to come (I hope).


Texas and other states can adopt open carry laws, like in Nevada. Walk
with your pistol in public, on a public and busy street.
Non-concealed.

A few minutes away is Arizona -- open carry.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:02:52 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:

I would prefer that firearms would be carried only by professionals, but
you don't agree.

NOT when I compare the performance of the so-called "professionals" to the
"amateurs"
Let's see
The "Amateurs" aka law-abiding citizens manage to shoot more than double the
number of criminals as the so-called "professionals"
And yet at the same time, the so-called "professionals" manage to shoot
nearly 6 times as many innocent bystanders as the "amateurs'...

That's a REALLY, REALLY good argument, according to you, to rely on
so-called "professionals"...


I think what he means is that professionals waste bullets. I've been
wrong once, but was mistaken.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:23:17 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



There have been, however, far more passengers who went nuts than flight
crew.


Kurt's 5th rule of Creative Psychiatry: Manics come from the
airport; Schizophrenics from the bus station.

Oren's rule; perform a Sidewalk Miracle. Have the creature throw down
his crutches, run to the medic -- saying help me I need a phone call.

Beggin' to go to work.

On 29 Mar 2012 07:25:03 GMT, Bill Kniess wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 27 Mar 2012 12:29:34 GMT, Han wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote in
. 3.44:

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.

At the moment, because of the deficiencies in the police handling
of the case, there is a suspicion by some of the police swiping
the case under the rug, and giving Zimmerman a free pass.

Of course there is. Race-baiters have to make a living.

On the other hand, there is also a suspicion of a Tawana
Brawley-like incitement to riot.

Don't be an idiot.

I'm afraid that the lack of real conclusive evidence as to what
led to the fisticuffs will leave each side with its supporters.

Bull****. The race-baiters fanned the flames (read: incited to
riot). The NC lacrosse case was the same deal.

It is unfortunate that we won't hear Martin tell his side.

Stupid move and he died for it. Too bad, but the gene pool is
cleaner.

Well not as clean as it could be if you promise not to
have offspring....

You're about 33 years too late, dumb****.

Han wrote:

Of course the definition of "opinion" is "a sincerely held belief not
based on facts." You, of course, cannot be stopped from fantasizing,
but your imagination may not be consistent with the real world.

Regarding your question on Giffords, I do consider that regrettable
incident collateral damage, she was an innocent victim - as far as we
know.

So than we can empty insane asylums. That'll save money.

We did that already, that's why we have so many "homeless" on the street.


First, we should never base laws on one or a few particular,
anecdotal events. Laws have to be based on results in the aggregate.

Second, we've already made the decision on the acceptability of
"collateral damage" in almost everything else. We don't require
licensing, training, or identification when someone buys a toaster
just because there have been exactly three bathtub electrocutions
with toasters since they were introduced in the 1930's.

OK, now we should get rid of the FDA as well. Merck should sue them
for taking Vioxx off the market, those few people that died shouldn't
really matter. And so on and so forth.

Heh! Do you ever read the "possible side effects" on available drugs. Vioxx
isn't the only drug that was, or is, the proximate cause of death. The
interesting point is why Vioxx and not aspirin. Aspirin has certainly cause
more deaths than Vioxx.


You have really upped my faith in humanity. Such an easy solution to
overpopulation!!

A solution in search of a problem. There is no overpopulation problem.

If you took all the people on earth and stacked them up like cordwood,
they'd fit in a cubic mile. You'd have to ignore the objections of those on
the bottom...

Han wrote:

Based on the probabilities, would you advocate removing firearms from
the flight deck crew?

Just asking.

Since there is a heavy duty fireax in the cockpit, I would not be in
favor of firearms carried by cockpit crew. I do know that absence of
firearms in the cockpit is generally the case now, with exception of
some cockpit crew who have been very specially trained. At least
that is my perception. Those current regulations are fine with me,
especially if they could somewhat enhance the checking of the
psychological stability of the crews, both cockpit and flight
attendants.

It's called a "cargo ax" and it's a little more than a hatchet.

On another group, a pilot averred as how he and his colleagues were trained
not to use the cargo ax on the passengers. Of course this generated the
usual questions: "How much training did that take?" "Was there a lab?" and
so on.

Han wrote:

But in my opinion, inside (VA) hospitals, with their often frenetic
pace, and the influx at times of delusional people, there shouldn't
be ordinary citizens carrying weapons. Note that not all crazies are
locked up inside wards. Some just come to get their medications, or
other treatment, or to visit their buddies. Why take the risk of
aone or more crazies doing the wrong thing?

If, as you observed, there are crazies meandering through the halls of VA
hospitals - and you have no way to identify, segregate, or keep them out -
that would argue for the sane, responsible, righteous people to be armed.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:11:57 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:




He may have been lawfully armed in that he has a permit to carry, but
the precepts of the neighborhood watch program do NOT include members
carrying.

Do you have a citation for that?
In the light of the Trayvon attack,it certainly seems prudent to go about
armed after dark.

There is an organization called Neighborhood Watch. They don't want
people to carry weapons. Zimmerman was a self appointed watch guy,
not affiliated with the nationwide organization. He did not have to
follow their rules or suggestions.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jl22bu$ai7$1
@dont-email.me:

You claimed to have worked in a VA lab.
Did you have to study statistics to get there ?
If so, have you forgotten the simple rule of statistics that individual
incidents are NOT representative of trends or facts that apply to large
numbers ?

Statistics are generally used to bring up a point, and yes, I have
studied statistics enough so that I know when to feel confident in the
calculations in Excel and when to go to an expert.

One doesn't need to know any statistics to feel safer in that VA hospital
now with the enhanced security than right after this incident. Yes, it
was just a single fact. But I have seen the collection of confiscated
"weapons" in the police office, and I have observed a few people (one was
really gross) who were invited to leave the premises or surrender what
they tried to carry in (whether with or without any malice).

Let me ask you: You are not allowed to carry a weapon in the VA, unless
you are police, and authorized to do so. If you were a doctor in the
emergency room facilities would you want the police to confiscate weapons
carried by patients, visitors or other employees, or not? No
modification of these conditions, please.


Why would I want them confiscated from people who have done nothing wrong

Why do you condone outright theft by the State ?

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

So you admit that the rule to ban guns that was already in place did
NOT work to protect the doctor or prevent the attack

Interesting that you promote a rule that has been shown not to work
So CLEARLY, your position is not a rational one based on what
works. It's
instead based on the wishful thought that MAYBE it works and thus it
should be kept.

Take a class in logic. It might help you.

LOL
Unlike you, I used to teach it


As many have pointed out rules, laws and regulations
are totally worthless without enforcement. DO I need
to go on?
--


And some are completely pointless EVEN with Enforcement
Read up on the Red Lake High School shooting where there were security
guards AND Detectors
Sure didn't stop the shooter.
But it gave people like you a false sense of security.
Many of them died for it.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

So you are claiming that this vet killed the doctor because he was
allowed to have a firearm ??
Exactly HOW was that doctor killed ??

At the time, possession of the firearm may have been illegal or not.
I don't know whther that vet had a license. However, disabled as he
was, he managed to enter the hospital in his wheelchair with the gun
because there was NO weapons screening at the time as there is now.
He proceeded to find
the doctor and just shot him. As if it were an ambush of sorts.

I think that answers all your questions.


So you admit that the rule to ban guns that was already in place did
NOT work to protect the doctor or prevent the attack

Interesting that you promote a rule that has been shown not to work
So CLEARLY, your position is not a rational one based on what
works. It's
instead based on the wishful thought that MAYBE it works and thus it
should be kept.



If arming personnel were the answer, the only result would have been
more deaths in this case.


Classic cliché line that is UNSUPPORTED by DATA
That type of "Blood in the Streets", "Shootouts like the OK Corral"
have been trotted out in EVERY SINGLE State that considered relaxing
it's carry laws, by the hoplophobe gun controllers
It's IRONIC that it has NEVER BEEN SHOWN to come true
In actual fact the OPPOSITE has occurred

By the way, you do know that law-abiding armed citizens shoot more
than twice as many criminals as police do, and yet al those
well-trained police shoot almost 6 times as many innocent bystanders
as those "untrained" law-abiding citizens..
Your confidence is placed in the hands of the wrong people

And your arguments are based on individual incidents instead of the
whole picture.
Can you say "statistical fallacies" ?

I know. It's just too bad for the dead ones, they were just collateral
damage.


**** happens
That's life.
No different from the 42,000+ innocents killed on roads annually. where both
drivers and vehicles are licensed
Man that licensing sure works great...
Not only it doesn't stop licensing people from going around and killing
themselves and others. It doesn't even stop people who never had a license
or had it withdrawn from participating in the killings.
So naturally, stricter licensing should solve the problem according to such
as you

And you tell me to take a class in logic ?
I would need to take a class in stupidity to operate at that level.

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

But in my opinion, inside (VA) hospitals, with their often frenetic
pace, and the influx at times of delusional people, there shouldn't
be ordinary citizens carrying weapons. Note that not all crazies are
locked up inside wards. Some just come to get their medications, or
other treatment, or to visit their buddies. Why take the risk of
aone or more crazies doing the wrong thing?

If, as you observed, there are crazies meandering through the halls of VA
hospitals - and you have no way to identify, segregate, or keep them out -
that would argue for the sane, responsible, righteous people to be armed.


I don't think he has the cognitive capacity the recognize that.
Just as he is unable to recognize the cognitive dissonance in confounding
the crazies with the rest of the population.

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

So you are claiming that this vet killed the doctor because he was
allowed to have a firearm ??
Exactly HOW was that doctor killed ??

At the time, possession of the firearm may have been illegal or
not. I don't know whther that vet had a license. However, disabled
as he was, he managed to enter the hospital in his wheelchair with
the gun because there was NO weapons screening at the time as there
is now. He proceeded to find
the doctor and just shot him. As if it were an ambush of sorts.

I think that answers all your questions.


So you admit that the rule to ban guns that was already in place did
NOT work to protect the doctor or prevent the attack

Interesting that you promote a rule that has been shown not to work
So CLEARLY, your position is not a rational one based on what
works. It's
instead based on the wishful thought that MAYBE it works and thus it
should be kept.



If arming personnel were the answer, the only result would have
been more deaths in this case.


Classic cliché line that is UNSUPPORTED by DATA
That type of "Blood in the Streets", "Shootouts like the OK Corral"
have been trotted out in EVERY SINGLE State that considered relaxing
it's carry laws, by the hoplophobe gun controllers
It's IRONIC that it has NEVER BEEN SHOWN to come true
In actual fact the OPPOSITE has occurred

By the way, you do know that law-abiding armed citizens shoot more
than twice as many criminals as police do, and yet al those
well-trained police shoot almost 6 times as many innocent bystanders
as those "untrained" law-abiding citizens..
Your confidence is placed in the hands of the wrong people

And your arguments are based on individual incidents instead of the
whole picture.
Can you say "statistical fallacies" ?

I know. It's just too bad for the dead ones, they were just
collateral damage.


**** happens
That's life.
No different from the 42,000+ innocents killed on roads annually.
where both drivers and vehicles are licensed
Man that licensing sure works great...
Not only it doesn't stop licensing people from going around and
killing themselves and others. It doesn't even stop people who never
had a license or had it withdrawn from participating in the killings.
So naturally, stricter licensing should solve the problem according to
such as you

And you tell me to take a class in logic ?
I would need to take a class in stupidity to operate at that
level.

You're only right in 1 point. Regulations don't work if you don't
enforce them. One of the right's favorites was Giuliani. Rudi started
(more or less) enforcing rules and regulations and his police drove down
crime. Now Bloomie is floating on the results, but forgets the starategy
and crime is rising again. I know it's a generalization and ignores many
other factors. Just yesterday there was a horrific accident in town.
Drunk missed a curve on the highway and wrapped around a tree, killing
his passenger. He's in the hospital with severe injuries charged with
vehicular manslaughter. Who exactly needds to enforce drunken driving
rules, I don't know. I don't know whether a bar or just "friends" were
involved. Will come out later.

The same with gun rules and immigration, just to name a few areas. Rules
only work if they are enforced.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
news:jl22bu$ai7$1 @dont-email.me:

You claimed to have worked in a VA lab.
Did you have to study statistics to get there ?
If so, have you forgotten the simple rule of statistics that
individual incidents are NOT representative of trends or facts that
apply to large numbers ?

Statistics are generally used to bring up a point, and yes, I have
studied statistics enough so that I know when to feel confident in
the calculations in Excel and when to go to an expert.

One doesn't need to know any statistics to feel safer in that VA
hospital now with the enhanced security than right after this
incident. Yes, it was just a single fact. But I have seen the
collection of confiscated "weapons" in the police office, and I have
observed a few people (one was really gross) who were invited to
leave the premises or surrender what they tried to carry in (whether
with or without any malice).

Let me ask you: You are not allowed to carry a weapon in the VA,
unless you are police, and authorized to do so. If you were a doctor
in the emergency room facilities would you want the police to
confiscate weapons carried by patients, visitors or other employees,
or not? No modification of these conditions, please.


Why would I want them confiscated from people who have done nothing
wrong

Why do you condone outright theft by the State ?

It's not the state, it is a federal entity, the VA. And they refuse to
act as safekeepers for Joe Schmoe's weapons. You get a choice -
relinquish the weapon and enter, or do not enter. That's not theft. I
have no idea what happens when you carry a sawed-off shutgun in and show
them.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Attila.Iskander wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Han wrote:

But in my opinion, inside (VA) hospitals, with their often frenetic
pace, and the influx at times of delusional people, there shouldn't
be ordinary citizens carrying weapons. Note that not all crazies
are locked up inside wards. Some just come to get their
medications, or other treatment, or to visit their buddies. Why
take the risk of aone or more crazies doing the wrong thing?

If, as you observed, there are crazies meandering through the halls
of VA hospitals - and you have no way to identify, segregate, or
keep them out - that would argue for the sane, responsible,
righteous people to be armed.

I don't think he has the cognitive capacity the recognize that.
Just as he is unable to recognize the cognitive dissonance in
confounding the crazies with the rest of the population.

Could be. I tend to differentiate the groups by whether they' a) afraid
of guns or b) afraid of criminals.

It's been my impression that many "project." That is, when they hear of some
ghastly event they think to themselves: "If I had been there, and had a gun,
I certainly would have killed everybody in sight, then sought out their
relatives and friends, so, to prevent me or someone else from inflicting
fatal mayhem, we've got to remove the temptation."

In the alternative, they might think: "Most people of lesser abilities than
I, when faced with the same circumstances, would certainly have visited
death in great numbers on the miscreants and everybody the malefactors ever
knew. We've got to prevent those of lesser self-control from depopulating
the neighborhood!"

On Mar 30, 7:03*am, Han wrote:
"Attila.Iskander" wrote :







"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

"Han" wrote in message
. ..
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

So you are claiming that this vet killed the doctor because he was
allowed to have a firearm ??
* * Exactly HOW was that doctor killed ??

At the time, possession of the firearm may have been illegal or
not. I don't know whther that vet had a license. *However, disabled
as he was, he managed to enter the hospital in his wheelchair with
the gun because there was NO weapons screening at the time as there
is now. He proceeded to find
the doctor and just shot him. *As if it were an ambush of sorts.

I think that answers all your questions.

So you admit that the rule to ban guns that was already in place did
NOT work to protect the doctor or prevent the attack

Interesting that you promote a rule that has been shown not to work
* *So CLEARLY, your position is not a rational one based on what
* *works. It's
instead based on the wishful thought that MAYBE it works and thus it
should be kept.

If arming personnel were the answer, the only result would have
been more deaths in this case.

Classic cliché line that is UNSUPPORTED by DATA
That type of "Blood in the Streets", "Shootouts like the OK Corral"
have been trotted out in EVERY SINGLE State that considered relaxing
it's carry laws, by the hoplophobe gun controllers
* * It's IRONIC that it has NEVER BEEN SHOWN to come true
In actual fact the OPPOSITE has occurred

By the way, you do know that law-abiding armed citizens shoot more
than twice as many criminals as police do, and yet al those
well-trained police shoot almost 6 times as many innocent bystanders
as those "untrained" law-abiding citizens..
* * Your confidence is placed in the hands of the wrong people

And your arguments are based on individual incidents instead of the
whole picture.
* * Can you say "statistical fallacies" ?

I know. *It's just too bad for the dead ones, they were just
collateral damage.

**** happens
* * That's life.
No different from the 42,000+ innocents killed on roads annually.
where both drivers and vehicles are licensed
* * Man that licensing sure works great...
Not only it doesn't stop licensing people from going around and
killing themselves and others. It doesn't even stop people who never
had a license or had it withdrawn from participating in the killings.
So naturally, stricter licensing should solve the problem according to
such as you

And you tell me to take a class in logic ?
* * I would need to take a class in stupidity to operate at that
* * level.

You're only right in 1 point. *Regulations don't work if you don't
enforce them. *One of the right's favorites was Giuliani. *Rudi started
(more or less) enforcing rules and regulations and his police drove down
crime. *Now Bloomie is floating on the results, but forgets the starategy
and crime is rising again.

A few things. First, if Bloomberg is floating on Giuliani's results,
he sure been floating a long time, eleven years. Second, while
NY has had a small blip up in only the last couple years, it still
near the top of the list of the safest large cities in the USA.
There were less than 600 murders last year, close to the
lowest ever on record. In 1990 there were 4 times that number.
Third, what evidence do you have that Bloomberg isn't tough
on crime. Just recently he's taken major heat for NYC's
street crime program where they use profiling to stop people
on the street for questioning with no real justification other
than the cops feel like stopping them. He's also allowed
the cops to conduct aggressive surveilence of Muslims,
including allowing them to do so outside NYC itself.
For that, he's drawn the wrath of you libs. Holder has
started an investigation, yet Bloomberg has stood behind
what they are doing and continued it.

Funny guys Holder and his boss. They investigate
NYC for keeping it's citizens safe, but where is the
investigation into the black panthers offering a $10,000
reward, dead or alive, for Zimmerman?





*I know it's a generalization and ignores many
other factors. *Just yesterday there was a horrific accident in town.
Drunk missed a curve on the highway and wrapped around a tree, killing
his passenger. *He's in the hospital with severe injuries charged with
vehicular manslaughter. *Who exactly needds to enforce drunken driving
rules, I don't know. *I don't know whether a bar or just "friends" were
involved. *Will come out later.

The same with gun rules and immigration, just to name a few areas. *Rules
only work if they are enforced.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:

So you are claiming that this vet killed the doctor because he was
allowed to have a firearm ??
Exactly HOW was that doctor killed ??

At the time, possession of the firearm may have been illegal or
not. I don't know whther that vet had a license. However, disabled
as he was, he managed to enter the hospital in his wheelchair with
the gun because there was NO weapons screening at the time as there
is now. He proceeded to find
the doctor and just shot him. As if it were an ambush of sorts.

I think that answers all your questions.


So you admit that the rule to ban guns that was already in place did
NOT work to protect the doctor or prevent the attack

Interesting that you promote a rule that has been shown not to work
So CLEARLY, your position is not a rational one based on what
works. It's
instead based on the wishful thought that MAYBE it works and thus it
should be kept.



If arming personnel were the answer, the only result would have
been more deaths in this case.


Classic cliché line that is UNSUPPORTED by DATA
That type of "Blood in the Streets", "Shootouts like the OK Corral"
have been trotted out in EVERY SINGLE State that considered relaxing
it's carry laws, by the hoplophobe gun controllers
It's IRONIC that it has NEVER BEEN SHOWN to come true
In actual fact the OPPOSITE has occurred

By the way, you do know that law-abiding armed citizens shoot more
than twice as many criminals as police do, and yet al those
well-trained police shoot almost 6 times as many innocent bystanders
as those "untrained" law-abiding citizens..
Your confidence is placed in the hands of the wrong people

And your arguments are based on individual incidents instead of the
whole picture.
Can you say "statistical fallacies" ?

I know. It's just too bad for the dead ones, they were just
collateral damage.


**** happens
That's life.
No different from the 42,000+ innocents killed on roads annually.
where both drivers and vehicles are licensed
Man that licensing sure works great...
Not only it doesn't stop licensing people from going around and
killing themselves and others. It doesn't even stop people who never
had a license or had it withdrawn from participating in the killings.
So naturally, stricter licensing should solve the problem according to
such as you

And you tell me to take a class in logic ?
I would need to take a class in stupidity to operate at that
level.

You're only right in 1 point. Regulations don't work if you don't
enforce them. One of the right's favorites was Giuliani. Rudi started
(more or less) enforcing rules and regulations and his police drove down
crime. Now Bloomie is floating on the results, but forgets the starategy
and crime is rising again. I know it's a generalization and ignores many
other factors. Just yesterday there was a horrific accident in town.
Drunk missed a curve on the highway and wrapped around a tree, killing
his passenger. He's in the hospital with severe injuries charged with
vehicular manslaughter. Who exactly needds to enforce drunken driving
rules, I don't know. I don't know whether a bar or just "friends" were
involved. Will come out later.

The same with gun rules and immigration, just to name a few areas. Rules
only work if they are enforced.



Totally IRRELEVANT to the issue of being INDIVIDUALLY able to defend
yourself if the need arises
Unless you have a cop in your back pocket, you are running around
unprotected most if not all of the time.
You are obviously of the school that presumes that
1) the police will get to you in time
2) the police will help you when you need them
You are wrong on both counts
1) Delay between you calling for help could be minutes to infinity
Which means, YOU are ON YOUR OWN UNTIL they arrive
2) Note also that the police have NO DUTY to come to your aid
IF they decide that the cat in a tree is more important than your
call for help, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN
There are quite a few cases from local, all the way to the US
Supreme Court, that specifically state that the police HAVE NO DUTY to come
to your aid, except in very specific cases

So your argument about enforcing the rules is a lot of hooey, that will
neither protect you, come to your aid when you need it, and demonstrates
ignorant optimism at best.
And let's not forget that it's VERY possible that current laws like the
Sullivan Act, or Federal laws in government buildings are unconstitutional
and therefore won't be around much longer to support that argument anyway.

What will be your argument then ?

On Mar 29, 10:58*am, Han wrote:
"Attila.Iskander" wrote :

So you admit that the rule to ban guns that was already in place did
NOT work to protect the doctor or prevent the attack

Interesting that you promote a rule that has been shown not to work
* *So CLEARLY, your position is not a rational one based on what
* *works. It's
instead based on the wishful thought that MAYBE it works and thus it
should be kept.

Take a class in logic. *It might help you. *As many have pointed out rules,
laws and regulations are totally worthless without enforcement. *DO I need
to go on?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Well, you could _try_ going on but all you are doing is ignoring the
counter data.

Harry K

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:11:57 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:




He may have been lawfully armed in that he has a permit to carry,
but the precepts of the neighborhood watch program do NOT include
members carrying.

Do you have a citation for that?
In the light of the Trayvon attack,it certainly seems prudent to go
about armed after dark.

There is an organization called Neighborhood Watch. They don't want
people to carry weapons. Zimmerman was a self appointed watch guy,
not affiliated with the nationwide organization. He did not have to
follow their rules or suggestions.


I see Neighborhood Watch signs all over the place,when I'm out bicycling.

do the Neighborhood Watch Org. people go out and "patrol"(walk/drive
around),or are they just people who watch from their windows?
If you're going to go outside at night in a high crime area,I'd go armed.
Thugs are MEAN these days.

By "don't want",do they specifically say "under no circumstances" or is it
"we'd rather you didn't" go armed?

Heck,several years ago,a neighbor in the building next to mine got shot in
the hallway at 4AM,I heard the shots,looked out my bedroom window to see
the shooters run to their car and blast off with no lights on.
I gave a report to the police,the guy had minor small caliber gunshot
wounds to his arm,and was OK. They had tried to rob him.
In the apartment complex next door to mine,a guy was held up at gunpoint.

Even in the "nice" neighborhoods,there are armed robberies and burglaries.

"better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

Zimmerman is still alive. His gun probably saved his life.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

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

But in my opinion, inside (VA) hospitals, with their often frenetic
pace, and the influx at times of delusional people, there shouldn't
be ordinary citizens carrying weapons. Note that not all crazies
are locked up inside wards. Some just come to get their
medications, or other treatment, or to visit their buddies. Why
take the risk of aone or more crazies doing the wrong thing?

If, as you observed, there are crazies meandering through the halls
of VA hospitals - and you have no way to identify, segregate, or
keep them out - that would argue for the sane, responsible,
righteous people to be armed.

I don't think he has the cognitive capacity the recognize that.
Just as he is unable to recognize the cognitive dissonance in
confounding the crazies with the rest of the population.

Could be. I tend to differentiate the groups by whether they' a) afraid
of guns or b) afraid of criminals.

It's been my impression that many "project." That is, when they hear of
some ghastly event they think to themselves: "If I had been there, and had
a gun, I certainly would have killed everybody in sight, then sought out
their relatives and friends, so, to prevent me or someone else from
inflicting fatal mayhem, we've got to remove the temptation."

In the alternative, they might think: "Most people of lesser abilities
than I, when faced with the same circumstances, would certainly have
visited death in great numbers on the miscreants and everybody the
malefactors ever knew. We've got to prevent those of lesser self-control
from depopulating the neighborhood!"



I notice that most such projectors have a few things in common
1) They make assumptions about themselves, and more importantly, others,
that are often not based on reality
2) They often try to wrap themselves in a "it's for the common good", aka
"do it for the children" flag of self-righteousness.
3) They are not in any way informed as to what the REAL DATA is or may be
in the circumstances they imagine or use to justify themselves
4) They are very often VERY RESISTANT to LEARNING the true data that may
go against 3).
And they will use just about any form of prevarication to keep their
heads in the sand.

On 3/29/2012 1:18 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:


Regarding your question on Giffords, I do consider that regrettable
incident collateral damage, she was an innocent victim - as far as we
know.

So than we can empty insane asylums. That'll save money.

Already been done. That was the result of the Community Mental Health
Act back under JFK. Stared deinstutionalization. Over 500,000 beds
closed during the first 20 years, with more that followed. For instance,
the place I worked had 45 beds in the acute unit when I started in '85.
It is now 14 and there may be no Psych Unit at all in the new hospital.


OK, now we should get rid of the FDA as well. Merck should sue them for
taking Vioxx off the market, those few people that died shouldn't really
matter. And so on and so forth.

Actually they should. The side effect profile for Vioxx is exactly
the same as for every other NSAID, even those currently on the market.


I lived in Tuscaloosa Alabama the location of the state mental hospitals
back in the 1970's and this was a time when many of the mentally ill
were released from confinement by a change in government policy. I
remember the local police having to deal with a great deal of public
mischief being conducted by former detainees. The police had to scoop up
one fellow who decided to cause havoc by trying to direct traffic during
rush hour. This was during the era of "streaking" and the police were
having to deal with streakers who were not college fraternity members
but a number of folks who belonged to an entirely different fraternity.
^_^

TDD

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:35:32 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

They do not take the law into their own hands.

there's no evidence Zimmerman tried to that.

There is not even evidence a crime was committed. Otherwise he would
have been arrested already as the panthers want to do.

Authorities have what they have about facts, medical, phone records,
etc., and will present it before the Grand Jury.

If I was Z I would STFU. Take the 5th!

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:35:32 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:



there is NO evidence Zimmerman tried to make any arrest or to directly
prevent a crime in progress.

Right, but the investigation is not complete yet.

He did not make or seek a confrontation.
(but Trayvon did,he went after Z.)

Right, but the investigation is not complete yet so we don't know that
for fact. Why did Trayvon go after him? We don't know that either.





there's no evidence Zimmerman tried to that.


True. But the investigation is not complete yet.

We still have to see the final results and keep an open mind until
that time. I agree that Z should not be arrested yet and should be
only if an investigation shows cause for it.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:35:32 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:



there is NO evidence Zimmerman tried to make any arrest or to directly
prevent a crime in progress.

Right, but the investigation is not complete yet.

you'd think that any witnesses would have come forward by now,especially
considering the racial tensions and potential for more deaths and much
property damage. Of course,that racial tension may be keeping witnesses
AWAY,too scared to come forth with testimony that would show TRayvon to be
lurking around places he had no business being around,or that reinforced
the testimony that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.
The physical evidence is pretty much all collected,although I suspect that
if they looked around the area,under bushes,or elsewhere,they'd find some
burglar tools that Trayvon dumped before he went to attack Zimmerman. Like
a big flat-blade screwdriver...like he was caught with at school.

He did not make or seek a confrontation.
(but Trayvon did,he went after Z.)

Right, but the investigation is not complete yet so we don't know that
for fact. Why did Trayvon go after him? We don't know that either.


there's no evidence Zimmerman tried to that.


True. But the investigation is not complete yet.

We still have to see the final results and keep an open mind until
that time. I agree that Z should not be arrested yet and should be
only if an investigation shows cause for it.


MANY people don't care that the NEW investigation is not complete.
They are demanding Zimmerman be arrested immediately.
It's going to be interesting when the NEW investigation closes the case as
it stands now.
After all,the presumption of innocence is Zimmerman's civil right.

Although the independent investigators may wimp out and throw it to a Grand
Jury to decide,and the Grand Jury opts for a trial so THEY don't have to
face the mob either,submitting to blackmail. That is probably the most
likely course this will take.
And THEN it becomes another OJ SImpson trial. and a huge waste of money for
nothing.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:52:44 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:




you'd think that any witnesses would have come forward by now,especially
considering the racial tensions and potential for more deaths and much
property damage. Of course,that racial tension may be keeping witnesses
AWAY,too scared to come forth with testimony that would show TRayvon to be
lurking around places he had no business being around,or that reinforced
the testimony that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.
The physical evidence is pretty much all collected,although I suspect that
if they looked around the area,under bushes,or elsewhere,they'd find some
burglar tools that Trayvon dumped before he went to attack Zimmerman. Like
a big flat-blade screwdriver...like he was caught with at school.


I would hope they are very thorough, but there was, it seems, to have
been at least a minor delay getting things started. Evidence could
have been lost. What seemed simple enough was made difficult because
of the protests and every detail will be scrutinized. .

I have to wonder if there is a lot more already known, but not
released to forestall any bigger protests, sit ins, whatever. The
initial photo was of a nice looking little boy that was killed and
that alone was enough to get people upset.






MANY people don't care that the NEW investigation is not complete.
They are demanding Zimmerman be arrested immediately.
It's going to be interesting when the NEW investigation closes the case as
it stands now.
After all,the presumption of innocence is Zimmerman's civil right..

Initial indications were self defense. Thee is no reason to arrest
at this point. An articles in the OP-Ed section of today's paper said
Z should be arrested and let the court sort it out. Well, that is not
the way our system works. You have to prove guilt, not that you are
innocent. Charges have to have some substance.

What is sad, no matter what the outcome, the other side will feel it
is wrong and justice was not served.




Although the independent investigators may wimp out and throw it to a Grand
Jury to decide,and the Grand Jury opts for a trial so THEY don't have to
face the mob either,submitting to blackmail. That is probably the most
likely course this will take.
And THEN it becomes another OJ SImpson trial. and a huge waste of money for
nothing.

Maybe OJ will find some more evidence while he is out searching for
the real killer.

On Mar 31, 3:08*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:52:44 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:



you'd think that any witnesses would have come forward by now,especially
considering the racial tensions and potential for more deaths and much
property damage. Of course,that racial tension may be keeping witnesses
AWAY,too scared to come forth with testimony that would show TRayvon to be
lurking around places he had no business being around,or that reinforced
the testimony that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.
The physical evidence is pretty much all collected,although I suspect that
if they looked around the area,under bushes,or elsewhere,they'd find some
burglar tools that Trayvon dumped before he went to attack Zimmerman. Like
a big flat-blade screwdriver...like he was caught with at school.

I would hope they are very thorough, but there was, it seems, to have
been at least a minor delay getting things started. *Evidence could
have been lost. *What seemed simple enough was made difficult because
of the protests and every detail will be scrutinized. .

I have to wonder if there is a lot more already known, but not
released to forestall any bigger protests, sit ins, whatever. *The
initial photo was of a nice looking little boy that was killed and
that alone was enough to get people upset.



MANY people don't care that the NEW investigation is not complete.
They are demanding Zimmerman be arrested immediately.
It's going to be interesting when the NEW investigation closes the case as
it stands now.
After all,the presumption of innocence is Zimmerman's civil right..

Initial indications were self defense. * Thee is no reason to arrest
at this point. *An articles in the OP-Ed section of today's paper said
Z should be arrested and let the court sort it out. *Well, that is not
the way our system works. *You have to prove guilt, not that you are
innocent. *Charges have to have some substance.

What is sad, no matter what the outcome, the other side will feel it
is wrong and justice was not served.



Although the independent investigators may wimp out and throw it to a Grand
Jury to decide,and the Grand Jury opts for a trial so THEY don't have to
face the mob either,submitting to blackmail. That is probably the most
likely course this will take.
And THEN it becomes another OJ SImpson trial. and a huge waste of money for
nothing.

Maybe OJ will find some more evidence while he is out searching for
the real killer.

I caught what appeared to be a news briefing or some such. All ready
in progess when I flipped over to it. Some demagogue railing on about
the "injustices" done over the yiears to minoriteies. Speaker was a
young black man. Reviewing the Denny case and another one one before
it got disgusted and clicked off it. I suspect a member of the Black
Panters or similar outfit.

If any arrest is warranted, he should have been.
He was doing his best to raise the rabble and, IMO, inciting to
riot.

Harry K

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
news:jl22bu$ai7$1 @dont-email.me:

You claimed to have worked in a VA lab.
Did you have to study statistics to get there ?
If so, have you forgotten the simple rule of statistics that
individual incidents are NOT representative of trends or facts that
apply to large numbers ?

Statistics are generally used to bring up a point, and yes, I have
studied statistics enough so that I know when to feel confident in
the calculations in Excel and when to go to an expert.

One doesn't need to know any statistics to feel safer in that VA
hospital now with the enhanced security than right after this
incident. Yes, it was just a single fact. But I have seen the
collection of confiscated "weapons" in the police office, and I have
observed a few people (one was really gross) who were invited to
leave the premises or surrender what they tried to carry in (whether
with or without any malice).

Let me ask you: You are not allowed to carry a weapon in the VA,
unless you are police, and authorized to do so. If you were a doctor
in the emergency room facilities would you want the police to
confiscate weapons carried by patients, visitors or other employees,
or not? No modification of these conditions, please.


Why would I want them confiscated from people who have done nothing
wrong

Why do you condone outright theft by the State ?

It's not the state, it is a federal entity, the VA.

sigh
"state" is a generic term for "government"
I'm well aware that the VA is federal.


And they refuse to
act as safekeepers for Joe Schmoe's weapons. You get a choice -
relinquish the weapon and enter, or do not enter. That's not theft. I
have no idea what happens when you carry a sawed-off shutgun in and show
them.


SIGH
Another red herring argument.
Why would you presume anyone " carry a sawed-off shutgun in and show them."?
What on earth are you babbling about.

As to the government grabbing your stuff because it can, it's theft.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:52:44 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

Although the independent investigators may wimp out and throw it to a
Grand Jury to decide,and the Grand Jury opts for a trial so THEY don't
have to face the mob either,submitting to blackmail. That is probably
the most likely course this will take.
And THEN it becomes another OJ SImpson trial. and a huge waste of
money for nothing.

Maybe OJ will find some more evidence while he is out searching for
the real killer.


Heh....on the golf courses....

Bit I believe OJ is still in jail for that attempt to "recover his
memorabilia".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 4/1/2012 1:16 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
Ed wrote in
:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:52:44 -0500, Jim
wrote:

Although the independent investigators may wimp out and throw it to a
Grand Jury to decide,and the Grand Jury opts for a trial so THEY don't
have to face the mob either,submitting to blackmail. That is probably
the most likely course this will take.
And THEN it becomes another OJ SImpson trial. and a huge waste of
money for nothing.

Maybe OJ will find some more evidence while he is out searching for
the real killer.


Heh....on the golf courses....

Bit I believe OJ is still in jail for that attempt to "recover his
memorabilia".


Why do I get a feeling that the memorabilia caper was a setup to "get"
OJ? o_O

TDD