[Oren[_2_]]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:02:08 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

On 4/1/2012 1:40 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:02:02 -0400, wrote:

This thing stinks like old fish:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...-2-experts-say

Yes, it does!
... and then:

"But he also said he could not confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because
he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice.

So this expert just uses one side of the evidence?

I wonder why the experts aren't using the phone conversation that
Trayvon had with his gf? To me, the scream sounds like a younger man.

You tell me. I'm not the expert.

Why did you change your posting nym from Jim T?

[Robert Green]

"HeyBub" wrote in message

Hmm. Thirty-one states have some form of Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws. Are
you saying that over 60% of the population passed a law with no reason
behind it? Or is it possible you simply do not understand what three out
of
five do?

The population? I doubt very many people in these states KNEW they were in
a castle doctrine or SYG state. These laws were part of a concerted agenda
by the NRA and others to have legislators quietly change existing laws or
add new ones. As we've seen with union busting laws, vaginal ultrasound
dildoing laws, anti-immigration laws, gay-marriage laws, pot intitiatives,
etc. the battleground for reshaping America has moved to the statehouses of
America.

However, I don't know of any state that passed a SYG law by referendum or
any kind of popular vote. They were quietly lobbied in. -Ask people here.
I'll bet a lot of them were surprised by how many states have become Stand
Your Ground states. I think that might change now that people are becoming
aware of what SWG is all about. To the bashers - save your breath: I don't
really think Zimmerman was a SYG shooting but nevertheless, it served to
focus attention on SWG.

It is plain and simple nuts. Just
about as
bad as Ohio's law permitting concealed carry in bars.
What? Don't the lawmakers know how easy a fight breaks
out in a bar and someone
gets hit with a pool queue stick ora bottle? What's going
to happen
now with concealed guns? People will be carted out in body
bags rather than on ambulance gurneys.

In my state, we've had the ability to carry concealed where liquor is
served
since 1995. There has not been ONE SINGLE case - that I can find - of a
CHL
holder shooting another bar patron.

That *you* can find. That's a serious limitation. Does your state publish
the names of CHL holders? If not, how can you or a reporter tell whether a
shooting involves a CHL? This article explains precisely why "not finding
any cases" absolutely does not equal "not being any cases."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us...ong-hands.html

Mr. Diez, as it turned out, was one of more than 240,000 people in North
Carolina with a permit to carry a concealed handgun. If not for that gun,
Mr. Simons is convinced, the confrontation would have ended harmlessly. "I
bet it would have been a bunch of mouthing," he said. Mr. Diez, then 42,
eventually pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to
kill.

The following paragraphs make it clear that the information you say you
can't find is very hard to find in the first place. Its absence is proof of
nothing other than how difficult it is to match public shootings with very
private lists of CHL holders. The data that's available nowhere near as
rosy as you suggest and tends to support Bill's view on things. The
Zimmerman shooting may lead to a much closer look at these SYG laws now as
people ask themselves "when did we pass *that* law?"
The New York Times examined the permit program in North Carolina, one of
a dwindling number of states where the identities of permit holders remain
public. The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare,
detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has played out in
one state. And while it does not provide answers, it does raise questions.
More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors,
excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period, The Times found
when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees.
While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more
than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed
murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun. Among them
was Bobby Ray Bordeaux Jr., who had a concealed handgun permit despite a
history of alcoholism, major depression and suicide attempts. In 2008, he
shot two men with a .22-caliber revolver, killing one of them, during a
fight outside a bar.

CHL holders become neither angels or devils when they get their "carry
ticket." But they do remain people and they have all of the failings of
people. A number of the studies I've looked at say that once a person gets
a CHL, he's often able to keep it despite no longer qualifying for any
number of serious reasons. Followup is very poor.

You're worried about something that is so remote as to be absurd.

Sorry, Bill's right and it's not that remote at all. Plenty of permit
holders in plenty of states kill plenty of patrons in bars while drunk.
Although the above shooting by Bobby Ray is just North Carolina, they allow
reasonable extrapolation. I've seen cases in other states where CHL holders
killed people in bars.

My state is governed by case law and not statute. That means you really
take your chances applying deadly force as a private citizen. If you cut
loose with a pistol in a barfight in Baltimore where no one else had a gun,
I'm pretty sure that if you weren't a cop, you'd be going to jail.

You're trying to equate not finding something with it not existing.

That's a logical fallacy that also known as HeyBubbing. (-: We ain't
BubBuying it.

We can also carry concealed in churches,
hospitals, the state capitol, libraries, parks, and the governor's office!
Again, no untoward happenings recorded.

Who is we? All CHL holders everywhere? In Texas? You and your squeezette?
Whatcha mean "we" kimosabe?

To whom did those untoward happenings not happen? To you? To everyone? As
far as you can tell? Certainly not to the shooting victims in North
Carolina.

If you think about it, your claims just don't pass the common sense test.
To suddenly have a population of angelic CHL holders who do no wrong ever
just isn't believable. They are fallible human beings.

It may be that Texans are more mild-mannered than the folks in your state,
but I suspect the real difference is in your fears versus reality.

I suspect the difference is you're not looking very hard for what you don't
want to find.

Further, if a fight DOES break out, with pool cues and chairs sailing
around
like ducks on a bug, I certainly would want to be armed.

Decades, no century of case law disagree with you. The law's position is
"you would want to leave." While the line has blurred somewhat lately, the
application of deadly force is still very tricky business. In something
like a barfight where the other participants are unarmed and you have the
ability to escape you'll still go on trial for some sort of offense. As a
police reporter my CHL training was specifically job related and it dealt
with - at great lengths - the difference between deadly force applied by a
sworn officer of the law and a shooting by a private citizen (basically
every one who is NOT a sworn LEO).

Your advice may be great for Texans, but even though many states are SYG and
castle doctrine states, they have some serious exceptions to the application
of deadly force. That means you damn well better know the right answers to
questions the cops will ask you after the shooting.

Here's just one example:

Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another
crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or
to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not
specifically removed)

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legi...7-Asec107.html

Guess the trick question you'll be asked . . .

If someone was packing, out and about the
town runing erands and whatnot, and someone
looks at them funny, and they think they are
threatened, they have the right under this law
to defend themselves from this looker, even to
the death. Now you think this is a stretch, but
this is real life and anything can and does happen.

There's an old saying: "An armed society frowns on those who look funny."

I'm all for CHL's - as long as you make sure you keep them from kooks,
brandishers, froteurs, psychos, murdering Muslim US Army majors, convicted
felons, alcoholics, illegal aliens, Catholic priests and a few other types.
Oh, and as long as you make them pass a range test - like cops have to, take
at least 20 hours of courses on the laws pertaining to deadly force in their
state and perhaps a few other conditions. People take proficiency tests and
other exams to be able to drive a deadly weapon. It's not too much to ask
the same of someone looking to carry one. Maybe even mandatory insurance,
just like automobiles.

Now that a number of states have enacted new carry laws the earlier research
that showed only good outcomes is beginning to tarnish.

--
Bobby G.

[gonjah]

On 4/1/2012 2:51 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:02:08 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

On 4/1/2012 1:40 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:02:02 -0400, wrote:

This thing stinks like old fish:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...-2-experts-say

Yes, it does!
... and then:

"But he also said he could not confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because
he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice.

So this expert just uses one side of the evidence?
I wonder why the experts aren't using the phone conversation that
Trayvon had with his gf? To me, the scream sounds like a younger man.
You tell me. I'm not the expert.

Why did you change your posting nym from Jim T?

First, I don't know. That's why I was "wonder"ing.

Second. What difference does it make to you? Stick around and I'll
change it again. AFAIK it's legal. You're a conservative. Don't I have
the right to do what I want as long as it's legal? I know people that
change there handles with each post. Get over it.

[Oren[_2_]]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:00:55 -0400, Ron wrote:

Check this out

http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/f...ce%20Guide.pdf

I think he will be charged with *something*, convicted is another story.

Charge him with what?

Here is a portion of the Police Report.

See initial charges, yet to be brought. Read the narratives.

PDF

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-03/69081607-29132322.pdf

[Oren[_2_]]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 11:55:06 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Zimmerman will undoubtedly face a wrongful death civil
suit funded by some very deep pockets.

Um, Florida being a Castle Doctrine state protects from a justified
shooting. The family cannot sue for wrongful death, take your house,
land, cats, dogs or anything from all the people you ever knew.

My state is not called a castle doctrine state because THAT one point
in the law was not written in this past year. Had protection from
civil liabilities been added, we would be in the states called Castle
Doctrine.

I see today, "deep pockets" in Texas is or has already given $10,000
to the Zimmerman defense -- assuming he committed a crime and is
arrested, put on public trial and all that mess.

[Ron]

Oren wrote on 4/1/2012 :
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:00:55 -0400, Ron wrote:

Check this out

http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/f...ce%20Guide.pdf

I think he will be charged with *something*, convicted is another story.

Charge him with what?

Here is a portion of the Police Report.

See initial charges, yet to be brought. Read the narratives.

PDF

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-03/69081607-29132322.pdf

I don't know what. That is why I said "something". The lead
investigator on the case wanted to charge him with manslaughter, but
state attorney Norman Wolfinger said there wasn't enough evidence to
lead to a conviction. Wolfinger has since recused himself and a new
state attorney (Angela Corey) has been appointed by Governor Scott to
investigate the case.

[Oren[_2_]]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:07:13 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

Second. What difference does it make to you? Stick around and I'll
change it again. AFAIK it's legal. You're a conservative. Don't I have
the right to do what I want as long as it's legal? I know people that
change there handles with each post. Get over it.

Watching a liberal throw a hissy-fit. LMAO

Got anymore good ones?

****. killin' people is legal!

[gonjah]

On 4/1/2012 6:26 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:07:13 -0500, gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

Second. What difference does it make to you? Stick around and I'll
change it again. AFAIK it's legal. You're a conservative. Don't I have
the right to do what I want as long as it's legal? I know people that
change there handles with each post. Get over it.
Watching a liberal throw a hissy-fit. LMAO



Almost as fun as watching you make a fool of yourself. I won't say
conservative because I like most conservatives.

BTW: I always tell people I like when I change my handle. That's why you
had to ask.

Goodbye Oren.

[Oren[_2_]]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 19:57:55 -0500, gonjah gonjah.net wrote:


Goodbye Oren.

Your bat, your ball.

You just might miss me.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Ron wrote:

Check this out

http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/f...ce%20Guide.pdf

I think he will be charged with *something*, convicted is another
story.

Could be. There are several reasons, however why Zimmerman wasn't arrested.

* A warrant for an arrest must state "probable cause" that the accused
committed a crime. Evidently there was some disagreement as to whether there
was sufficient evidence of a crime.

* Upon arrest, the "speedy trial act" clock begins. If an arrest is not
necessary, it would be foolish to arrest someone and put the prosecution
under an unnecessary time constratint.

* Even if arrested, Zimmerman would make bond in a heartbeat, maybe even
release on PR, so the arrest would serve no good purpose.

* Florida law specifically PROHIBITS an arrest in a probable self-defense
case.

* The sanctions for a false arrest are substantial. Who would be willing to
risk them?

Try to follow along:

Florida Statutes #776.012
Use of force in defense of person - A person is justified in using force
that is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury against another
when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct
is necessary to defend himself or herself against the other's imminent use
of unlawful force.

Now add to the above
Florida Statutes #776.032
Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of
force - (1) A person who uses force as described in #776.012... is justified
in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action
for the use of such force. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard
procedures for investigating the use of force, but the agency may not arrest
the person for using force unless it determines that probable cause exists
showing that the force that was used was unlawful.

It's crystal clear that the cops did NOT have probable cause to believe
Zimmerman acted unlawfully. All they had, at the scene, was Zimmerman's word
against nobody's!

The forensic evidence and semi-witness accounts may elevate the cop's
thinking to the probable cause level, but at the time, on the street, they
just couldn't do it.

[gonjah]

On 4/1/2012 9:36 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Ron wrote:
Check this out

http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/f...ce%20Guide.pdf

I think he will be charged with *something*, convicted is another
story.
Could be. There are several reasons, however why Zimmerman wasn't arrested.

* A warrant for an arrest must state "probable cause" that the accused
committed a crime. Evidently there was some disagreement as to whether there
was sufficient evidence of a crime.

* Upon arrest, the "speedy trial act" clock begins. If an arrest is not
necessary, it would be foolish to arrest someone and put the prosecution
under an unnecessary time constratint.

* Even if arrested, Zimmerman would make bond in a heartbeat, maybe even
release on PR, so the arrest would serve no good purpose.

* Florida law specifically PROHIBITS an arrest in a probable self-defense
case.

* The sanctions for a false arrest are substantial. Who would be willing to
risk them?

Try to follow along:

Florida Statutes #776.012
Use of force in defense of person - A person is justified in using force
that is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury against another
when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct
is necessary to defend himself or herself against the other's imminent use
of unlawful force.

Now add to the above
Florida Statutes #776.032
Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of
force - (1) A person who uses force as described in #776.012... is justified
in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action
for the use of such force. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard
procedures for investigating the use of force, but the agency may not arrest
the person for using force unless it determines that probable cause exists
showing that the force that was used was unlawful.

It's crystal clear that the cops did NOT have probable cause to believe
Zimmerman acted unlawfully. All they had, at the scene, was Zimmerman's word
against nobody's!

The forensic evidence and semi-witness accounts may elevate the cop's
thinking to the probable cause level, but at the time, on the street, they
just couldn't do it.



Good analysis.

[Oren[_2_]]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 18:04:04 -0400, Ron wrote:

Charge him with what?

Here is a portion of the Police Report.

See initial charges, yet to be brought. Read the narratives.

PDF

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-03/69081607-29132322.pdf

I don't know what. That is why I said "something". The lead
investigator on the case wanted to charge him with manslaughter, but
state attorney Norman Wolfinger said there wasn't enough evidence to
lead to a conviction. Wolfinger has since recused himself and a new
state attorney (Angela Corey) has been appointed by Governor Scott to
investigate the case.


I think I found a couple of charges that will stick. From the old days
when nothing else works file.

Charge:

Reckless Eyeballing.

Silent Contempt.

Failure to Communicate.

Lacking those charges Z walks free.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

gonjah wrote:

It's crystal clear that the cops did NOT have probable cause to
believe Zimmerman acted unlawfully. All they had, at the scene, was
Zimmerman's word against nobody's!

The forensic evidence and semi-witness accounts may elevate the cop's
thinking to the probable cause level, but at the time, on the
street, they just couldn't do it.



Good analysis.

Thanks. I arrested a dump-truck load of people during my eight years in
solid waste disposal. Most of the time the situation was obvious, but I
remember a few situations in which I called for a supervisor and he, in
turn, called the on-duty Assistant DA.

Point is, you sure don't want to arrest someone unless the facts are beyond
question. It's far better to let them go; you can (usually) scoop 'em up
later if necessary.

[Attila.Iskander]

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in message

Hmm. Thirty-one states have some form of Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws.
Are
you saying that over 60% of the population passed a law with no reason
behind it? Or is it possible you simply do not understand what three out
of
five do?

The population? I doubt very many people in these states KNEW they were
in
a castle doctrine or SYG state.

And the counter to that is that just about ALL the people who choose to
carry DO KNOW what the laws in the state actually are.


These laws were part of a concerted agenda
by the NRA and others to have legislators quietly change existing laws or
add new ones.

AH yes
It's a HUGE CONSPIRACY against the ignorati on the other side of the fence.


As we've seen with union busting laws, vaginal ultrasound
dildoing laws, anti-immigration laws, gay-marriage laws, pot intitiatives,
etc. the battleground for reshaping America has moved to the statehouses
of
America.



YAWN
BIG SMEAR with VERY WIDE BRUSH.
Too bad, that your knowledge of history is limited
There was a concerted effort to diminish if not destroy the 2nd Amendment at
all levels of government over the last 100+ years.
The people are waking and realizing it and have started pushing back.


However, I don't know of any state that passed a SYG law by referendum or
any kind of popular vote.

AND ?
Very FEW laws are passed by "referendum" or some kind of "popular vote".
Why should such laws be ANY different ?

They were quietly lobbied in. -Ask people here.

Total NONSENSE
The hoplophobes were squealing like stuck pigs during the process.


I'll bet a lot of them were surprised by how many states have become Stand
Your Ground states.

Maybe in the minds of the uninformed such as yourself.
The debate has been going on for a long time and the MSM (Main Stream Media)
has been ACTIVELY participating in the debate on the gun-control side.



I think that might change now that people are becoming
aware of what SWG is all about. To the bashers - save your breath: I
don't
really think Zimmerman was a SYG shooting but nevertheless, it served to
focus attention on SWG.


Only in the sense of keeping the ignorati misinformed
The media has been stirring the pot very actively making references to SYG,
EVEN THOUGH it's clearly not applicable


It is plain and simple nuts. Just
about as
bad as Ohio's law permitting concealed carry in bars.
What? Don't the lawmakers know how easy a fight breaks
out in a bar and someone
gets hit with a pool queue stick ora bottle? What's going
to happen
now with concealed guns? People will be carted out in body
bags rather than on ambulance gurneys.

In my state, we've had the ability to carry concealed where liquor is
served
since 1995. There has not been ONE SINGLE case - that I can find - of a
CHL
holder shooting another bar patron.

That *you* can find. That's a serious limitation.

Feel free to do your own research and show otherwise


Does your state publish the names of CHL holders?

Why should it ?


If not, how can you or a reporter tell whether a
shooting involves a CHL?

Because when it does involve a CHL it usually comes out in the police report
Even the leftist idiots should be smart enough to figure that one out

ON the other hand States like Florida and Texas, as well as a few others do
have a requirement of collect data on CHL holders who do misbehave
IN Florida, it was found that CHL holders are more law-abiding than even the
police. While in Texas, it was found that CHL holders have less than 15%
contact with the police than the general population

Have individual CHL holders misbehaved
ABSOLUTELY
Getting a CHL is NO guarantee that you're a saint
But so far, the evidence that we do have is that CHL holders do a better job
than most other people, and sometimes even the police
Hell, law-abiding citizens (not necessarily all CHL holders) shoot twice the
number of criminals than the police do, while shooting 1/6th the number of
innocent bystanders than the police do.


This article explains precisely why "not finding
any cases" absolutely does not equal "not being any cases."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us...ong-hands.html


False argument
NO ONE made ANY claim that there had "not been any cases"
One also notices that your cite is about a DIFFERENT State that the OP
Which again goes back to the false argument

And let's not forget to take ANYTHING posted by the NYT with a VERY LARGE
grain of salt, PARTICULARLY when it comes to being anti-gun
This is also the same rag that would have gone down with Dan Rather in
Rather-gate, except for the fact that the paper chickened out at the last
minute and turned on Rather to save their ass.


Mr. Diez, as it turned out, was one of more than 240,000 people in North
Carolina with a permit to carry a concealed handgun. If not for that gun,
Mr. Simons is convinced, the confrontation would have ended harmlessly. "I
bet it would have been a bunch of mouthing," he said. Mr. Diez, then 42,
eventually pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to
kill.

The following paragraphs make it clear that the information you say you
can't find is very hard to find in the first place.

Did you cite for the OP's state ?
How do you know that in his state, that is not the case


Its absence is proof of
nothing other than how difficult it is to match public shootings with very
private lists of CHL holders. The data that's available nowhere near as
rosy as you suggest and tends to support Bill's view on things. The
Zimmerman shooting may lead to a much closer look at these SYG laws now as
people ask themselves "when did we pass *that* law?"

TOTAL BULL****
Florida has been tracking permit holders from the day the law was enacted
And again, you confound SYG with permits
But hey, anything goes when pushing the hoplophobe agenda



snip

CHL holders become neither angels or devils when they get their "carry
ticket." But they do remain people and they have all of the failings of
people. A number of the studies I've looked at say that once a person
gets
a CHL, he's often able to keep it despite no longer qualifying for any
number of serious reasons. Followup is very poor.


Which studies

You're worried about something that is so remote as to be absurd.

Sorry, Bill's right and it's not that remote at all. Plenty of permit
holders in plenty of states kill plenty of patrons in bars while drunk.
Although the above shooting by Bobby Ray is just North Carolina, they
allow
reasonable extrapolation. I've seen cases in other states where CHL
holders
killed people in bars.




My state is governed by case law and not statute. That means you really
take your chances applying deadly force as a private citizen. If you cut
loose with a pistol in a barfight in Baltimore where no one else had a
gun,
I'm pretty sure that if you weren't a cop, you'd be going to jail.


"pretty sure " ?
SO it's just an opinion ???
Got it.

You're trying to equate not finding something with it not existing.


He wasn't but you sure are...


That's a logical fallacy that also known as HeyBubbing. (-: We ain't
BubBuying it.



Whatever
Don't quit your day job, bub

We can also carry concealed in churches,
hospitals, the state capitol, libraries, parks, and the governor's
office!
Again, no untoward happenings recorded.

Who is we? All CHL holders everywhere? In Texas? You and your
squeezette?
Whatcha mean "we" kimosabe?


So you know he's from Texas, and yet you argue North Carolina which JUST
HAPPENS to be a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT jurisdiction

Can you say "disingenuous" ??

To whom did those untoward happenings not happen? To you? To everyone? As
far as you can tell? Certainly not to the shooting victims in North
Carolina.


YAWN
He was talking TEXAS
A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT jurisdiction from North Carolina
Apparently it's not "disingenuous" but "intellectually dishonest" that
applies here


If you think about it, your claims just don't pass the common sense test.
To suddenly have a population of angelic CHL holders who do no wrong ever
just isn't believable. They are fallible human beings.


Repeat of the same false strawman argument
NO one made that claim


It may be that Texans are more mild-mannered than the folks in your
state,
but I suspect the real difference is in your fears versus reality.


Pure projection on your part
But hey when all else fails, why not.


I suspect the difference is you're not looking very hard for what you
don't
want to find.


Since he was talking Texas and you changed the venue to North Carolina, why
should we care what YOUR argument actually is ?

Further, if a fight DOES break out, with pool cues and chairs sailing
around like ducks on a bug, I certainly would want to be armed.

Decades, no century of case law disagree with you. The law's position is
"you would want to leave." While the line has blurred somewhat lately, the
application of deadly force is still very tricky business. In something
like a barfight where the other participants are unarmed and you have the
ability to escape you'll still go on trial for some sort of offense. As a
police reporter my CHL training was specifically job related and it dealt
with - at great lengths - the difference between deadly force applied by a
sworn officer of the law and a shooting by a private citizen (basically
every one who is NOT a sworn LEO).


Projection based on presumption based on ignorance
Just for the record law-abiding citizens shoot more than twice as many
criminals than the police do, and they manage to shoot 1/6 the innocent
bystanders the police do.
But hey, fear-mongering projections are far more fun.
Right ?



Your advice may be great for Texans, but even though many states are SYG
and
castle doctrine states, they have some serious exceptions to the
application
of deadly force. That means you damn well better know the right answers
to
questions the cops will ask you after the shooting.

Here's just one example:


YAWN
snip

If you do a bit of research, you will find that most states have pretty well
near the same statues on the subject.



If someone was packing, out and about the
town runing erands and whatnot, and someone
looks at them funny, and they think they are
threatened, they have the right under this law
to defend themselves from this looker, even to
the death. Now you think this is a stretch, but
this is real life and anything can and does happen.

There's an old saying: "An armed society frowns on those who look funny."

I'm all for CHL's - as long as you make sure you keep them from kooks,
brandishers, froteurs, psychos, murdering Muslim US Army majors, convicted
felons, alcoholics, illegal aliens, Catholic priests and a few other
types.
Oh, and as long as you make them pass a range test - like cops have to,
take
at least 20 hours of courses on the laws pertaining to deadly force in
their
state and perhaps a few other conditions. People take proficiency tests
and
other exams to be able to drive a deadly weapon. It's not too much to ask
the same of someone looking to carry one. Maybe even mandatory insurance,
just like automobiles.

Now that a number of states have enacted new carry laws the earlier
research
that showed only good outcomes is beginning to tarnish.


What a LOAD of nonsense
NO one made such a claim
But hey, a strawman argument is always a good way to sound good.

[Bill Kniess]

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Bill Kniess wrote:

Who are you saying here is the defender?

Subverting ? Are you saying we were a lost bunch from the
beginning of the country up to the time this law was passed?

Marvelous law ? I'm an NRA member, but I have to say that
there was
NO reason to have a law like this enacted. (It was
bankrolled by my
NRA, and for the life of me, cannot find out for what
purpose they
push such legislation).

Hmm. Thirty-one states have some form of Stand Your Ground (SYG)
laws. Are you saying that over 60% of the population passed a law
with no reason behind it? Or is it possible you simply do not
understand what three out of five do?

It is plain and simple nuts. Just
about as
bad as Ohio's law permitting concealed carry in bars.
What? Don't the lawmakers know how easy a fight breaks
out in a bar and someone
gets hit with a pool queue stick ora bottle? What's going
to happen
now with concealed guns? People will be carted out in body bags
rather than on ambulance gurneys.

In my state, we've had the ability to carry concealed where liquor
is served since 1995. There has not been ONE SINGLE case - that I
can find - of a CHL holder shooting another bar patron. You're
worried about something that is so remote as to be absurd.


We can
also carry concealed in churches, hospitals, the state capitol,
libraries, parks, and the governor's office!

WHY?


Bill Kniess

[Bill Kniess]

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:
-snip-

Hmm. Thirty-one states have some form of Stand Your Ground (SYG)
laws.

Check your math-- or your source. This map only shows 18.
http://www.adn.com/2012/03/26/239250...und-bill-in-sp
otlight.html

If you've got another map or chart, I'd love to see it.

I may have misspoked.
"As of 28 May 2010 (2010 -05-28, 31 states had some form of Castle
Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Castle Doctrine is different from SYG. Castle Doc is the right to
protect your habitat which, I believe is nationwide.

SYG applies to ANYWHERE a person may be - in habitat, on the street,
in churches, in the capital, the govrnor's office, ANYWHERE, which is
significantly different, and is therefore more ambiguous. By he true
legal definition (from law school) laws should be precise and not
open to interpretation.

No, I did not go to lawschool, my nephew did. He is an attorney
specializing in constitutional law in DC. He visited me last week
when his kids were onspring break. Talk to an attorney sometime who
does know something about this stuff.

[Bill Kniess]

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in message

Hmm. Thirty-one states have some form of Stand Your Ground (SYG)
laws. Are
you saying that over 60% of the population passed a law with no
reason behind it? Or is it possible you simply do not understand
what three out of five do?

The population? I doubt very many people in these states KNEW
they were in a castle doctrine or SYG state.

And the counter to that is that just about ALL the people who
choose to carry DO KNOW what the laws in the state actually are.


These laws were part of a concerted agenda
by the NRA and others to have legislators quietly change existing
laws or add new ones.

AH yes
It's a HUGE CONSPIRACY against the ignorati on the other side of
the fence.


As we've seen with union busting laws, vaginal ultrasound
dildoing laws, anti-immigration laws, gay-marriage laws, pot
intitiatives, etc. the battleground for reshaping America has
moved to the statehouses of America.



YAWN
BIG SMEAR with VERY WIDE BRUSH.
Too bad, that your knowledge of history is limited
There was a concerted effort to diminish if not destroy the 2nd
Amendment at all levels of government over the last 100+ years.
The people are waking and realizing it and have started pushing
back.


However, I don't know of any state that passed a SYG law by
referendum or any kind of popular vote.

AND ?
Very FEW laws are passed by "referendum" or some kind of "popular
vote".
Why should such laws be ANY different ?

They were quietly lobbied in. -Ask people here.

Total NONSENSE
The hoplophobes were squealing like stuck pigs during the process.


I'll bet a lot of them were surprised by how many states have
become Stand Your Ground states.

Maybe in the minds of the uninformed such as yourself.
The debate has been going on for a long time and the MSM (Main
Stream Media) has been ACTIVELY participating in the debate on the
gun-control side.



I think that might change now that people are becoming
aware of what SWG is all about. To the bashers - save your
breath: I don't really think Zimmerman was a SYG shooting but
nevertheless, it served to focus attention on SWG.


Only in the sense of keeping the ignorati misinformed
The media has been stirring the pot very actively making
references to SYG, EVEN THOUGH it's clearly not applicable


It is plain and simple nuts. Just
about as
bad as Ohio's law permitting concealed carry in bars.
What? Don't the lawmakers know how easy a fight breaks
out in a bar and someone
gets hit with a pool queue stick ora bottle? What's going
to happen
now with concealed guns? People will be carted out in body
bags rather than on ambulance gurneys.

In my state, we've had the ability to carry concealed where
liquor is served since 1995. There has not been ONE SINGLE case
- that I can find - of a CHL holder shooting another bar patron.

That *you* can find. That's a serious limitation.

Feel free to do your own research and show otherwise


Does your state publish the names of CHL holders?

Why should it ?


If not, how can you or a reporter tell whether a shooting
involves a CHL?

Because when it does involve a CHL it usually comes out in the
police report Even the leftist idiots should be smart enough to
figure that one out

ON the other hand States like Florida and Texas, as well as a few
others do have a requirement of collect data on CHL holders who do
misbehave IN Florida, it was found that CHL holders are more
law-abiding than even the police. While in Texas, it was found
that CHL holders have less than 15% contact with the police than
the general population

Have individual CHL holders misbehaved
ABSOLUTELY
Getting a CHL is NO guarantee that you're a saint
But so far, the evidence that we do have is that CHL holders do a
better job than most other people, and sometimes even the police
Hell, law-abiding citizens (not necessarily all CHL holders) shoot
twice the number of criminals than the police do, while shooting
1/6th the number of innocent bystanders than the police do.


This article explains precisely why "not finding
any cases" absolutely does not equal "not being any cases."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us...guns-and-some-
are-in-the-wrong-hands.html


False argument
NO ONE made ANY claim that there had "not been any cases"
One also notices that your cite is about a DIFFERENT State that
the OP
Which again goes back to the false argument

And let's not forget to take ANYTHING posted by the NYT with a
VERY LARGE grain of salt, PARTICULARLY when it comes to being
anti-gun This is also the same rag that would have gone down with
Dan Rather in Rather-gate, except for the fact that the paper
chickened out at the last minute and turned on Rather to save
their ass.


Mr. Diez, as it turned out, was one of more than 240,000 people
in North Carolina with a permit to carry a concealed handgun. If
not for that gun, Mr. Simons is convinced, the confrontation
would have ended harmlessly. "I bet it would have been a bunch of
mouthing," he said. Mr. Diez, then 42, eventually pleaded guilty
to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill.

The following paragraphs make it clear that the information you
say you can't find is very hard to find in the first place.

Did you cite for the OP's state ?
How do you know that in his state, that is not the case


Its absence is proof of
nothing other than how difficult it is to match public shootings
with very private lists of CHL holders. The data that's
available nowhere near as rosy as you suggest and tends to
support Bill's view on things. The Zimmerman shooting may lead
to a much closer look at these SYG laws now as people ask
themselves "when did we pass *that* law?"

TOTAL BULL****
Florida has been tracking permit holders from the day the law was
enacted And again, you confound SYG with permits
But hey, anything goes when pushing the hoplophobe agenda



snip

CHL holders become neither angels or devils when they get their
"carry ticket." But they do remain people and they have all of
the failings of people. A number of the studies I've looked at
say that once a person gets a CHL, he's often able to keep it
despite no longer qualifying for any number of serious reasons.
Followup is very poor.


Which studies

You're worried about something that is so remote as to be
absurd.

Sorry, Bill's right and it's not that remote at all. Plenty of
permit holders in plenty of states kill plenty of patrons in bars
while drunk. Although the above shooting by Bobby Ray is just
North Carolina, they allow reasonable extrapolation. I've seen
cases in other states where CHL holders killed people in bars.




My state is governed by case law and not statute. That means you
really take your chances applying deadly force as a private
citizen. If you cut loose with a pistol in a barfight in
Baltimore where no one else had a gun, I'm pretty sure that if
you weren't a cop, you'd be going to jail.


"pretty sure " ?
SO it's just an opinion ???
Got it.

You're trying to equate not finding something with it not
existing.


He wasn't but you sure are...


That's a logical fallacy that also known as HeyBubbing. (-: We
ain't BubBuying it.



Whatever
Don't quit your day job, bub

We can also carry concealed in churches, hospitals, the state
capitol, libraries, parks, and the governor's office! Again, no
untoward happenings recorded.

Who is we? All CHL holders everywhere? In Texas? You and your
squeezette? Whatcha mean "we" kimosabe?


So you know he's from Texas, and yet you argue North Carolina
which JUST HAPPENS to be a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT jurisdiction

Can you say "disingenuous" ??

To whom did those untoward happenings not happen? To you? To
everyone? As far as you can tell? Certainly not to the shooting
victims in North Carolina.


YAWN
He was talking TEXAS
A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT jurisdiction from North Carolina
Apparently it's not "disingenuous" but "intellectually
dishonest" that
applies here


If you think about it, your claims just don't pass the common
sense test. To suddenly have a population of angelic CHL holders
who do no wrong ever just isn't believable. They are fallible
human beings.


Repeat of the same false strawman argument
NO one made that claim


It may be that Texans are more mild-mannered than the folks in
your state, but I suspect the real difference is in your fears
versus reality.


Pure projection on your part
But hey when all else fails, why not.


I suspect the difference is you're not looking very hard for what
you don't want to find.


Since he was talking Texas and you changed the venue to North
Carolina, why should we care what YOUR argument actually is ?

Further, if a fight DOES break out, with pool cues and chairs
sailing
around like ducks on a bug, I certainly would want to be armed.

Decades, no century of case law disagree with you. The law's
position is "you would want to leave." While the line has blurred
somewhat lately, the application of deadly force is still very
tricky business. In something like a barfight where the other
participants are unarmed and you have the ability to escape
you'll still go on trial for some sort of offense. As a police
reporter my CHL training was specifically job related and it
dealt with - at great lengths - the difference between deadly
force applied by a sworn officer of the law and a shooting by a
private citizen (basically every one who is NOT a sworn LEO).


Projection based on presumption based on ignorance
Just for the record law-abiding citizens shoot more than twice as
many criminals than the police do, and they manage to shoot 1/6
the innocent bystanders the police do.
But hey, fear-mongering projections are far more fun.
Right ?



Your advice may be great for Texans, but even though many states
are SYG and castle doctrine states, they have some serious
exceptions to the application of deadly force. That means you
damn well better know the right answers to questions the cops
will ask you after the shooting.

Here's just one example:


YAWN
snip

If you do a bit of research, you will find that most states have
pretty well near the same statues on the subject.



If someone was packing, out and about the
town runing erands and whatnot, and someone
looks at them funny, and they think they are
threatened, they have the right under this law
to defend themselves from this looker, even to
the death. Now you think this is a stretch, but this is real
life and anything can and does happen.

There's an old saying: "An armed society frowns on those who
look funny."

I'm all for CHL's - as long as you make sure you keep them from
kooks, brandishers, froteurs, psychos, murdering Muslim US Army
majors, convicted felons, alcoholics, illegal aliens, Catholic
priests and a few other types. Oh, and as long as you make them
pass a range test - like cops have to, take at least 20 hours of
courses on the laws pertaining to deadly force in their state
and perhaps a few other conditions. People take proficiency
tests and other exams to be able to drive a deadly weapon. It's
not too much to ask the same of someone looking to carry one.
Maybe even mandatory insurance, just like automobiles.

Now that a number of states have enacted new carry laws the
earlier research that showed only good outcomes is beginning to
tarnish.


What a LOAD of nonsense
NO one made such a claim
But hey, a strawman argument is always a good way to sound
good.



You don't cite any sources. You have no credaility unless you can
back up these statement you make. You need to make your case with
facts.

[Bill Kniess]

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

That *you* can find. That's a serious limitation. Does your
state publish the names of CHL holders? If not, how can you or
a reporter tell whether a shooting involves a CHL? This article
explains precisely why "not finding any cases" absolutely does
not equal "not being any cases."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us...guns-and-some-
are-in-the-wrong-hands.html


Here is an even better counter to that biased piece of propaganda
from that rag the NYT
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-s-bad-gun-sta
tistics-robert-verbruggen

"The NYT's Bad Gun Statistics
By Robert VerBruggen
December 27, 2011 11:44 A.M.

The New York Times examined the [concealed-carry] permit
program in North Carolina, one of a dwindling number of states
where the identities of permit holders remain public.
The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare,
detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has
played out in one state. And while it does not provide
answers, it does raise
questions.

More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or
misdemeanors,
excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period,
The Times
found
when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and
licensees. While the figure represents a small percentage of
those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies,
including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter.
All but two of the killers used a gun.

All of these numbers are completely meaningless; in any large
population,
there will be some crime. The only way to see what these
numbers mean is to compare concealed-carry holders to the
general population. Fortunately, state-level murder data are
easy to find.

North Carolina has a statewide murder rate of about 5 per
100,000. Even without counting manslaughter, that's 25 murders
committed per 100,000 North Carolinians every five years.
There are about 230,000 valid concealed-carry permits in North
Carolina, so by pure chance, you'd expect these folks to be
responsible for nearly 60 murders over five years. And yet
only ten of them committed murder or manslaughter. Instead of
"rais[ing] questions," the Times has demonstrated yet again
that permit holders are more peaceful than the general
population."

There is NO WAY the "permit holders are nore peaceful than the
general population" conclusion can be drawn. Bad logic.

National Review??????? that's a rag in and of itself.

[Bill Kniess]

" wrote in

:

On Mar 29, 3:12*am, Bill Kniess wrote:
Molly Brown wrote in
news:d1ea6d55-1e69-4c7a-a7a3-1355067c4427
@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.co m:

snip







1. To defend yourself means when you’re not moving or going
anywhere and someone is coming after you, your loved one or
your property. 2. Unless you’re a member of SWAT and on duty, a
gun can only be used as a defense. 3. When you go AFTER someone
( read # 1 above) then you are no longer considered to be
defending yourself. Florida has a marvelous law of “stand your
ground” that is extremely useful. If people like you don’t stop
trying to subvert it, we’re all going to lose.

Who are you saying here is the defender?

Subverting ? *Are you saying we were a lost bunch from the
beginning of the country up to the time this law was passed?

Marvelous law ? *I'm an NRA member, but I have to say that
there was
NO reason to have a law like this enacted. (It was
bankrolled by my
NRA, and for the life of me, cannot find out for what
purpose they
push such legislation).

The Florida SYG law was passed after a citizen defending
himself was charged. I don't know all the facts and I think
he ultimately either wasn't convicted or got it overturned.
I heard the guy that sponsored the bill in the FL legislature
briefly explaining it on TV. It was passed to help prevent
this from happening again to a citizen using lethal force
justifiably. Given the propensity for many left wing
anti-gun prosecutors to bring charges, I'm not sure it's
a bad thing either.

What's more, it should not matter in the current case.
By Z's account and the eye witness account that has
confirmed the key parts of his story, he had no ability to
retreat at the time of the shooting.



I think there are a lot of holes in Z's account and also from his
father''s accout of what he was told.
The investigating homicide detective felt an arrest should have been
made - he felt strongly enough to file an afadavit saying so.
Whenhas a cop ever gone out of his way to do paperwork? (or stick his
head out)

Look a Z's clothing in the video shown as he was being brought into
the police station. There is NO BLOOD on jis shirt. A broken nose
after beiing pummelled by his attacker, will bring forth a lot of
blood. Where is the stains? It is hard to tell if there is any injury
to the back of Z's head as he told the police his head was pounded
repeatedly on the ground. Again if there was an injury, lots of bood
is usually the result of a head injury. And for someone who hasjust
been in a life-threatening strugglem he is pretty spry gettingout of
the cruiser's back seat with handcuffs on and no help from the
police. The EMT was called to admimister to the parties. There
should have been a report on the incident from the medical side.
Where is it? (It may be in the hands of the prosecutor). His father
said Martin told his son he was going to die. That should have been
in Z's statement - it was not. That could have been a justification
for Z's actions. The funeral director indicated there were no marks
on Martins hands. A ounch hard enough to drop Z and break his nose
should have caused some indications of a fight. There is some
discussion on who was yelling during the scuffle.

It's all unknown at this time for sure. I think the shooting should
have been handled similar to a shooting by a policeman. They take
the gun, he is placed onpaid admin leave. A group of experts analyze
the incident, evidence, and testimony and then rule on the incident.
If it was a "good" shooting, the individual is re-armed and sent back
to duty - a "bad" shooting is referred to the prosecutor for further
scrutiny and charges if necessary.

[Bill Kniess]

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"gonjah" wrote in message
net...
On 3/29/2012 12:08 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"gonjah" wrote in message
...


The EMT's were first rate considering the guy was beat to
within an inch of his life. Even washed his clothes. Washed his
moon walking jacket too.

YAWN
How stupid !

If you believe Geo. Z you're right.



I don't need to "believe" anyone.
I try to look at what DATA is available, and how the data fits the
various possible scenarios

1) The video image was Black & White, and of poor quality
NO way to really tell the extent of injuries
2) Contusions and lacerations to the back of the head do NOT
always cause profuse bleeding
3) Ditto for the face.
4) Ditto for the nose
5) It is quite easy to clean up someone who has stopped
bleeding.
PARTICULARLY when the bleeding was minimal.

The video is at best non-indicative

But thank your for letting me demonstrate YOUR stupidity.


Wrong again, you of no facts and less knowledge.

But your fitting of the DATA to match the scanario is totally without
substabntiation if you state the video was of poor quality, then
proceed to base your case on that video as you did in 2,3,4,5, and
your conclusion. You then state the vudeo was non-indicative,
further negating any proof you presume to present in 2-5.


Even black and white will show dark stains on a shirt. There is one
point in the video where Z is angled toward the camera and his jacket
is open- no stains.

Contrary to what you say, the head contains more blood vessels than
other parts of the body, and the face has the greatest concentration.
Since the nose is on the face (is yours somewhere else?) you will get
profuse bleeding when your nose is broken. Maybe not if it's a
sideways blow, but a haymaker that drops a chunky guy like Z (over
200lbs) WILL produce lots of blood. And even if by some miracle it
didn't, then all the pummelling the kid gave him would do so. Scalp
lacerations are also heavy bleeders. Contusions, no, but laceratios
for sure.

You could not tell his overall condition? For someone just in a life
threatening struggle, he navigates the rear door of the police
cruiser in handcuffs pretty smoothly, the police didn't think him so
bad off as no one helped him out of the car. Most police recommend
people bleeding and with head injury should go to hospital, victim or
perpetrator. If Z refused, then maybe he was not hurt as bad as he
later told police, or this was another thing the Sanford police
failed to do. It would be useful to see the EMT report on the
incident.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 3 Apr 2012 04:43:25 GMT, Bill Kniess wrote:


By he true
legal definition (from law school) laws should be precise and not
open to interpretation.

Are you kidding? That would destroy USENET and we'd have nothing to
do!

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
Bill Kniess wrote:


It's all unknown at this time for sure. I think the shooting should
have been handled similar to a shooting by a policeman. They take
the gun, he is placed onpaid admin leave. A group of experts analyze
the incident, evidence, and testimony and then rule on the incident.
If it was a "good" shooting, the individual is re-armed and sent back
to duty - a "bad" shooting is referred to the prosecutor for further
scrutiny and charges if necessary.

It seems to have been... until the "activists" got involved.

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

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 3 Apr 2012 04:43:25 GMT, Bill Kniess wrote:


By he true
legal definition (from law school) laws should be precise and not
open to interpretation.

Are you kidding? That would destroy USENET and we'd have nothing to
do!

That would seriously impair the income of most lawyers, too.

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

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

It most certainly does. It applies even more so if you are not guilty.

There are countless cases where a person was convicted due to what he said
to the investigating officers irrespective of his actual guilt. The cops JOB
is to get statements from the alleged perp, irrespective of whether he's
guilty of a crime. Oftentimes, unbeknownst to the investigating cop, a
statement made by the suspect can be used later at trial to impeach him.

Even if what you say is 100% truthful, it can, and will be, used against
you.

I always get a kick out of the people that buy the "asking for a
lawyer makes you look guilty and you really should talk to me" schtick.
Although I have used it in the distant past.

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

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 3, 3:02*am, Bill Kniess wrote:
"Attila.Iskander" wrote :







"gonjah" wrote in message
tnet...
On 3/29/2012 12:08 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"gonjah" wrote in message
...

The EMT's were first rate considering the guy was beat to
within an inch of his life. Even washed his clothes. Washed his
moon walking jacket too.

YAWN
* *How stupid !

If you believe Geo. Z you're right.

I don't need to "believe" anyone.
I try to look at what DATA is available, and how the data fits the
various possible scenarios

1) * *The video image was Black & White, and of poor quality
* * * * NO way to really tell the extent of injuries
2) * *Contusions and lacerations to the back of the head do NOT
always cause profuse bleeding
3) * *Ditto for the face.
4) * *Ditto for the nose
5) * *It is quite easy to clean up someone who has stopped
bleeding.
* * * * PARTICULARLY when the bleeding was minimal.

The video is at best non-indicative

But thank your for letting me demonstrate YOUR stupidity.

Wrong again, you of no facts and less knowledge.

You know, you want it both ways. At times you say, we
don't have all the facts that the police and special prosecutor
have and that the process needs to be played out. Then you
use that poor resolution video against Zimmerman. The
police almost certainly have actual high quality photos of
Z's injuries. The police and DA had those the night of
the shooting when they decided not to arrest Z. The
special prosecutor and the grand jury will have them.
I say wait until they determine the extent of his injuries.

This whole thing has been handled in a very biased
fashion against Z by the media and still is.






But your fitting of the DATA to match the scanario is totally without
substabntiation if you state the video was of poor quality, then
proceed to base your case on that video as you did in 2,3,4,5, and
your conclusion. *You then state the vudeo was non-indicative,
further negating any proof you presume to present in 2-5.

Even black and white will show dark stains on a shirt. *There is one
point in the video where Z is angled toward the camera and his jacket
is open- no stains.

Who says the presence of blood on his shirt is critical or
necessary. Somehow, I get the feeling that if there were blood
there, you'd be here telling us it must be Martin's blood.



Contrary to what you say, the head contains more blood vessels than
other parts of the body, and the face has the greatest concentration.
Since the nose is on the face (is yours somewhere else?) you will get
profuse bleeding when your nose is broken.

Give us a source for that. Others have posted here that they
have had experience with broken noses that did not bleed.
Are the liars?



Maybe not if it's a
sideways blow, but a haymaker that drops a chunky guy like Z (over
200lbs) WILL produce lots of blood.

You're making the giant leap that the punch that dropped him had
to be the one that broke his nose.



And even if by some miracle it
didn't, then all the pummelling the kid gave him would do so. *Scalp
lacerations are also heavy bleeders. *Contusions, no, but laceratios
for sure.

One more time. He was treated at the scene for his injuries.
They cleaned him up. How much later was it when he was
in that video. Do you even know?


You could not tell his overall condition? For someone just in a life
threatening struggle, he navigates the rear door of the police
cruiser in handcuffs pretty smoothly, the police didn't think him so
bad off as no one helped him out of the car.

Ever watch cops? I've seen suspects that were in all kinds
of altercations getting out of the back of police cars. And
unless they are tall, they all seem able to do it without
assistance. How many blows exactly should someone take
before using deadly force? One punch can kill you. If you
were screaming for help, how many would you take before
you used a weapon?



*Most police recommend
people bleeding and with head injury should go to hospital, victim or
perpetrator. *If Z refused, then maybe he was not hurt as bad as he
later told police, or this was another thing the Sanford police
failed to do. *It would be useful to see the EMT report on the
incident.- Hide quoted text -


It sure would and until then, slanting everything against Z
is unwarranted.

[Ron]

On Apr 3, 2:17*am, Bill Kniess wrote:
" wrote
:









On Mar 29, 3:12*am, Bill Kniess wrote:
Molly Brown wrote in
news:d1ea6d55-1e69-4c7a-a7a3-1355067c4427
@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.co m:

snip

1. To defend yourself means when you’re not moving or going
anywhere and someone is coming after you, your loved one or
your property. 2. Unless you’re a member of SWAT and on duty, a
gun can only be used as a defense. 3. When you go AFTER someone
( read # 1 above) then you are no longer considered to be
defending yourself. Florida has a marvelous law of “stand your
ground” that is extremely useful. If people like you don’t stop
trying to subvert it, we’re all going to lose.

Who are you saying here is the defender?

Subverting ? *Are you saying we were a lost bunch from the
beginning of the country up to the time this law was passed?

Marvelous law ? *I'm an NRA member, but I have to say that
there was
NO reason to have a law like this enacted. (It was
bankrolled by my
NRA, and for the life of me, cannot find out for what
purpose they
push such legislation).

The Florida SYG law was passed after a citizen defending
himself was charged. *I don't know all the facts and I think
he ultimately either wasn't convicted or got it overturned.
I heard the guy that sponsored the bill in the FL legislature
briefly explaining it on TV. *It was passed to help prevent
this from happening again to a citizen using lethal force
justifiably. * Given the propensity for many left wing
anti-gun prosecutors to bring charges, I'm not sure it's
a bad thing either.

What's more, it should not matter in the current case.
By Z's account and the eye witness account that has
confirmed the key parts of his story, he had no ability to
retreat at the time of the shooting.

I think there are a lot of holes in Z's account and also from his
father''s accout of what he was told.
The investigating homicide detective felt an arrest should have been
made - he felt strongly enough to file an afadavit saying so.
Whenhas a cop ever gone out of his way to do paperwork? (or stick his
head out)

Look a Z's clothing in the video shown as he was being brought into
the police station. *There is NO BLOOD on jis shirt. *A broken nose
after beiing pummelled by his attacker, will bring forth a lot of
blood. Where is the stains?

Kobe Bryant had his nose broken during the NBA All Star game (which
was the same night as the shooting) he had a little blood coming out.
He was cleaned up and continued to play. There is no blood on his
shirt and his nose looks the same. He didn't even know it was broken
until after the game and after getting a CT scan. And I do believe
that Z is claiming that he was punched once in the nose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmom7shnrn0

It is hard to tell if there is any injury
to the back of Z's head as he told the police his head was pounded
repeatedly on the ground. *Again if there was an injury, lots of bood
is usually the result of a head injury.

You don't see 2 red marks and swelling in this video?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6u8p7wu

Also, why is the cop looking at the back of Z's head at the 1:25
mark?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WWDNbQUgm4

[Ron]

On Apr 3, 3:02*am, Bill Kniess wrote:
"Attila.Iskander" wrote :











"gonjah" wrote in message
tnet...
On 3/29/2012 12:08 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"gonjah" wrote in message
...

The EMT's were first rate considering the guy was beat to
within an inch of his life. Even washed his clothes. Washed his
moon walking jacket too.

YAWN
* *How stupid !

If you believe Geo. Z you're right.

I don't need to "believe" anyone.
I try to look at what DATA is available, and how the data fits the
various possible scenarios

1) * *The video image was Black & White, and of poor quality
* * * * NO way to really tell the extent of injuries
2) * *Contusions and lacerations to the back of the head do NOT
always cause profuse bleeding
3) * *Ditto for the face.
4) * *Ditto for the nose
5) * *It is quite easy to clean up someone who has stopped
bleeding.
* * * * PARTICULARLY when the bleeding was minimal.

The video is at best non-indicative

But thank your for letting me demonstrate YOUR stupidity.

Wrong again, you of no facts and less knowledge.

But your fitting of the DATA to match the scanario is totally without
substabntiation if you state the video was of poor quality, then
proceed to base your case on that video as you did in 2,3,4,5, and
your conclusion. *You then state the vudeo was non-indicative,
further negating any proof you presume to present in 2-5.

Even black and white will show dark stains on a shirt. *There is one
point in the video where Z is angled toward the camera and his jacket
is open- no stains.

Contrary to what you say, the head contains more blood vessels than
other parts of the body, and the face has the greatest concentration.
Since the nose is on the face (is yours somewhere else?) you will get
profuse bleeding when your nose is broken. *Maybe not if it's a
sideways blow, but a haymaker that drops a chunky guy like Z (over
200lbs) WILL produce lots of blood.

His neighbor said he NOW weighs about 170 lbs. 5'9" 170.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 2, 9:36*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

Don't talk to cops...

If you're a criminal being questioned about your crime, that is
usually good advice. *If you're not, then it doesn't apply.

It most certainly does. It applies even more so if you are not guilty.

What I meant was if you're the one who has committed the crime
then the advice to never talk to the police is generally sound.
If you have no involvement in the crime, then talking to the police
is perfectly fine, as long as you are not going to lie.

If we take your above statement at face value, you're saying
that no one should ever talk to the police. So, while walking
down the street, I saw Joe rob the bank. I should not talk
to the police?



There are countless cases where a person was convicted due to what he said
to the investigating officers irrespective of his actual guilt.

The cases where a person was not involved in the initial crime
was charged would have to be for lying to the police. So, yes
I agree, if you plan on lying and committing the crime of
obstruction of justice yourself, then you should not talk to police.



The cops JOB
is to get statements from the alleged perp, irrespective of whether he's
guilty of a crime. Oftentimes, unbeknownst to the investigating cop, a
statement made by the suspect can be used later at trial to impeach him.

This clearly only applies to someone who actually was involved
in the crime to begin with or who lies to mislead investigators.
Not what I was talking about.



Even if what you say is 100% truthful, it can, and will be, used against
you.

Well, of course. A good example of that would be a confession,
which only a person who is the criminal could give.





In fact,
it could be very bad advice. *For example, let's say your
friends BooBoo and Slim pick you up for what you think is
just a ride to a friends house. *Along the way, they make a
stop somewhere else, tell you to wait in the car. *They go
inside, you hear shots and a few minutes later they run
back to the car. *In that case, if you come forward
immediately with your honest story, you will likely
not be charged because
you are innocent. * But if the police finally figure out
who all was in that car because they have a witness
and come find you a week later, you could be in a position
that is much harder to defend.

Heh! Unless you work out a deal with the DA to testify against BooBoo and
Slim, you WILL be charged, you will be convicted.
How's the DA to know
whether you were just an innocent hitch-hiker or the lookout for the
goblins?

So now we convict people because the DA doesn't know for
sure they are innocent? In the example, there could be other
evidence that helps establish innocence. The statements of
the other suspects, people they talked to, their lack of any
criminal record, etc.


You were in the car. A crime was committed. You were intimate
friends with the known perps. And you say you were just along for the ride?

Do you seriously expect the DA to take your word for it?

If you come forth a few hours after your buddies committed the
crime, tell the whole story that matches all the facts, then I say
you've gone a long way toward proving your version, that you
are innocent. Are you
suggesting that someone in that position, innocent, should,
as the other poster suggested, never talk to the police?
What happens when 3 weeks later the police come knocking
on his door? Who's the DA going to believe now?

[Jim Yanik]

Bill Kniess wrote in
:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Bill Kniess wrote:

Who are you saying here is the defender?

Subverting ? Are you saying we were a lost bunch from the
beginning of the country up to the time this law was passed?

Marvelous law ? I'm an NRA member, but I have to say that
there was
NO reason to have a law like this enacted. (It was
bankrolled by my
NRA, and for the life of me, cannot find out for what
purpose they
push such legislation).

Hmm. Thirty-one states have some form of Stand Your Ground (SYG)
laws. Are you saying that over 60% of the population passed a law
with no reason behind it? Or is it possible you simply do not
understand what three out of five do?

It is plain and simple nuts. Just
about as
bad as Ohio's law permitting concealed carry in bars.
What? Don't the lawmakers know how easy a fight breaks
out in a bar and someone
gets hit with a pool queue stick ora bottle? What's going
to happen
now with concealed guns? People will be carted out in body bags
rather than on ambulance gurneys.

In my state, we've had the ability to carry concealed where liquor
is served since 1995. There has not been ONE SINGLE case - that I
can find - of a CHL holder shooting another bar patron. You're
worried about something that is so remote as to be absurd.


We can
also carry concealed in churches, hospitals, the state capitol,
libraries, parks, and the governor's office!

WHY?


Bill Kniess


because police are never around when you need them.
"when seconds count,police are minutes away".

did the laws against having guns in schools keep mass murderers from
bringing in guns and shooting people? no.
People have been shot in schools,churches,hospitals,government
buildings(even ones who metal detectors!) and parks.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Jim Yanik]

Bill Kniess wrote in
:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:
-snip-

Hmm. Thirty-one states have some form of Stand Your Ground (SYG)
laws.

Check your math-- or your source. This map only shows 18.
http://www.adn.com/2012/03/26/239250...und-bill-in-sp
otlight.html

If you've got another map or chart, I'd love to see it.

I may have misspoked.
"As of 28 May 2010 (2010 -05-28, 31 states had some form of Castle
Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Castle Doctrine is different from SYG. Castle Doc is the right to
protect your habitat which, I believe is nationwide.

I'm not so sure about Castle Doctrine being "nationwide". I believe there
are still some places in the US that require a person to retreat even
in their home,before using lethal force.

SYG applies to ANYWHERE a person may be - in habitat, on the street,
in churches, in the capital, the govrnor's office, ANYWHERE, which is
significantly different, and is therefore more ambiguous. By he true
legal definition (from law school) laws should be precise and not
open to interpretation.

No, I did not go to lawschool, my nephew did. He is an attorney
specializing in constitutional law in DC. He visited me last week
when his kids were onspring break. Talk to an attorney sometime who
does know something about this stuff.




IANAL.
Laws are always open to interpretation.
that's what judges and juries are for.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Jim Yanik]

Bill Kniess wrote in
:

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in message

BIG snip of about 300 lines...

Now that a number of states have enacted new carry laws the
earlier research that showed only good outcomes is beginning to
tarnish.


What a LOAD of nonsense
NO one made such a claim
But hey, a strawman argument is always a good way to sound
good.



You don't cite any sources. You have no credaility unless you can
back up these statement you make. You need to make your case with
facts.


YOU need to edit your post down to the part you're responding to.

Also,nobody claimed that every SYG outcome would always be a lawful self-
defense,ie a "good" outcome".

that's a stupid demand for perfection.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Jim Yanik]

Bill Kniess wrote in
:

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

That *you* can find. That's a serious limitation. Does your
state publish the names of CHL holders? If not, how can you or
a reporter tell whether a shooting involves a CHL? This article
explains precisely why "not finding any cases" absolutely does
not equal "not being any cases."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us...guns-and-some-
are-in-the-wrong-hands.html


Here is an even better counter to that biased piece of propaganda
from that rag the NYT
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-s-bad-gun-sta
tistics-robert-verbruggen

"The NYT's Bad Gun Statistics
By Robert VerBruggen
December 27, 2011 11:44 A.M.

The New York Times examined the [concealed-carry] permit
program in North Carolina, one of a dwindling number of states
where the identities of permit holders remain public.
The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare,
detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has
played out in one state. And while it does not provide
answers, it does raise
questions.

More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or
misdemeanors,
excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period,
The Times
found
when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and
licensees. While the figure represents a small percentage of
those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies,
including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter.
All but two of the killers used a gun.

All of these numbers are completely meaningless; in any large
population,
there will be some crime. The only way to see what these
numbers mean is to compare concealed-carry holders to the
general population. Fortunately, state-level murder data are
easy to find.

North Carolina has a statewide murder rate of about 5 per
100,000. Even without counting manslaughter, that's 25 murders
committed per 100,000 North Carolinians every five years.
There are about 230,000 valid concealed-carry permits in North
Carolina, so by pure chance, you'd expect these folks to be
responsible for nearly 60 murders over five years. And yet
only ten of them committed murder or manslaughter. Instead of
"rais[ing] questions," the Times has demonstrated yet again
that permit holders are more peaceful than the general
population."

There is NO WAY the "permit holders are nore peaceful than the
general population" conclusion can be drawn. Bad logic.

It's true.
the facts support it. permit holders obey the law because they don't want
to have their permit revoked. THEY are not the ones committing acts of
violence against lawul citizens. Even police -as a group- break the law
more often.



National Review??????? that's a rag in and of itself.


NR is much more truthful than the NYT. Probably the Washington Post,too.
certainly more than HuffPo.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Jim Yanik]

Bill Kniess wrote in
:

" wrote in

:

On Mar 29, 3:12*am, Bill Kniess wrote:
Molly Brown wrote in
news:d1ea6d55-1e69-4c7a-a7a3-1355067c4427
@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.co m:

snip







1. To defend yourself means when you’re not moving or going
anywhere and someone is coming after you, your loved one or
your property. 2. Unless you’re a member of SWAT and on duty, a
gun can only be used as a defense. 3. When you go AFTER someone
( read # 1 above) then you are no longer considered to be
defending yourself. Florida has a marvelous law of “stand your
ground” that is extremely useful. If people like you don’t stop
trying to subvert it, we’re all going to lose.

Who are you saying here is the defender?

Subverting ? *Are you saying we were a lost bunch from the
beginning of the country up to the time this law was passed?

Marvelous law ? *I'm an NRA member, but I have to say that
there was
NO reason to have a law like this enacted. (It was
bankrolled by my
NRA, and for the life of me, cannot find out for what
purpose they
push such legislation).

The Florida SYG law was passed after a citizen defending
himself was charged. I don't know all the facts and I think
he ultimately either wasn't convicted or got it overturned.
I heard the guy that sponsored the bill in the FL legislature
briefly explaining it on TV. It was passed to help prevent
this from happening again to a citizen using lethal force
justifiably. Given the propensity for many left wing
anti-gun prosecutors to bring charges, I'm not sure it's
a bad thing either.

What's more, it should not matter in the current case.
By Z's account and the eye witness account that has
confirmed the key parts of his story, he had no ability to
retreat at the time of the shooting.



I think there are a lot of holes in Z's account and also from his
father''s accout of what he was told.
The investigating homicide detective felt an arrest should have been
made - he felt strongly enough to file an afadavit saying so.
Whenhas a cop ever gone out of his way to do paperwork? (or stick his
head out)

Look a Z's clothing in the video shown as he was being brought into
the police station. There is NO BLOOD on jis shirt. A broken nose
after beiing pummelled by his attacker, will bring forth a lot of
blood.

not always. GZ was on his back for awhile,too.
plus,his jacket is red,isn't it?

Where is the stains? It is hard to tell if there is any injury
to the back of Z's head as he told the police his head was pounded
repeatedly on the ground.

the latest independent media enhancement clearly shows a big wound on the
back of GZ's head.

Again if there was an injury, lots of bood
is usually the result of a head injury. And for someone who hasjust
been in a life-threatening strugglem he is pretty spry gettingout of
the cruiser's back seat with handcuffs on and no help from the
police. The EMT was called to admimister to the parties. There
should have been a report on the incident from the medical side.
Where is it? (It may be in the hands of the prosecutor).

Not all police reports (and evidence photos,etc.)are immediatley available
to the public;
they don't want to taint a potential jury pool.

His father
said Martin told his son he was going to die. That should have been
in Z's statement - it was not. That could have been a justification
for Z's actions. The funeral director indicated there were no marks
on Martins hands. A ounch hard enough to drop Z and break his nose
should have caused some indications of a fight. There is some
discussion on who was yelling during the scuffle.

Many times a person does not always immediately recall every detail about
an incident they are involved in,and GZ DID sustain several impacts to the
head. Thus,not every detail will be in the initial police report.

It's all unknown at this time for sure. I think the shooting should
have been handled similar to a shooting by a policeman.

Sorry,police are held to higher standards than ordinary citizens.

They take
the gun, he is placed onpaid admin leave.

Gee,why not jailed?
could it be a "presumption of innocennce" until there's enough evidence for
charges?

A group of experts analyze
the incident, evidence, and testimony and then rule on the incident.
If it was a "good" shooting, the individual is re-armed and sent back
to duty - a "bad" shooting is referred to the prosecutor for further
scrutiny and charges if necessary.


Zimmerman was handcuffed,taken into custody,his gun was confiscated for
evidence(they still have it),and he was held for several hours before being
released. The city Attorney was consulted.

NEWSFLASH;the city or state Attorney has the final say on whether someone
is charged with a crime and prosecuted. it's not up to the "lead
investigator"

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Norminn]

On 4/3/2012 8:57 AM, Ron wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:02 am, Bill wrote:
wrote :











wrote in message
net...
On 3/29/2012 12:08 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

wrote in message
...

The EMT's were first rate considering the guy was beat to
within an inch of his life. Even washed his clothes. Washed his
moon walking jacket too.

YAWN
How stupid !

If you believe Geo. Z you're right.

I don't need to "believe" anyone.
I try to look at what DATA is available, and how the data fits the
various possible scenarios

1) The video image was Black& White, and of poor quality
NO way to really tell the extent of injuries
2) Contusions and lacerations to the back of the head do NOT
always cause profuse bleeding
3) Ditto for the face.
4) Ditto for the nose
5) It is quite easy to clean up someone who has stopped
bleeding.
PARTICULARLY when the bleeding was minimal.

The video is at best non-indicative

But thank your for letting me demonstrate YOUR stupidity.

Wrong again, you of no facts and less knowledge.

But your fitting of the DATA to match the scanario is totally without
substabntiation if you state the video was of poor quality, then
proceed to base your case on that video as you did in 2,3,4,5, and
your conclusion. You then state the vudeo was non-indicative,
further negating any proof you presume to present in 2-5.

Even black and white will show dark stains on a shirt. There is one
point in the video where Z is angled toward the camera and his jacket
is open- no stains.

Contrary to what you say, the head contains more blood vessels than
other parts of the body, and the face has the greatest concentration.
Since the nose is on the face (is yours somewhere else?) you will get
profuse bleeding when your nose is broken. Maybe not if it's a
sideways blow, but a haymaker that drops a chunky guy like Z (over
200lbs) WILL produce lots of blood.

His neighbor said he NOW weighs about 170 lbs. 5'9" 170.

It was curious that the original police report stated the dead guy's
height and weight, but no weight for Z.

It was also curious in the video of arrival at the PD the cops, at one
point, let Z walk behind them...very casual demeanor. The vid was at
odd angles, but Z looked about the same size as the cops...all a little
portly )

[Oren[_2_]]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:17:41 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

Maybe not if it's a
sideways blow, but a haymaker that drops a chunky guy like Z (over
200lbs) WILL produce lots of blood.

His neighbor said he NOW weighs about 170 lbs. 5'9" 170.

It was curious that the original police report stated the dead guy's
height and weight, but no weight for Z.


Some facts vs. rumors.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-qa3-20120402_1_civil-rights-gated-community-robert-zimmerman


It was also curious in the video of arrival at the PD the cops, at one
point, let Z walk behind them...very casual demeanor. The vid was at
odd angles, but Z looked about the same size as the cops...all a little
portly )

Enhanced video appears to show the injury to his head.

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

Anyone here old enough to remember "No justice..... no peace"?

Sounds like much the same, here.

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

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bill Kniess wrote:


It's all unknown at this time for sure. I think the shooting should
have been handled similar to a shooting by a policeman. They take
the gun, he is placed onpaid admin leave. A group of experts analyze
the incident, evidence, and testimony and then rule on the incident.
If it was a "good" shooting, the individual is re-armed and sent back
to duty - a "bad" shooting is referred to the prosecutor for further
scrutiny and charges if necessary.

It seems to have been... until the "activists" got involved.

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

[Robert Green]

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bill Kniess wrote:


It's all unknown at this time for sure. I think the shooting should
have been handled similar to a shooting by a policeman. They take
the gun, he is placed onpaid admin leave. A group of experts analyze
the incident, evidence, and testimony and then rule on the incident.
If it was a "good" shooting, the individual is re-armed and sent back
to duty - a "bad" shooting is referred to the prosecutor for further
scrutiny and charges if necessary.

It seems to have been... until the "activists" got involved.

The activists are usually invited in and don't invite themselves. Their
presence often serves to make sure things aren't swept too quickly under the
rug. Obviously they're effective because there are a number of agencies
looking into the shooting now, and there's potential for changes to the laws
as a result. So as much as some people hate them, they clearly have a
constituency and they are effective in focusing national attention on a
subject.

We don't appear to have too many mother here in AHR, but in the last couple
of days every mother I've run into is up in arms about the shooting. Black
or white, they wonder if *their* kid could get shot on a trip to the 7-11.
The race issue really is secondary to someone shooting a teenager and not
getting arrested.

The "media circus" is just how things work in America. A while back I can
recall certain politicians injecting themselves forcefully into another
death - brain-dead Terri Schiavo. There were protests, vigils, speeches,
etc. The media circus is as American as apple pie. The Scopes "monkey"
trial, the Lindbergh kidnapping and on and on and on. The SYG laws got
passed very quietly in many cases, so quietly that the comments at many of
the major news sites indicate people didn't know about them at all. Now,
they may be repealed or modified a lot more noisily than they were passed.

It's not just the right wing that does this, the left wing has been busy
quietly lobbying at the state level for gay marriage rights and other items
important to their agenda. As we've seen, that's a process that advances
and then retreats. I wouldn't be surprised if this case has a similar
effect on SYG laws. It's certainly focusing attention on CHL's,
neighborhood watches and racial profiling. I don't know of many burglars
who bring Skittles and ice tea along on their nefarious night walks. I
think this issue will alienate still more independent women and drive them
to the left.

--
Bobby G.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 3, 5:32*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Anyone here old enough to remember "No justice..... no peace"?

You don't have to be very old. Sharpton and his followers were
shouting
in just a few days ago.





Sounds like much the same, here.

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

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...
In article ,
*Bill Kniess wrote:

It's all unknown at this time for sure. *I think the shooting should
have been handled similar to a shooting by a policeman. *They take
the gun, he is placed onpaid admin leave. *A group of experts analyze
the incident, evidence, and testimony and then rule on the incident.
If it was a "good" shooting, the individual is re-armed and sent back
to duty - a "bad" shooting is referred to the prosecutor for further
scrutiny and charges if necessary.

It seems to have been... until the "activists" got involved.

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

[Ron]

This is interesting.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87688384/Z...etter-to-NAACP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHGEam82GME

[Attila.Iskander]

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Bill Kniess wrote:

Who are you saying here is the defender?

Subverting ? Are you saying we were a lost bunch from the
beginning of the country up to the time this law was passed?

Marvelous law ? I'm an NRA member, but I have to say that
there was
NO reason to have a law like this enacted. (It was
bankrolled by my
NRA, and for the life of me, cannot find out for what
purpose they
push such legislation).

Hmm. Thirty-one states have some form of Stand Your Ground (SYG)
laws. Are you saying that over 60% of the population passed a law
with no reason behind it? Or is it possible you simply do not
understand what three out of five do?

It is plain and simple nuts. Just
about as
bad as Ohio's law permitting concealed carry in bars.
What? Don't the lawmakers know how easy a fight breaks
out in a bar and someone
gets hit with a pool queue stick ora bottle? What's going
to happen
now with concealed guns? People will be carted out in body bags
rather than on ambulance gurneys.

In my state, we've had the ability to carry concealed where liquor
is served since 1995. There has not been ONE SINGLE case - that I
can find - of a CHL holder shooting another bar patron. You're
worried about something that is so remote as to be absurd.


We can
also carry concealed in churches, hospitals, the state capitol,
libraries, parks, and the governor's office!

WHY?


BECAUSE !