"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 10:08 pm, Frank wrote:
On 3/22/2012 4:53 PM, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:23:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank
wrote:

We expect no less from you, Harry.

He posted from his Etch A Sketch!

Good 'un.

They're not allowed to have pencils, pens or crayons in the UK as they
are considered deadly weapons.

We won our last war.

Did you know ?
The English haven't won **** all on your own for a LONG TIME, harry
Unless you count the Falklands, which in fact just "won" you a rock pile
with sheep ****.


You have lost your last four or five.
All wind and **** you are. The (failed) bullyboys, individually and
nationally.


There you go again, spouting your ignorance.
But hey, no point in trying to educate the willfully stupid.


We too are a violent people with a history far more violent then
yours.

Funny how the US, was founded by the English deporting many of their
criminals to other countries
It would take a hypocrite like you, to then blame us for it...


But not legally on our streets. We know when to desist.


So how do you explain that your crime rates have been rising while ours are
falling ??
Oh wait, that would require that you use FACTS instead of prejudiced and
bigoted ignorance.
Ah well, forget I asked.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 12:37 am, Oren wrote:

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

Isn't anyone that wanders around with a gun a vigilante?

sigh
So ignorant that you don't even know the meaning of "vigilante".
And no going around armed does NOT automatically make one a "vigilante"
By that stupid definition, any hunter going around with a gun would also be
termed a "vigilante"

Ah well
Another day, another demonstration of stupid by harry.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 12:58 am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:12 -0700, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:03:40 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your
Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal
force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around
and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking
for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff
tonight,
this guy is going down.

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 believe he was a member of an official police volunteer organization,
however. His rank was quoted (captain?). Such groups aren't unusual
here.
They even have cars in the city I work in now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The sad *******s that watched too much Perry Mason, Highway Patrol and
Cannon as kids?
Do they have guns? Or is that a stupid question?

There you go being ignorant again
He was too young to have watched those shows as a kid, since they had been
off the air by about a decade..

Ah well.
Another day, another demonstration of ignorance by harry.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 1:18 am, "
wrote:
On Mar 22, 9:04 pm, "





wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:03 pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your
Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using
lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal
force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around
and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see
if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go
looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found
it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff
tonight,
this guy is going down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been following it. The evidence will be presented to a grand
jury to determine if charges will be brought. Based on what I've
heard
so far, I agree the guy is likely to be charged.

Yes, apparently the police didn't have "enough evidence" to charge him
so the
DA brought the case before the grand jury. There is new evidence,
apparently.

Some folks just
can't
wait to jump on the system before letting it play out. And the media
can't wait to try to link this somehow to the FL "stand your ground"
law. I don't see that as really having any direct bearing on the
case.

Not if it went down as they're now saying. The poor schlub is recorded
pleading for help before he's shot. There aren't many ways that turns
the
shooting into justifiable homicide.

The guy in question singled the victim out for acting suspicously
apparently without any real basis other than he was walking down
the street with his hand in his waistband.

..and being black, wearing a hoodie.

He called it in to 911
and the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow the guy.

In fact, told him not to.

He
chose to leave his car and engage him. What followed next is
what needs to be determined. But since the kid was 17, didn't look
to be very big, and was unarmed, I think the guy is in a heap of
trouble and should be. Where in the stand your ground law does
it OK that?

When they guy is crying for help? That's not self defense.

Good point, but it depends on who was calling for help.
I heard a bit of those tapes and you'd have to determine
which of the two was calling for help.

Probably the most remarkable thing in all this is if the
kid had his hand in his waistband and was acting suspicously,
"like he was on drugs or something", why would anyone
get out of their car, go over and confront
them instead of waiting for police? Meaning I'm not buying
that he really thought the kid could have a gun, etc.
Almost certainly he thought the kid was no real danger to
him, at least when he first confronted him.



Also disturbing is that the guy had called 911 47 times in the last
year with similar calls, almost all of which were for bogus nonsense.
You have to wonder if the calls were mostly BS, why the police
didn't have a talk with him to disuade him from false reporting
and to tell him to stop playing cop.

He was part of a civilian police force. HE should have been thrown
off,
though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not sure what you mean by civilian police force. The most
I've heard is he was part of a "neighborhood watch". Not
sure exactly what that means, could be it was just him.
Also kind of odd we haven't heard from others that new
him as to what kind of guy he was, etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Self appointed" according to news in the UK. ie wandered about
looking for someone to shoot. A bit like a mugger but the mugger has
a motive.

yawn
Another stupid presumption by harry

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 3:56 am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.

Apparently the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" has been lost in
Britain
No wonder the country produces ****heads like you.

Oh? You taking any bets that this guy is innocent?

Nope
And since I did NOT make ANY statements about his innocence or guilt, your
stupid presumption is just that
STUPID..

But that's our harry, the ignorant Brit for ya !

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:25:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 22, 10:19*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:18:18 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Mar 22, 9:04*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Mar 22, 8:03*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
*The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been following it. *The evidence will be presented to a grand
jury to determine if charges will be brought. *Based on what I've
heard
so far, I agree the guy is likely to be charged.

Yes, apparently the police didn't have "enough evidence" to charge him so the
DA brought the case before the grand jury. *There is new evidence, apparently.

Some folks just
can't
wait to jump on the system before letting it play out. *And the media
can't wait to try to link this somehow to the FL "stand your ground"
law. * I don't see that as really having any direct bearing on the
case.

Not if it went down as they're now saying. *The poor schlub is recorded
pleading for help before he's shot. *There aren't many ways that turns the
shooting into justifiable homicide.

The guy in question singled the victim out for acting suspicously
apparently without any real basis other than he was walking down
the street with his hand in his waistband.

..and being black, wearing a hoodie.

He called it in to 911
and the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow the guy.

In fact, told him not to.

He
chose to leave his car and engage him. *What followed next is
what needs to be determined. *But since the kid was 17, didn't look
to be very big, and was unarmed, I think the guy is in a heap of
trouble and should be. *Where in the stand your ground law does
it OK that?

When they guy is crying for help? *That's not self defense.

Good point, but it depends on who was calling for help.
I heard a bit of those tapes and you'd have to determine
which of the two was calling for help.

Witnesses say it was the dead kid.

From what I can gather, no one actually SAW what
happened. The most they have are witnesses statements
about what they heard. Also, I've seen some of those
witnesses talking to the press and instead of the press
focusing on just the specifics of what the witness saw
or heard, they are focusing on what the witnesses
OPINIONS are. In one bad example, a witness
is bitching about how the police refuse to
talk to her despite her trying several times. But if you
listen carefully, she actually says
the police did interview her and take her statement.
What she wants is for them to take her OPINION that
what she heard means it was not self defense.

There are now more witnesses than there were a month ago, which is probably
not a good thing. Who knows, now, what they actually witnessed. But... they
were saying that one of the women did witness him yelling for help. The
yelling that is on the 911 tape, just before the shooting.

The police have not only her testimony, but others
including possibly ones that aren't running around
talking to the press and their version could be
different. They also have physical evidence
and I heard one report that Zimmerman's face had
evidence of injuries that night.

I agree from what we do know it sounds like Zimmerman
is likely guilty of something. He was significantly larger
than the 17 year old and it's very hard to justify using
a gun to end a street fight with an unarmed opponent.

You don't think a wiry kid can't whip the snot out of an overweight old man?
;-) If threatened I'd certainly use whatever weapon I had available (I do
have a carry permit but rarely carry).

But it's only if you have all the available facts that you
can make a determination of what charges could apply.
That process hasn't even started yet with the grand
jury.

"Guilty of something" is not a crime. ;-) I'm reasonably convinced he's
guilty of murder but there may not be enough evidence to prosecute, except
that it's now a political case. They'll hang him anyway. In fact, since it
became a political football, the DA has taken over the investigation from the
police. Note that the DA had already said they didn't have enough evidence to
go to trial. That's why the police didn't charge him.


Probably the most remarkable thing in all this is if the
kid had his hand in his waistband and was acting suspicously,
"like he was on drugs or something", why would anyone
get out of their car, go over and confront
them instead of waiting for police? *Meaning I'm not buying
that he really thought the kid could have a gun, etc.
Almost certainly he thought the kid was no real danger to
him, at least when he first confronted him.

He wanted to be have the big score of the day. *I'm not so big on civilian
volunteer police, for this reason. *Giving them weapons is stupid. *It's bad
enough when you have volunteer firemen setting fires.


I've seen nothing that says Zimmerman got his weapon
throught the police. AFAIK, there is no indication that
he didn't just get it and the carry permit like any other
citizen can in FL, without being part of any civilian police
force.

Not through the police. Some reports here have said that he was a member of
the "auxiliary police" (the term I was searching for last night), which is
more than a "neighborhood watch". The auxiliary police *are* sanctioned by
the police but, as you point out, are usually not issued weapons (often a
nightstick and patrol car, though). There's nothing preventing them from
having their own weapons/permit, though. Other reports have said he was a
"captain" in the "neighborhood watch". So, it's hard to tell what the truth is
with the quality of journalism we have today.


Also disturbing is that the guy had called 911 47 times in the last
year with similar calls, almost all of which were for bogus nonsense.
You have to wonder if the calls were mostly BS, why the police
didn't have a talk with him to disuade him from false reporting
and to tell him to stop playing cop.

He was part of a civilian police force. *HE should have been thrown off,
though.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not sure what you mean by civilian police force. *The most
I've heard is he was part of a "neighborhood watch". *Not
sure exactly what that means, could be it was just him.
Also kind of odd we haven't heard from others that new
him as to what kind of guy he was, etc.

No, it was an organized civilian police force, under the auspices of the
uniformed police.

I'd like to see your source for that. In all the coverage
that I've heard Zimmerman is referred to as the head of a
"neighborhood watch", whatever that means. I've also
seen the term "self-appointed head" used. And I have
never seen that it had any affiliation at all with the police.

The news here was saying that he was a member of the "auxiliary police", which
is sanctioned by the police. IIRC, the 911 dispatcher instructs him not to
follow the kid.

Now you would think in all the heat that has been brought
on the police, if that neighborhood watch was in any way
affiliated with the police it would have been widely reported
by now. And it should be, because it would be a possibly
conflict of interest for them to be investigating.

Even neighborhood watches are affiliated, loosely, with the police. The
police do come to association meetings to organize them. They're not out of
this one and I think the chief may well start looking for a Wallmart greeting
position.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:58:07 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:12 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:03:40 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.

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 believe he was a member of an official police volunteer organization,
however. His rank was quoted (captain?). Such groups aren't unusual here.
They even have cars in the city I work in now.

shrugs It was once reported to be in his community (gated
community) ...National Neighborhood Watch?

"...supplying excellent crime-fighting material since 1982."

http://www.nnwi.org/

If this area is marked Crime Watch he is likely a volunteer for just
his hood.

They have walking parties.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:56:15 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.

Apparently the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" has been lost in
Britain
No wonder the country produces ****heads like you.


Factually you are correct! Under British law a subject has to prove
their innocence. At least the last time I opened a book.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:51:05 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Mar 22, 8:20*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:50:55 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:





harry wrote:
So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground" laws.
These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal force -
assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.

This is a mere codification of the Common Law found in Anglo jurisprudence
since 1216. In the Common Law, however, one had to be in his home or
curtilage. This limited provision is classically know as the "Castle
Doctrine" (ever man's home is his castle). The "Stand Your Ground" laws
expand on this concept to include ANYWHERE you happen to legally be - your
car, the street corner, in the dentist's chair - wherever.

As to the shooter not being arrested immediately, this case is no different
than if a cop shoots a suspect. There will be an investigation and the
results of the investigation will determine whether the shooter was
justified in his (stated) belief that he felt his life was in danger.

I would note that, by statute, the UK has done away with the Castle
Doctrine, upending 800 years of common sense. Now, if an armed intruder
forces his way into a British home, the threatened family must, I repeat,
MUST, retreat if at all possible.

For many years Florida law was a person had to "retreat to the wall".
Meaning to avoid confrontation until the last moment before deadly
force was justified -- so to speak.

The "stand your ground" gave a person the right to kill without
retreat or having to avoid attack.

The shooter in this case made a mistake. He "pursued and challenged"
the victim, then shot him. *He will be arrested in my opinion.

Funny, the media reported this as a white man on black man. *The
shooter is Hispanic.

Nevada law allows deadly force (open carry in all but two counties)
ANYWHERE you have a legal right to be. You cannot be breaking the law
when deadly force is used.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are Hispanics white or not? I think the Spanish in Euope consider
themselves to be white.

Depends. Mexicans hate Spaniards. With reason. You should travel and
learn things.

How many presidents have we had. I have other questions for you.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:53:33 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Mar 22, 8:23*pm, Frank wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:30*pm, harry wrote:

I hear you can choose between electrocution and lethal injection in
Florida.
I suppose a true republican would go for "Ol' Sparky"?

Stupid political comment.
We expect no less from you, Harry.

I thought it would be thought more manly and traditional, hence
attractive to republicans.


Shows just how little you know. An executioner in Florida has to go
through a psycho-exam. It used to pay around $50 for a few minutes
work. Completely anonymity. You wouldn't pass the exam. Once they
found a woman, wanting on the task, turns out is was her spouse on
death row and she wanted to flip the switch, dimming the lights.

A bit like refusing the blindfold when being shot.

Got a smoke?!

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:01:27 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Mar 23, 12:37*am, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:03:40 -0400, "





wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
*The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.

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.-

Isn't anyone that wanders around with a gun a vigilante?

Short answer no. Long answer is noooooooooo!

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

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:10:31 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


Oh? You taking any bets that this guy is innocent?

All my money is on his innocence. I reserve the right to change my
mind, until he is given a public trial.

Ya muppet

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 07:27:50 -0400, Duesenberg wrote:


Nobody shot him in the UK.
Your boy was perfectly innocent and some cowardly, paranoid thug,
shoots him in the street and that's OK by you?
Sick you are.


What does "YOUR BOY" mean??? I don't understand. Your boy? I don't
have a son and my dogs are female dogs, so i dunno what "your boy"
means. Please clarify.


I am not an American, I do not live in the USA, nor do I know their laws
so I have no opinion on the "stand your ground" laws they have in some
jurisdictions in the USA. Maybe you thought I had the same nationality
as that shooting victim so you used the term "your boy".

I was simply pointing out some crime issues in the UK because you said
it was a slow news day there and was offering you some reading material...

You're German?

On 3/23/2012 1:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:51:05 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 22, 8:20 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:50:55 -0500,
wrote:





harry wrote:
So they took up this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17441277
Was on national TV yesterday
Astonishing.
Armed thug can shoot unarmed innocent teenager in the street and is
not arrested right away?
Weird.
No wonder the world believes America is full of loonys.
Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground" laws.
These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal force -
assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
This is a mere codification of the Common Law found in Anglo jurisprudence
since 1216. In the Common Law, however, one had to be in his home or
curtilage. This limited provision is classically know as the "Castle
Doctrine" (ever man's home is his castle). The "Stand Your Ground" laws
expand on this concept to include ANYWHERE you happen to legally be - your
car, the street corner, in the dentist's chair - wherever.
As to the shooter not being arrested immediately, this case is no different
than if a cop shoots a suspect. There will be an investigation and the
results of the investigation will determine whether the shooter was
justified in his (stated) belief that he felt his life was in danger.
I would note that, by statute, the UK has done away with the Castle
Doctrine, upending 800 years of common sense. Now, if an armed intruder
forces his way into a British home, the threatened family must, I repeat,
MUST, retreat if at all possible.
For many years Florida law was a person had to "retreat to the wall".
Meaning to avoid confrontation until the last moment before deadly
force was justified -- so to speak.

The "stand your ground" gave a person the right to kill without
retreat or having to avoid attack.

The shooter in this case made a mistake. He "pursued and challenged"
the victim, then shot him. He will be arrested in my opinion.

Funny, the media reported this as a white man on black man. The
shooter is Hispanic.

Nevada law allows deadly force (open carry in all but two counties)
ANYWHERE you have a legal right to be. You cannot be breaking the law
when deadly force is used.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Are Hispanics white or not? I think the Spanish in Euope consider
themselves to be white.
Depends. Mexicans hate Spaniards. With reason.

Where do you get that?

I know a lot of Mexicans consider themselves to be Spaniards, like being
Spanish is higher class or something. I lived in New Mexico for about 45
years so I'm pretty familiar with Mexicans. I love the people and the
culture.

My wife, for instance, insists her family is from Basque Country. It
maybe true but I've noticed that any Mexican that can trace their family
history to Spain will almost invariably say they are Spanish not
Mexican. So far as to change the way they pronounce their surname to
make it sound more Spanish.

On 3/23/2012 1:29 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:01:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 23, 12:37 am, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:03:40 -0400, "





wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In articlePtOdnZOJBfcCH_bSnZ2dnUVZ_vGdn...@earthlink .com,
wrote:
Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)
Especially when you created the trouble you found.
I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.
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.-
Isn't anyone that wanders around with a gun a vigilante?
Short answer no. Long answer is noooooooooo!

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.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Oren wrote:

Funny, the media reported this as a white man on black man. The
shooter is Hispanic.

Reuters did not know where come down on this issue calling the dude a
White Hispnic.

Is that a white/latin beatnik? Got a nice ring to it. "Going on a picnic
with some Hispnics." (-:

Of course, the "p" could be silent as in pneumonia. "Hizznics" - even
better!

--
Bobby G.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:46:25 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 3/23/2012 1:29 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:01:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 23, 12:37 am, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:03:40 -0400, "





wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In articlePtOdnZOJBfcCH_bSnZ2dnUVZ_vGdn...@earthlink .com,
wrote:
Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)
Especially when you created the trouble you found.
I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.
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.-
Isn't anyone that wanders around with a gun a vigilante?
Short answer no. Long answer is noooooooooo!

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.

.... pass the joint....

Now you know sin, tell me about it. I said before the guy made a
"mistake" Would you spike him to a tree?

On 3/23/2012 4:49 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:46:25 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/23/2012 1:29 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:01:27 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 23, 12:37 am, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:03:40 -0400, "





wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In articlePtOdnZOJBfcCH_bSnZ2dnUVZ_vGdn...@earthlink .com,
wrote:
Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal
force - assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if
the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it
(or it found you.)
Especially when you created the trouble you found.
I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff tonight,
this guy is going down.
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.-
Isn't anyone that wanders around with a gun a vigilante?
Short answer no. Long answer is noooooooooo!

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.
... pass the joint....

No thanks. Just a handle.


Now you know sin,

You got that right!

tell me about it. I said before the guy made a
"mistake" Would you spike him to a tree?

Pursuing and killing him is a "mistake".


I maybe way off base here. I didn't read the whole thread and I'm not
going to.

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.

On 3/23/2012 5:37 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.



Yup. Guilty as sin.

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.

On Mar 23, 11:53*pm, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:
On 3/23/2012 5:37 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.

Yup. Guilty as sin.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're probably right. If so, he needs to be electrocuted.
Along with all the other brain dead gun loonys running amok in
America.
And Afghanistan.

"gonjah" gonjah.net wrote in message news:uP-
On 3/23/2012 1:05 PM, Oren wrote:

stuff snipped

Depends. Mexicans hate Spaniards. With reason.

Where do you get that?

I know a lot of Mexicans consider themselves to be Spaniards, like being
Spanish is higher class or something. I lived in New Mexico for about 45
years so I'm pretty familiar with Mexicans. I love the people and the
culture.

My wife, for instance, insists her family is from Basque Country. It
maybe true but I've noticed that any Mexican that can trace their family
history to Spain will almost invariably say they are Spanish not
Mexican. So far as to change the way they pronounce their surname to
make it sound more Spanish.

That's been my take but I think you two are dealing with about as divergent
populations of Mexicans as possible. In my neck of the woods, Mexicans seem
to dislike Hondurans and Guatamalans. Go figure. But in my case, too, the
sample population is quite distinct and consists of gardeners, housecleaners
and handymen. With the bad rap that Mexico's getting lately, I wouldn't be
surprised if Mexicans, like many Americans, call themselves Spainards or
even Canadians when traveling abroad. My wife used to carry and use her
official military passport when traveling. Now she hides it in a secret
purse compartment ever since terrorists starting collecting them to identify
US military personnel on hijacked flights.

--
Bobby G.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your Ground"
laws.
These laws say you do not have to retreat before using lethal force -
assuming further that you have the right to use lethal force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see if the
DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go looking for
trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened because you found it (or
it found you.)

It doesn't look like a very clean case for "stand your ground" but there's a
long way to go in the investigation, I'd bet. You wouldn't want to base
your reading of the case on the facts presented by reporters interviewing
people on the street . . . (-:

The problem that most often manifests itself in lethal force cases is the
level of force applied. At least some judges have ruled that shooting a man
coming at you with only his bare fists isn't appropriate. I don't like that
theory because it totally disregards another well-known phenomenom, the "one
punch homicide."

Plenty of people have died from taking a single punch. I would probably try
to shoot to maim such an attacker. Probably. (-: Just today I bought a
cane that's got a stun gun and LED built in. I'd probably use that before I
shot someone. Probably.

--
Bobby G.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 04:24:30 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:



It doesn't look like a very clean case for "stand your ground" but there's a
long way to go in the investigation, I'd bet. You wouldn't want to base
your reading of the case on the facts presented by reporters interviewing
people on the street . . . (-:

The problem that most often manifests itself in lethal force cases is the
level of force applied. At least some judges have ruled that shooting a man
coming at you with only his bare fists isn't appropriate. I don't like that
theory because it totally disregards another well-known phenomenom, the "one
punch homicide."

Plenty of people have died from taking a single punch. I would probably try
to shoot to maim such an attacker. Probably. (-: Just today I bought a
cane that's got a stun gun and LED built in. I'd probably use that before I
shot someone. Probably.


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.

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.

Well, the transcriber can't very well put down what was, you know, ACTUALLY
said: "He went for his piece and I smoked him!"

No, I predict that, under the given circumstances, Zimmerman will walk. I
base this surmise on the following:

1. It's Zimmerman's word against no eye-witnesses.
2. Zimmerman had ample opportunity to consult with a lawyer before the
authorities bestirred themselves into action.
3. The potential "hate crime" aspect is almost entirely negated by Zimmerman
being of mixed parentage (black, Hispanic, and, with a name like
"Zimmerman," possibly Jewish (even though he doesn't LOOK Jewish)).

I'm certainly not saying the above is the right outcome; I'm just pointing
out the reality of the situation.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



It doesn't look like a very clean case for "stand your ground" but there's a
long way to go in the investigation, I'd bet. You wouldn't want to base
your reading of the case on the facts presented by reporters interviewing
people on the street . . . (-:
I did say "appears" (grin). Instead it will be decided by dirt bags
like Al Sharpton pontificating in front of the aforementioned cameras.

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

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.

Robert Green wrote:

Plenty of people have died from taking a single punch. I would
probably try to shoot to maim such an attacker. Probably. (-: Just
today I bought a cane that's got a stun gun and LED built in. I'd
probably use that before I shot someone. Probably.

Yep. The first case in my state involving a concealed handgun license holder
revolved around that very concept. His lawyer said that a detached retina
was a common outcome of a punch to the head. For amusement, here's the facts
in that case.

Two van drivers, trapped in heavy Dallas traffic, banged their outside
rearview mirrors. The driver of van #1 became irate, jumped from his van,
reached throught the driver's side window of van #2 and began pummeling the
driver.

The driver of van #2, constrained by his seat belt but carrying a pistol,
shot the aggressor dead.

The subsequent investigation and grand jury exonerated the driver of van #2.

Here's the amusing part:

The driver of van #1 - the angry aggressor - was a new-hire for the delivery
service. His supervisor was riding with him to show him the route.

Now imagine what happened later as the supervisor ultimately returned to the
office. I see him pouring a cup of coffee in the break room while one of his
colleagues asks: "How's the new guy working out, Stan?"

With downcast eyes and a small shake of the head, Stan replies: "KIA...
We're gonna need another driver."

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.

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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Well, the transcriber can't very well put down what was, you know, ACTUALLY
said: "He went for his piece and I smoked him!"

No, I predict that, under the given circumstances, Zimmerman will walk. I
base this surmise on the following:

1. It's Zimmerman's word against no eye-witnesses.
2. Zimmerman had ample opportunity to consult with a lawyer before the
authorities bestirred themselves into action.
3. The potential "hate crime" aspect is almost entirely negated by Zimmerman
being of mixed parentage (black, Hispanic, and, with a name like
"Zimmerman," possibly Jewish (even though he doesn't LOOK Jewish)).

I'm certainly not saying the above is the right outcome; I'm just pointing
out the reality of the situation.

That's ammusing, but in a bitter way.

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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Yep. The first case in my state involving a concealed handgun license holder
revolved around that very concept. His lawyer said that a detached retina
was a common outcome of a punch to the head. For amusement, here's the facts
in that case.

Two van drivers, trapped in heavy Dallas traffic, banged their outside
rearview mirrors. The driver of van #1 became irate, jumped from his van,
reached throught the driver's side window of van #2 and began pummeling the
driver.

The driver of van #2, constrained by his seat belt but carrying a pistol,
shot the aggressor dead.

The subsequent investigation and grand jury exonerated the driver of van #2.

Here's the amusing part:

The driver of van #1 - the angry aggressor - was a new-hire for the delivery
service. His supervisor was riding with him to show him the route.

Now imagine what happened later as the supervisor ultimately returned to the
office. I see him pouring a cup of coffee in the break room while one of his
colleagues asks: "How's the new guy working out, Stan?"

With downcast eyes and a small shake of the head, Stan replies: "KIA...
We're gonna need another driver."

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

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...erman-father-s
peaks-defense-son-article-1.1049933
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...age-over-trayv
on-martin-shooting-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.

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.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

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.

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.

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

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mar 24, 8:56*am, Han wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote :

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.



(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 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?

" 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".

(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.

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!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mar 24, 8:50*am, Han wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote m:

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...erman-father-s
* * *peaks-defense-son-article-1.1049933
* * *http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...age-over-trayv
* * *on-martin-shooting-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.

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.

I guess when you're doing the watching, you can decide.
Me, if I was doing it in a state that allows carry, I'd be
carrying. Instead of focusing on the few cases where
a person legally carrying created a disaster, you need to
look at ALL the cases. And in the big picture, there have
been far more cases where just pulling a gun out ended
what could have been a serious crime.



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.

--

The key thing that matters here to me is can you convince
a jury that Zimmerman really believed that his life was in
jeopardy from a 17 yr old kid that was 100lbs lighter?

There may be some more interesting turns in this story
before it's done. Another guy on the neighborhood watch
was interviewed and he said Zimmerman was a perfectly
reasonable fellow. Never heard any racist remarks.
He also said that there had been some recent break-ins
in the neighborhood. It's possible Martin could somehow
wind up connected to one of them. Not saying he is,
just that it was a gated community that he didn't live in
and no one has really focused on what exactly he was
doing....

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:45:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



Not saying he is,
just that it was a gated community that he didn't live in
and no one has really focused on what exactly he was
doing....


He was in the community of family and went to the store for snacks.
The original call, it seems, was from someone that was afraid of a
black kid walking down the street.

Oren wrote in news:k94nm71c599rue7fhsftjlv7fr5qf9ffij@
4ax.com:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:23:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank
wrote:

We expect no less from you, Harry.

He posted from his Etch A Sketch!

I guess everyone has their own mental image of the unseen. Mine was more
like:

http://oi39.tinypic.com/fxrpf6.jpg

This reminds me of the aEsop's fable about the boy who
cried wolf. Perhaps after 47 calls, the cops weren't in any
hurry to respond.

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

wrote in message
...

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.

" wrote in
:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:37:12 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:03:40 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:01:17 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Yes. Twenty nine of our 50 states (plus DC) have "Stand Your
Ground" laws. These laws say you do not have to retreat before
using lethal force - assuming further that you have the right to
use lethal force.
The problem with Fl appears to be that it allows you roam around
and
go actively looking for ground to stand on. Be interesting to see
if the DA or AG takes this dude to court to see if you can go
looking for trouble and pull a gun when you feel threatened
because you found it (or it found you.)

Especially when you created the trouble you found.

I haven't been following this story but according to the 911 stuff
tonight, this guy is going down.

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 believe he was a member of an official police volunteer
organization, however. His rank was quoted (captain?). Such groups
aren't unusual here. They even have cars in the city I work in now.

The elementry school I went to had a Safety Patrol captain.

The Safety Patol was a group that were given cool plastic orange belts
and a tin badge. Stood on the corner of side streets around the school
and crossed kids. Any streets with real traffic had a retired adult.
White belt. God.