With the number of people in the US, I don't think there
is any way to totally prevent crime. However, if the case
is as the media portrays (what ever is?) then, at least an
arrest and some charges are in order.

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

wrote in message
...


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.

" wrote in
:

On Mar 24, 8:50*am, Han wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote
innews:V7jbr.1
:

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...e-zimmerman-fa
ther-s
* * *peaks-defense-son-article-1.1049933
* * *http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...5/outrage-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 c
ase
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?

Seems a priori unlikely.

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....

Yes, I can perfectly see how one can be suspicious. I am too if I see
someone who does not belong in my neighborhood, but I won't go chasing a
kid in the dark with a gun in my hand. And luckily, the police will be
here in minutes if I call them. I have a cell phone and can stay back
far enough without losing sight of the individual. It hasn't yet been
necessary.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mar 24, 10:04*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

If you have a source for that, I'd like to see it. I have heard
one report where it was clearly stated that he did NOT have
family in the actual gated community and he was allegdly
taking a short cut through the gated community. I also heard people
bitching because the police could not quickly locate the
family, which would seem to lend some credence to the
possibility that the family is not actually in the gated community.

On Mar 24, 11:00*am, Han wrote:
" wrote :





On Mar 24, 8:50*am, Han wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote
innews:V7jbr.1
:

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...e-zimmerman-fa
ther-s
* * *peaks-defense-son-article-1.1049933
* * *http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...5/outrage-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 c
ase
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?

Seems a priori unlikely.

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....

Yes, I can perfectly see how one can be suspicious. *I am too if I see
someone who does not belong in my neighborhood, but I won't go chasing a
kid in the dark with a gun in my hand. *And luckily, the police will be
here in minutes if I call them. *I have a cell phone and can stay back
far enough without losing sight of the individual. *It hasn't yet been
necessary.

--


Another part to this that makes no sense is that Zimmerman told
police that Martin was acting like he was on drugs or something
and that he had his hand in his waistband. If that is true, what
idiot would get out of his car and confront him instead of just
waiting for police to arrive? I think it's safe to assume that by
the waistband comment Zimmerman was implying that he could
have a weapon. If the kid was assaulting someone
or about to set fire to a house, then it would make sense to
take some action. But it would seem more likely that Zimmerman
didn't really think he could have a weapon, but wanted to go play cop.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
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.

I read somewhere that Al Sharpton had really toned down his act recently
since he landed a steady job:

But in general, Mr. Sharpton, who has lost more than 80 pounds in the last
few years (through diet and exercise, he says), and wears his suits tailored
and his hair slicked back, has toned down his image and his rhetoric,
particularly since he came up for consideration for a hosting job. Shortly
before his MSNBC show began, he wrote a column in The Daily News expressing
regret for some of his actions during the Crown Heights race riots 20 years
ago. ("Our language and tone sometimes exacerbated tensions," he wrote.)

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...ton/index.html

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
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.

Which is why my cop friends always advised "if you're going to shoot, shoot
to kill." It's a corollary of "history is written by the victors, not the
losers." Unfortunately, in this age of CCTV cameras everywhere, there still
may be a silent witness to stand for the dead guy. So killing someone is
not the guarantee of no refutation that it used to be. Remember that the
next time someone accosts you in the HD parking lot. g

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)).'

BlaSpanEwish? (-:

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

I disagree. Once a story like this gets traction, all sorts of collateral
issues enter the picture. Floridians may want to punish him simply to say
to the rest of the world "we are not trigger happy animals." Once something
like this gets politicized, the basic facts seem to have little to do with
the outcome.

Public opinion will probably dictate what happens and whether the DA decides
to push hard. That's a decision that's often based on how long it is to the
next election for DA. The lawyers I used to work with both loved and hated
high profile cases. They loved them because it often made their reputation
to be involved with a big case. They hated them because once a case "goes
to the press/public" instead of a jury they lost substantial control of the
process, something many lawyers utterly hate.

--
Bobby G.

wrote in
:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:27:17 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

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.

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.

The thing the media is glossing over is it was Martin who confronted
Zimmermann ("why are you following me" on the phone) and Zimmerman
says Martin chased him, towards his truck. It was Zimmerman who had
the bloody nose and the cut on the back of his head.

This is a gated neighborhood with no trespassing signs on the fences.
Martin climbed over a fence to get there and he was going to have to
climb over another fence to get out so he was "suspicious".

IF that is true (don't know one way or another, but that is a big fact,
which is not yet vetted), that is even more reason to call the cops in
and not confront the kid.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mar 23, 3:37*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.

Hey Bub-

Thanks for posting the correct transcript of the 911 admonition
that some folks have morphed into "the police told him, don't follow
the suspect" .

Words matter.....

cheers
Bob

On Mar 23, 11:16*pm, harry wrote:
On Mar 23, 10:37*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:









gonjah wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harry-

Cannot you perceive the voice of experience?

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:01:29 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

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.


I wonder how you came up with that.


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 didn't say that anywhere in this the thread. The shooter made the
"mistake". He could be perfectly legally armed, cover bad law and
such.

To say it politely so you understand THIS GUY ****ED UP!. He chased,
pursued, shot and killed his prey. Stand your ground does not allow
that.

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



Whatever

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:00:31 -0400, wrote:



This is a gated neighborhood with no trespassing signs on the fences.
Martin climbed over a fence to get there and he was going to have to
climb over another fence to get out so he was "suspicious".

First I heard that. Early report was that he was at a house (in the
community) watching TV and went to the local store to pick up snacks.
I'm sure there will be lots of rumors before we find out any real
facts. At 17, he may have been acting like a smart ass kid when
confronted (many of us would), but I still have not seen anything to
support the need to shoot.

I can see this becoming a major case for many years. It will affect
some of the stand your ground laws, racial profiling, etc.

On 3/24/2012 12:04 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:01:29 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

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.

I wonder how you came up with that.

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 didn't say that anywhere in this the thread. The shooter made the
"mistake". He could be perfectly legally armed, cover bad law and
such.

To say it politely so you understand THIS GUY ****ED UP!. He chased,
pursued, shot and killed his prey. Stand your ground does not allow
that.

Brave statement after the Gov just said the same thing.

Chill Oren.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:37:02 -0500, "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."


Which is only an opinion. Not a directive, edict, command ...

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.


Maybe. It matters who writes the statement. I was asked to review a
report; suggested a word or two be changed. The writer of the report
left it as is. Then he was sent back on the next thing smokin', from
whence he came.

A deceased former co-worker would say -- "don't let the facts
interfere with the writing of a good report!"

On Mar 24, 1:04*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:00:31 -0400, wrote:
This is a gated neighborhood with no trespassing signs on the fences.
Martin climbed over a fence to get there and he was going to have to
climb over another fence to get out so he was "suspicious".

First I heard that. Early report was that he was at a house (in the
community) watching TV and went to the local store to pick up snacks.
I'm sure there will be lots of rumors before we find out any real
facts. *At 17, he may have been acting like a smart ass kid when
confronted (many of us would), but I still have not seen anything to
support the need to shoot.


I've heard both versions too, don;t know which is right.
A lot of the reports just say he was visiting his father who
lived in the community. But that doesn't make it clear
if the father actually lived in the GATED community or
just lived nearby and the kid was cutting across.



I can see this becoming a major case *for many years. It will affect
some of the stand your ground laws, racial profiling, etc.

On Mar 24, 11:44*am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m...

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.

I read somewhere that Al Sharpton had really toned down his act recently
since he landed a steady job:

But in general, Mr. Sharpton, who has lost more than 80 pounds in the last
few years (through diet and exercise, he says), and wears his suits tailored
and his hair slicked back, has toned down his image and his rhetoric,
particularly since he came up for consideration for a hosting job. Shortly
before his MSNBC show began, he wrote a column in The Daily News expressing
regret for some of his actions during the Crown Heights race riots 20 years
ago. ("Our language and tone sometimes exacerbated tensions," he wrote.)

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...ple/s/al_sharp...

--
Bobby G.

When he apologizes for the Tawana Brawly incident, where he
manufactured
a totally bogus incident and accused a cop of rape, let us know.

On Mar 24, 8:22*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"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.

Mexico and Spain have a hisory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican...f_Independence

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 07:59:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.

.... along that line, the shooter and the victim live in the same gated
community!

I'm familiar with my area. The shooter should have certainly seen
this kid before, in the location.

On Mar 24, 4:52*pm, DD_BobK wrote:
On Mar 23, 11:16*pm, harry wrote:





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

gonjah wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harry-

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

- Show quoted text -

I would have thought there was very little room to manipulate "facts".
The kid was young, small and unarmed and not breaking any laws.
The "perp" had no reason to follow him and was told not to.
Ballistics evidence will no doubt prove he shot the kid.
No doubt it is known exctly when/where the incident occured.
The perp has a history of irrational behaviour.

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

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

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:18:58 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 3/24/2012 12:04 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:01:29 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

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.

I wonder how you came up with that.

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 didn't say that anywhere in this the thread. The shooter made the
"mistake". He could be perfectly legally armed, cover bad law and
such.

To say it politely so you understand THIS GUY ****ED UP!. He chased,
pursued, shot and killed his prey. Stand your ground does not allow
that.

Brave statement after the Gov just said the same thing.

Another dumb**** heard from.

Chill Oren.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 07:18:49 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

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)).

Doesn't matter. He wasn't black enough for Jackson, Sharpton, or Holder. He
may walk on the murder charges but the bank account of the United States of
Hussein will be firmly on the other side on the civil rights charges.

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

On 24 Mar 2012 12:56:39 GMT, Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
m:

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.

As far to the right on gun rights as I am, I lean with you on this one. The
whole presumption depends on citizens acting responsibly. Having said that,
I'd rather see what the facts are (if that's possible, now) before making any
such assumptions about this case.

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.

No, the presumption must be that people are responsible. If someone isn't,
fix that problem. If the facts are as you state, it shouldn't have been a big
issue to fix the problem.

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

Wow! You must be a baddd asss when it's -40F. ;-)

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:00:49 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
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.

Which is why my cop friends always advised "if you're going to shoot, shoot
to kill." It's a corollary of "history is written by the victors, not the
losers." Unfortunately, in this age of CCTV cameras everywhere, there still
may be a silent witness to stand for the dead guy. So killing someone is
not the guarantee of no refutation that it used to be. Remember that the
next time someone accosts you in the HD parking lot. g

I believe the FBI is trained that they don't unholster the gun unless they
intend to shoot and if they intend to shoot, they intend to kill. Seems quite
reasonable. Dead men don't shoot back.

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)).'

BlaSpanEwish? (-:

Mutt.

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

I disagree. Once a story like this gets traction, all sorts of collateral
issues enter the picture. Floridians may want to punish him simply to say
to the rest of the world "we are not trigger happy animals." Once something
like this gets politicized, the basic facts seem to have little to do with
the outcome.

Nice. That's called "justice".

Public opinion will probably dictate what happens and whether the DA decides
to push hard. That's a decision that's often based on how long it is to the
next election for DA. The lawyers I used to work with both loved and hated
high profile cases. They loved them because it often made their reputation
to be involved with a big case. They hated them because once a case "goes
to the press/public" instead of a jury they lost substantial control of the
process, something many lawyers utterly hate.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 07:59:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.

Things are not always what they seem to be...
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...erman-03232012

On 24 Mar 2012 12:50:31 GMT, Han wrote:

"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.

Who says? The Long Island police? Well, duh!

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

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.

You betcha! I'm not hanging out, unprotected, as the cop's bait.

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?

It would be prudent to listen to the evidence, no?

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 10:26:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 24, 11:44*am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m...

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.

I read somewhere that Al Sharpton had really toned down his act recently
since he landed a steady job:

But in general, Mr. Sharpton, who has lost more than 80 pounds in the last
few years (through diet and exercise, he says), and wears his suits tailored
and his hair slicked back, has toned down his image and his rhetoric,
particularly since he came up for consideration for a hosting job. Shortly
before his MSNBC show began, he wrote a column in The Daily News expressing
regret for some of his actions during the Crown Heights race riots 20 years
ago. ("Our language and tone sometimes exacerbated tensions," he wrote.)

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...ple/s/al_sharp...

--
Bobby G.

When he apologizes for the Tawana Brawly incident, where he
manufactured
a totally bogus incident and accused a cop of rape, let us know.

....and pays Steven Pagonas what he's owed.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:52:34 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

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

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

Harry-

Cannot you perceive the voice of experience?

No. Not really. He can't.

harry has active committees going off in his head.

He puts each call on hold.

" wrote in
:

On 24 Mar 2012 12:50:31 GMT, Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
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...mmerman-father
-s peaks-defense-son-article-1.1049933
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...trage-over-tra
yv 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.

Who says? The Long Island police? Well, duh!

It's what the police everywhere says about citizen neighborhood watch
patrols, or whatever they're called. No weapons, walk in pairs.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 24 Mar 2012 12:56:39 GMT, Han wrote:

"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.

As far to the right on gun rights as I am, I lean with you on this
one. The whole presumption depends on citizens acting responsibly.
Having said that, I'd rather see what the facts are (if that's
possible, now) before making any such assumptions about this case.

Hopefully the facts as they were then will indeed come out.

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.

No, the presumption must be that people are responsible. If someone
isn't, fix that problem. If the facts are as you state, it shouldn't
have been a big issue to fix the problem.

I've been berated by a dear friend, the father of my soninlaw, who is
rather far right grin, that I am believing too much in people's
goodness. That doesn't mean every idiot should be able to get a gun and
that it only gets taken away when he proves he's an idiot.

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

Wow! You must be a baddd asss when it's -40F. ;-)

I don't recall ever experiencing -40. And I do cover my head when it's
cold, just not often in a hoodie. Btw, -40 is -40, the numerical
crossover point of °F and °C scales.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 24 Mar 2012 21:46:03 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 24 Mar 2012 12:56:39 GMT, Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
m:

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.

As far to the right on gun rights as I am, I lean with you on this
one. The whole presumption depends on citizens acting responsibly.
Having said that, I'd rather see what the facts are (if that's
possible, now) before making any such assumptions about this case.

Hopefully the facts as they were then will indeed come out.

What we're yammering about here isn't very helpful, is it?

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.

No, the presumption must be that people are responsible. If someone
isn't, fix that problem. If the facts are as you state, it shouldn't
have been a big issue to fix the problem.

I've been berated by a dear friend, the father of my soninlaw, who is
rather far right grin, that I am believing too much in people's
goodness. That doesn't mean every idiot should be able to get a gun and
that it only gets taken away when he proves he's an idiot.

So you're prefer some mindless government bureaucrat making the decision
whether, or not, you deserve to protect your life or not? We have a
presumption of innocence, in this country. Perhaps you've heard of it?
....maybe you just don't like it; too "liberating".

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

Wow! You must be a baddd asss when it's -40F. ;-)

I don't recall ever experiencing -40. And I do cover my head when it's
cold, just not often in a hoodie.

It's about the only time I wear a hoodie (-20 to -35). Well, that's not true.
I have several hoodies (damned things are all you can buy these days) but I
don't believe I've ever worn them with the hood up.

Btw, -40 is -40, the numerical
crossover point of °F and °C scales.

No ****?! You're quick! ;-)

On 24 Mar 2012 21:39:53 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 24 Mar 2012 12:50:31 GMT, Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
om:

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...mmerman-father
-s peaks-defense-son-article-1.1049933
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...trage-over-tra
yv 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.

Who says? The Long Island police? Well, duh!

It's what the police everywhere says about citizen neighborhood watch
patrols, or whatever they're called. No weapons, walk in pairs.

Ah, so now you have personal experience with *every* police force in the
country? Please, go on...

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:18:58 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 3/24/2012 12:04 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:01:29 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

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.

I wonder how you came up with that.

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 didn't say that anywhere in this the thread. The shooter made the
"mistake". He could be perfectly legally armed, cover bad law and
such.

To say it politely so you understand THIS GUY ****ED UP!. He chased,
pursued, shot and killed his prey. Stand your ground does not allow
that.

Brave statement after the Gov just said the same thing.

Chill Oren.

A weak comeback for what you've said before... not reading the thread.

I have followed this before the "Gov" poked his head under the tent.

Yes I know how fast a city can burn; plenty of examples.

A riot only needs more people tm

JUST wait until Louis Farrakhan Muhammad, Sr. shows up.

On Mar 24, 5:24*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 07:59:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

Things are not always what they seem to be...http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...attacked-z...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good find.

That's the best news report I've seen supporting the Zimmerman
version. Two interesting things. One is that AFAIK, the coverage
of what this witness has to say has been minimal. Second, one
would think given all the turmoil surrounding the incident, the
police would have said more about exactly what this witness had
told them. Maybe they did and that wasn't covered either. The
most I had heard before was that they had witness testimony
that backed up Zimmerman, but no specifics.

One thing for sure, I would not want to be this witness. He's
in a losing position because there are a lot of people with their
shorts in a knot that aren't going to want to hear it. Another
critical
piece of evidence will be the autopsy. If it shows the shooting
was at point blank range and trajectory consistent with
Zimmerman's account, and the witness is consistent and
credible, then I think you have plenty of reasonable doubt.

wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 11:44 am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m...

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.

I read somewhere that Al Sharpton had really toned down his act recently
since he landed a steady job:

But in general, Mr. Sharpton, who has lost more than 80 pounds in the
last
few years (through diet and exercise, he says), and wears his suits
tailored
and his hair slicked back, has toned down his image and his rhetoric,
particularly since he came up for consideration for a hosting job. Shortly
before his MSNBC show began, he wrote a column in The Daily News
expressing
regret for some of his actions during the Crown Heights race riots 20
years
ago. ("Our language and tone sometimes exacerbated tensions," he wrote.)

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...ple/s/al_sharp...

--
Bobby G.

When he apologizes for the Tawana Brawly incident, where he manufactured a
totally bogus incident and accused a cop of rape, let us know.

I've never heard the charge that Sharpton himself *manufactured* that
incident. People came to him with the story already cooked up and used him
to get it into play and he got played. Kinda like Cheney playing Bush over
WMDs. (-: If you've got specific information that he was the one who made
her lie, I'd like to hear it. I certainly could be wrong about what
happened. IIRC, the case was already rolling when he attached himself to it

The article acknowledges the Brawley case:

Sometimes he has become involved in these matters because people who find
themselves in trouble call on him, as Tawana Brawley's family did in 1987,
when the young woman claimed she had been abducted and raped by a gang of
white men, a claim that was later dismissed as a hoax by a special grand
jury

The above excerpt seems to confirm that he was added to the case after it
was in progress.

He was called upon by the families in the so-called Jena Six case in
Louisiana, when six black high school students were arrested in the beating
of a white classmate after a noose was hung on a schoolyard tree. Michael
Richards, the comedian known for playing Kramer on the Seinfeld television
hit, sought Mr. Sharpton's counsel in 2006 after he suffered what he later
termed a meltdown during a comedy act at the Laugh Factory, where he
repeatedly shouted a racial epithet at a black heckler, a scene disseminated
over the Internet.
If he advised Kramer/MR that means he doesn't always play for one side.
Turns out he was the son of two working class parents, one of them in the
building trades. Clearly he was/is a go-to guy for people who get into some
sort of racial trouble. That's got to attract *some* shady characters over
a lifetime.

Alfred Charles Sharpton Jr. was born Oct. 3, 1954 in Brooklyn, the son of
a contractor and landlord, and a seamstress. He was ordained as a minister
in the Washington Temple Church of God in Christ at age 10.

I personally don't have much love for the guy, but I believe he could have
easily been hoaxed in the Brawley incident. He's clearly not the brightest
bulb in the bunch.

--

Bobby G.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

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.


a 6 foot 3 kid who was suspended from school (I don't know why,maybe
aggression?),from a broken home,and was last seen ON TOP of Zimmerman(by a
credible witness),before he was shot in self-defense.Zimmerman's face and
head injuries support that.
Also,NBC news ran a report Wednesday that Zimmerman was returning to his
car when he was attacked.
I also note that "followed" quickly mutated to "chased down",etc,despite NO
credible evidence of any of that nonsense.Just hearsay and supposition.We
really don't know who approached who,what was said,or how it went down.
We DO know Travon was ON TOP of Zimmerman just before he was shot.
That's not self-defense on Travon's part. I'm sure he could have walked
away or just waited for police to arrive,instead of attacking.

did you catch Geraldo's comment yesterday about kids wearing hoodies,gang
attire?

did you catch the New Black Panthers handing out their "Wanted;Dead or
Alive" posters of Zimmerman,or their threats of more violence?
IMO,that is incitement to murder,REAL murder.

BTW,Zimmerman fired only ONE shot,does that sound like a racist or
vigilante,someone who's out of control? Not in my book.He was on his back
and getting beaten.
Even police fire a lot more shots,often emptying their magazines.


it's not a good idea to attack a person in Florida,they might be lawfully
armed.
there's at least a half million concealed Weapons Permit holders in
Florida.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:00:31 -0400, wrote:



This is a gated neighborhood with no trespassing signs on the fences.
Martin climbed over a fence to get there and he was going to have to
climb over another fence to get out so he was "suspicious".

First I heard that. Early report was that he was at a house (in the
community) watching TV and went to the local store to pick up snacks.

I live about 15 minutes drive from Sanford. The kid's father lived in the
gated community,and he was visiting. I have heard nothing aboot him
climbing over any fence.

I'm sure there will be lots of rumors before we find out any real
facts. At 17, he may have been acting like a smart ass kid when
confronted (many of us would), but I still have not seen anything to
support the need to shoot.

Oh? if you were lying on your back getting beaten by a 6-foot-3 kid who was
on top of you,you would not shoot if you had a gun?
Under Florida law,it does not matter if the assailant is unarmed,you can
meet force with lethal force,if you believe you may suffer "grievous bodily
harm" or fear being killed.

FYI,people have been killed by a SINGLE punch to the head.
or a punch could ruin one of your eyes;I consider that "grievous bodily
harm".

I can see this becoming a major case for many years. It will affect
some of the stand your ground laws, racial profiling, etc.


consider how many crimes blacks commit in relation to their population
ratio. blacks are about 20% of the population,on average.(30% in Sanford)
even Jesse Jackson has admitted to fearing blacks when alone;he said that
if it was a white guy following him,he felt relief.

Plus,wearing a hoodie hood-up in the weather we're having here is very odd.
But not if you're trying to keep your face from being seen.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 3/24/2012 5:04 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:18:58 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/24/2012 12:04 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:01:29 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

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.

I wonder how you came up with that.

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 didn't say that anywhere in this the thread. The shooter made the
"mistake". He could be perfectly legally armed, cover bad law and
such.

To say it politely so you understand THIS GUY ****ED UP!. He chased,
pursued, shot and killed his prey. Stand your ground does not allow
that.
Brave statement after the Gov just said the same thing.

Chill Oren.
A weak comeback for what you've said before... not reading the thread.

I have followed this before the "Gov" poked his head under the tent.

Yes I know how fast a city can burn; plenty of examples.

A riot only needs more peopletm

JUST wait until Louis Farrakhan Muhammad, Sr. shows up.

HUH?

Whatever.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 19:16:14 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 11:44 am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m...

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.

I read somewhere that Al Sharpton had really toned down his act recently
since he landed a steady job:

But in general, Mr. Sharpton, who has lost more than 80 pounds in the
last
few years (through diet and exercise, he says), and wears his suits
tailored
and his hair slicked back, has toned down his image and his rhetoric,
particularly since he came up for consideration for a hosting job. Shortly
before his MSNBC show began, he wrote a column in The Daily News
expressing
regret for some of his actions during the Crown Heights race riots 20
years
ago. ("Our language and tone sometimes exacerbated tensions," he wrote.)

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...ple/s/al_sharp...

--
Bobby G.

When he apologizes for the Tawana Brawly incident, where he manufactured a
totally bogus incident and accused a cop of rape, let us know.

I've never heard the charge that Sharpton himself *manufactured* that
incident.

He certainly did. He specifically slandered Steven Pagonas in the process. I
was living just up the road from Wappingers Falls, NY, at the time and the guy
who worked across the hall from me was the arraigning judge.

People came to him with the story already cooked up and used him
to get it into play and he got played. Kinda like Cheney playing Bush over
WMDs. (-: If you've got specific information that he was the one who made
her lie, I'd like to hear it. I certainly could be wrong about what
happened. IIRC, the case was already rolling when he attached himself to it

He did a *lot* more than "get played". He was an instigator and didn't have
the common sense to fold his tent when it was clear that he was the culprit.

The article acknowledges the Brawley case:

Sometimes he has become involved in these matters because people who find
themselves in trouble call on him, as Tawana Brawley's family did in 1987,
when the young woman claimed she had been abducted and raped by a gang of
white men, a claim that was later dismissed as a hoax by a special grand
jury

The above excerpt seems to confirm that he was added to the case after it
was in progress.

You're looking to the popular press for this sort of information? Good grief!
Sure, Sharpton was called in after Tawana came back from her party, but he was
the one spinning the tales for the media.

He was called upon by the families in the so-called Jena Six case in
Louisiana, when six black high school students were arrested in the beating
of a white classmate after a noose was hung on a schoolyard tree. Michael
Richards, the comedian known for playing Kramer on the Seinfeld television
hit, sought Mr. Sharpton's counsel in 2006 after he suffered what he later
termed a meltdown during a comedy act at the Laugh Factory, where he
repeatedly shouted a racial epithet at a black heckler, a scene disseminated
over the Internet.
If he advised Kramer/MR that means he doesn't always play for one side.
Turns out he was the son of two working class parents, one of them in the
building trades. Clearly he was/is a go-to guy for people who get into some
sort of racial trouble. That's got to attract *some* shady characters over
a lifetime.

Alfred Charles Sharpton Jr. was born Oct. 3, 1954 in Brooklyn, the son of
a contractor and landlord, and a seamstress. He was ordained as a minister
in the Washington Temple Church of God in Christ at age 10.

I personally don't have much love for the guy, but I believe he could have
easily been hoaxed in the Brawley incident. He's clearly not the brightest
bulb in the bunch.

Apparently you're an easy mark.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote in
net:

On 3/24/2012 5:04 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:18:58 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 3/24/2012 12:04 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:01:29 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

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.

I wonder how you came up with that.

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 didn't say that anywhere in this the thread. The shooter made
the "mistake". He could be perfectly legally armed, cover bad law
and such.

To say it politely so you understand THIS GUY ****ED UP!. He
chased, pursued, shot and killed his prey. Stand your ground does
not allow that.
Brave statement after the Gov just said the same thing.

Chill Oren.
A weak comeback for what you've said before... not reading the
thread.

I have followed this before the "Gov" poked his head under the tent.

Yes I know how fast a city can burn; plenty of examples.

A riot only needs more peopletm

JUST wait until Louis Farrakhan Muhammad, Sr. shows up.

HUH?

Whatever.


Professional Racist Jesse Jackson arrived today,and Professional Racist Al
Sharpton was here couple of days ago.

the New Black Panther Party is here handing out "Wanted;Dead or Alive"
posters of Zimmerman,and talking about violence.

this is turning out to be another Duke University fiasco. "Racism,racism".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Mar 24, 8:20*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 19:16:14 -0400, "Robert Green"





wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 11:44 am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

news:YaOdnSp_Hp31IPDSnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink. com...

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.

I read somewhere that Al Sharpton had really toned down his act recently
since he landed a steady job:

But in general, Mr. Sharpton, who has lost more than 80 pounds in the
last
few years (through diet and exercise, he says), and wears his suits
tailored
and his hair slicked back, has toned down his image and his rhetoric,
particularly since he came up for consideration for a hosting job. Shortly
before his MSNBC show began, he wrote a column in The Daily News
expressing
regret for some of his actions during the Crown Heights race riots 20
years
ago. ("Our language and tone sometimes exacerbated tensions," he wrote..)

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...ple/s/al_sharp....

--
Bobby G.

When he apologizes for the Tawana Brawly incident, where he manufactured a
totally bogus incident and accused a cop of rape, let us know.

I've never heard the charge that Sharpton himself *manufactured* that
incident.

He certainly did. *He specifically slandered Steven Pagonas in the process. *I
was living just up the road from Wappingers Falls, NY, at the time and the guy
who worked across the hall from me was the arraigning judge.

People came to him with the story already cooked up and used him
to get it into play and he got played. *Kinda like Cheney playing Bush over
WMDs. (-: *If you've got specific information that he was the one who made
her lie, I'd like to hear it. I certainly could be wrong about what
happened. *IIRC, the case was already rolling when he attached himself to it

He did a *lot* more than "get played". *He was an instigator and didn't have
the common sense to fold his tent when it was clear that he was the culprit.

The article acknowledges the Brawley case:

Sometimes he has become involved in these matters because people who find
themselves in trouble call on him, as Tawana Brawley's family did in 1987,
when the young woman claimed she had been abducted and raped by a gang of
white men, a claim that was later dismissed as a hoax by a special grand
jury

The above excerpt seems to confirm that he was added to the case after it
was in progress.

You're looking to the popular press for this sort of information? *Good grief!
Sure, Sharpton was called in after Tawana came back from her party, but he was
the one spinning the tales for the media.





He was called upon by the families in the so-called Jena Six case in
Louisiana, when six black high school students were arrested in the beating
of a white classmate after a noose was hung on a schoolyard tree. Michael
Richards, the comedian known for playing Kramer on the Seinfeld television
hit, sought Mr. Sharpton's counsel in 2006 after he suffered what he later
termed a meltdown during a comedy act at the Laugh Factory, where he
repeatedly shouted a racial epithet at a black heckler, a scene disseminated
over the Internet.
If he advised Kramer/MR that means he doesn't always play for one side.
Turns out he was the son of two working class parents, one of them in the
building trades. *Clearly he was/is a go-to guy for people who get into some
sort of racial trouble. *That's got to attract *some* shady characters over
a lifetime.

Alfred Charles Sharpton Jr. was born Oct. 3, 1954 in Brooklyn, the son of
a contractor and landlord, and a seamstress. He was ordained as a minister
in the Washington Temple Church of God in Christ at age 10.

I personally don't have much love for the guy, but I believe he could have
easily been hoaxed in the Brawley incident. *He's clearly not the brightest
bulb in the bunch.

Apparently you're an easy mark.- Hide quoted text -



You tell em KRW. I watched the whole thing unfold too.
Did Sharpton cover her in feces and fabricate the whole thing?
No. But he bought into it, expanded the whole thing and made
the false rape claim against Pagonas. And even as it started
to fall apart as an obvious lie, Sharpton never let up, never
stopped the false accusations. If Sharpton were simply
suckered into this as the lib loon claims, then why would
he double down on it instead of just walking away?
Any decent person would admit the mistake and apologize,
but then we are talking about Sharpton.
Pagonas sued Sharpton and was awarded $350,000.
I don't think the skunk ever paid it, did he?