[Attila.Iskander]

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
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!

It would also put a bunch of lawyers on the dole.

[Attila.Iskander]

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message
...
"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.

After you alphonse
I just ****ed on YOUR claims
So go ahead and provide cites supporting YOUR claims
And your lawyer nephew doesn't count

[Attila.Iskander]

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message
.. .
"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.

I provided my cite
Now YOU provide a counter cite
After all YOU wrote
"You don't cite any sources.
You have no credaility( sic) unless you can back up these statement
you make.
You need to make your case with facts."
So have at it, billi-boi..
Let's see YOUR cites to counter mine


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

Loser tactic to attack the messenger and not the message
Should I take that as an admission of defeat ?

[gonjah]

On 4/3/2012 8:07 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message
...
"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.

After you alphonse
I just ****ed on YOUR claims
So go ahead and provide cites supporting YOUR claims
And your lawyer nephew doesn't count

Hey! I'm "alphonse." BTW: Who's aphonse?

[Attila.Iskander]

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message
.. .
" 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.

Before you keep spouting your ignorance, check with your lawyer nephew about
what the law in Florida actually is,
That will help you figure out why the PROSECUTOR CHOSE not to file charges.
Remember that part for future reference
The PROSECUTOR files charges on the evidence and recommendation of the
police
It is a DISCRETIONARY decision.

By the way, the process for a police shoot is different for a BUNCH of
reasons.
I'll let you cogitate on the WHY of it.

[Attila.Iskander]

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

LOL
Now that's a CROCK..
So tell us who invited Sharpton or Jackson to all of their recent debacles ?
And who invited the New Black Panthers to post a Reward ?

Take as many screens as you need.


Theirpresence 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.


Not hard to despise blood dancers of ANY ilk, like the New Black Panthers,
Sharpton, Jackson, et all.


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.


Sure it it...

rest of silliness ignored
snip

[Attila.Iskander]

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message
.. .
"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.


Looking in the mirror as you typed that ?
Let me refresh your memory:
" You don't cite any sources. You have no credaility (sic)
unless you can back up these statement you make.
You need to make your case with facts."

But your fitting of the DATA to match the scanario is totally without
substabntiation if you state the video was of poor quality,

Correct
It was.
Now watch that video and explain to me WHY the police officer examines the
back of Zimmerman's head
Now go back and watch the recently released "enhanced" video

Oops


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.


I didn't present "proof', you dummy
Although I did speak from personal experience as a volunteer firefighter/EMT
I had occasion to patch up lacerations and contusions at accidents.
Some bled, some did not

Another poster noted that Kobe Bryant recently suffered a broken nose at a
game.
Minimal bleeding or swelling
Broken nose confirmed by MRI after the game in which Bryant continued to
play.

The problem is your (ignorant) assumption of bleeding in large enough
quantities to be noticeable from lacerations or a broken now is a FALSE
ASSUMPTION
I even cited a reference on that in a different post



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.


See above

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.


See above

Also there is NO evidence that Z weighs over 200#
Also no known data on "all the pummeling the kid gave Z"
That's just you blathering


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.

Being in a life and death struggle does NOT make a cripple of you
And nearly an hour after the event, you should have had time to calm down
and get your wits about you.

Most police recommend people bleeding and with head injury
should go to hospital, victim or perpetrator.

BULL****


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.


As you posted elsewhere
" You don't cite any sources. You have no credaility (sic)
unless you can back up these statement you make.
You need to make your case with facts."

Get to work with those cites to support your claims

[Attila.Iskander]

wrote in message
...
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.




Watch this and part 2 as well
It's a lawyer and a cop explaining the why of it.


It does not preclude being polite and saying hello to them
Or even discussing the weather
But the moment you feel that they are "looking" at you because of some
incident, even a traffic violation, you should take the above advice
seriously.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

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

WHY?


Er, because I want to do so.

If you don't want to carry a firearm, go ahead. If you don't want to go to
church, stay home. If you don't want to read a newspaper, cancel your
subscription. These, and more, are rights that you and I have the freedom to
enjoy or reject.

Remember: If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Robert Green wrote:

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.

Getting arrested? For what? Florida law specifically prohibits the arrest of
any shooter where a claim of self-defense is reasonably raised. Florida
police must have an iron-clad reason to believe there was no possibility of
self defense. In the instant case, they obviously did not. After all, it was
Zimmerman's word against that of no one.

Even IF Zimmerman had been arrested, he would make bond in a heartbeat! He'd
probably be released on PR. Meanwhile, the "speedy trial" clock starts
ticking and the possibility of retaliatory lawsuits for false arrest start
dropping.

There was NOTHING to be gained by the state in arresting Zimmerman.


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.

You may be right. Often the first reports are the ones that stick even if
subsequent facts differ. For example, it turns out that the "Skittles and
iced tea" meme is a complete fabrication. Martin had neither, nor Snickers
and Coke, or anthing similar.

[Robert Green]

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Take as many screens as you need.

My, you ARE delusional if you think I'd waste more 45 seconds on a sock
puppet. Back into your drawer, sockie . . .

--
Bobby G.

Path:
aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-sep
tember.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Attila.Iskander"
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
Subject: OT - New thread on Florida shooting
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 20:20:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 1
Message-ID:
References:






Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 01:22:26 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="JKrCQAB5dBPncc2S8pzROw";
logging-data="31590"; ";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/t1sp/BjsNU7DBlh6+4sx6Dvx4P3njAGA="
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
In-Reply-To:
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
Importance: Normal
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XHIKTBpE+XD4ZhbZGTSbVCW/LAI=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

[HeyBub[_3_]]

wrote:

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?

No, I mean if you are a suspect or you could reasonably believe the cops are
focusing on you, you should remain silent.

Look, one exception to the hearsay rule is what you tell the cops. That is,
the prosecution can't force you to testify, but they can take statements you
made to someone else and introduce them as evidence.

Suppose there is a bank robbery. The cops find a woman who you used to date.
On the stand she testifies she saw you in the vicinity of the robbed bank as
she was driving by. By itself, this testimony is not too damaging; she can
be easily impeached.

But suppose you told the investigating officers: "I didn't rob the bank.
I've never BEEN in that bank! Heck, I've never even been on that street!"

Now the prosecution can assert you are a liar because he has evidence
contrary to a previous statement.

Consider Scooter Libby's conviction for lying to the FBI. Had he remained
quiet, he wouldn't have gone to prison. Same with Martha Stewart. The list
of someone's mouth putting them behind bars is legion.



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.

Whether you were involved in the crime is irrelevant. All that counts is
what the state can PROVE. Often what they prove is not what you did and a
large subset of that is the proof you provide by your own statements.




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.

Again, wrong. People confess for any number of reasons, many of which are
problematic.

That's why, for example, no one can be convicted based solely on their
confession.

People NEVER confess because they are guilty; they ALWAYS confess for some
other reason:
* To "cleanse" their soul (very rare)
* To avoid a more serious conviction
* A plea-bargain
* To pick their place of punishment and the conditions thereof
* To protect another
* And many others



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?

I don't know who he's going to believe, but I can tell you with exact
certitude he's NOT going to believe you.

What's the hurry to tell the DA anyway? If you think your believability
quotient goes up because of prompt revelations, all I can suggest is "Don't
Do It!".

[Robert Green]

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

We don't appear to have too many mothers 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.

Getting arrested? For what? Florida law specifically prohibits the arrest
of
any shooter where a claim of self-defense is reasonably raised.

Agreed that's what the law says. But lots of people don't realize what law
really mean until a case like this that frames the law in very concrete
terms. I suspect that now that people are realizing what the law can mean,
support for SYG laws will seriously diminish.

Without a case like the Z/M shooting, people don't really understand a lot
of legislation in anything but an abstract sense. The ire I see from the
CHL crowd here is probably due to their realization that just like the
Affordable Health Care law, nothing's written in stone and laws that they
like can be repealed as quickly as laws they don't (-: Oddly, the CHL
holders don't seem to realize they may be hurting the chances of the law
surviving by acting like SYG is a right given by God. The SCOTUS has
clearly said that local and state governments CAN regulate handgun
ownership. They just can't use the law to essentially deny ownership.

The Zimmerman/Martin issue could very well cause Floridians and voters in
other states to rethink the SYG laws in general. Certainly the anti-CHL
people have been "activated" by the event. Some people (obviously not CHL
holders) think the law, as worded and applied, gives vigilantes a right to
go hunting in the streets and they're not comfortable with that. There is a
strong presumption by some that it's really IS suspicious to be walking
around at night in a hoodie with iced tea and Skittles (or anything short of
weapons or burglary tools). Others aren't quite as certain that what
happened in Sanford was a "righteous" shoot. I have my doubts. While many
say that ignoring the police dispatcher is inconsequential, I don't think
it's going to play out that way.

Florida
police must have an iron-clad reason to believe there was no possibility
of
self defense. In the instant case, they obviously did not. After all, it
was
Zimmerman's word against that of no one.

People make mistakes. The fact that the people who made those decisions are
off the job and other agencies are now investigating the original decision
to release Zimmerman tends to bolster the theory that a mistake was made
here.

Even IF Zimmerman had been arrested, he would make bond in a heartbeat!

If he HAD been arrested the case might have stopped then and there. But
something smelled funny to enough people that it didn't stop there. If
fact, it's spreading like wildfire as people wonder exactly what the SYG
laws and expanded CHL rights legislation are leading to. This is an
incident that's going to cause the pendulum away from expanding SYG into the
states that aren't on current list(s?) of states alleged to support SYG.

He'd probably be released on PR.

Maybe. At least they would have run his criminal record and might have
discovered information material to the case. A good reason for not
releasing him as quickly as they did was that if he was guilty, he would
have a chance to go back and tamper with the crime scene or potential
witnesses. I think people who have spent more time in police custody than
Zimmerman did in much less serious circumstances are irked by how quickly
Zimmerman was released. That may be what the law demands - now. But that
can and probably will change.

Meanwhile, the "speedy trial" clock starts ticking and the possibility of
retaliatory lawsuits
for false arrest start dropping.

What "lawsuits for false arrest?" They could have held him on a material
witness warrant. End of story. No jeopardy attaches, no chance of
tampering with the crime scene or lining up "witnesses," etc. There are
damn good reasons for keeping a shooter like Zimmerman on ice until the
facts are confirmed. The noises so far is that at least someone in
authority had an issue with his release. But we won't know for sure until
weeks or months from now.

There was NOTHING to be gained by the state in arresting Zimmerman.

Disagree. This whole big snowball might have been avoided if people thought
there was at least some discomfort to Zimmerman to taking a life. He
engaged in a confrontation he was warned by police agents NOT to have. It
was a confrontation he provoked by approaching Martin, at least according to
some reports.

Jeez, we know how twitchy YOU get when someone comes up to you in the
parking lot of Home Depot with construction material in their hands. (-:
What if you shot that guy with the rebar but an investigation showed he had
just bought it and was doing concrete repair;. What if it further showed he
was locked out or his car and hoped you would call AAA for him? What if the
cellphone he was carrying showed he has dialed AAA just before approaching
you but the battery died? I can think of a dozen bad outcomes for you had
you shot a guy just for approaching you in the parking lot of a construction
supply store with construction material in his hand.

This isn't abstract stuff for me. I've been there and I know had I shot the
guy who "wanted a match" at 3AM outside a DC restaurant I most likely would
have been right - he wanted to rob me - but I could easily been cast in the
wrong light. He could have been a queer trying to pick me up with
absolutely no record of violence or criminal activity.

So I dropped the matches on the ground between us and stepped backwards,
with my hand on my Beretta in my pocket. When he said "pick them up" we
both knew what was happening. Did he need shooting? Yeah. Did I need
days, weeks, months worth of inquiries, paperwork and hassle over a street
thug? Nah. I was thankful the confrontation didn't escalate. I was
probably the same age as Zimmerman when it happened. But I was trained
defensively. I knew if I got involved in a shooting I'd have to answer to my
editor and face the possibility he would no longer support my having a CHL.
If I lost my CHL I'd lose the ability to defend myself. Those thoughts
helped me from crossing the line into thinking I was the police.

As I've said, though, my training emphasized over and over that I was not
the police. My trainer was 100% correct when she said that I'd start to
think I was the police, just because I carried a gun. I had a CHL 25 years
ago in a state that issued very, very few. It cost close to $5K. The
background investigations back then included detailed interviews with
references and record checks with the FBI, etc. Today's background checks
seem to be very lax compared to what I went through. The North Carolina
study and the shortfalls in police departments across the nation leads me to
believe that followup on CHL holders is not nearly as good as it needs to
be.

"Who started it" is an *extremely* important issue in assault cases. Those
who begin conflicts are usually the ones arrested for and found guilty of
assault. If you are found to be at fault for a confrontation you don't get
medical bills paid for or "pain and suffering" in a civil suit. A lot may
depend on when a jury decides that the confrontation between the two men
began. They may never be able to decide that with one man dead.

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.

You may be right. Often the first reports are the ones that stick even if
subsequent facts differ. For example, it turns out that the "Skittles and
iced tea" meme is a complete fabrication. Martin had neither, nor Snickers
and Coke, or anything similar.

That's why when a paper prints a retraction "LA man NOT convicted child
molester - we regret the error" the person named wrongly in the initial
article never feels "avenged."

I heard a talking head discuss this "imprinting" function you're describing,
similar to when ducks are born - the first big moving thing they see becomes
"mother." People settle on "Skittles and tea" just because they need terms
to frame the discussion. I don't know what Martin had - I am sure it will
*eventually* be detailed in a legally binding report and not just an AP
dispatch. So Martin's going to be forever eating Skittles and drinking iced
tea because that was one of the initial memes and it stuck. I just read a
piece that says it was OJ's kid that did the killing and they found the
knife on him (he's a chef). I wonder . . . (-:

What the Z/M shooting has shown is that people strongly believe in the
rumors and "factoids" that most line up with their world view.

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"HeyBub" wrote in message news:-

stuff snipped

No, I mean if you are a suspect or you could reasonably believe the cops
are
focusing on you, you should remain silent.

If you are a suspect, they're probably going to work hard NOT to let you
know that during the original investigation. There was just a case in NYC
where a lawyer was feeding names to his clients of witnesses against him who
then ended up dead.

Look, one exception to the hearsay rule is what you tell the cops. That
is,
the prosecution can't force you to testify, but they can take statements
you
made to someone else and introduce them as evidence.

Hence, Miranda. You have the right to remain silent and that's what you
should be until your lawyer arrives.

stuff snipped

Consider Scooter Libby's conviction for lying to the FBI. Had he remained
quiet, he wouldn't have gone to prison. Same with Martha Stewart. The list
of someone's mouth putting them behind bars is legion.

That's a great reason why people should stay silent. Strangely, the guilty
often yack their heads off hoping their "frankness" will appear as if
they've got nothing to hide.

stuff snipped

Whether you were involved in the crime is irrelevant. All that counts is
what the state can PROVE. Often what they prove is not what you did and a
large subset of that is the proof you provide by your own statements.

That's why it's a good idea to have a lawyer listen to every question they
put to you to make sure you don't inadvertently incriminate yourself. A
more interesting question is: "Do you ever have to speak to an investigator
at all?" The parents of Jon Benet Ramsay avoided being interviewed until
they were good and ready.

Again, wrong. People confess for any number of reasons, many of which are
problematic.

That's why, for example, no one can be convicted based solely on their
confession.

Oh, I don't know about that. That's how it *should* work but I am not sure
that's how it *does* work.

People NEVER confess because they are guilty;

What? Didn't you ever watch Perry Mason when you were growing up? (-:

they ALWAYS confess for some
other reason:
* To "cleanse" their soul (very rare)
* To avoid a more serious conviction
* A plea-bargain
* To pick their place of punishment and the conditions thereof
* To protect another
* And many others

I submit that they do confess when they are guilty - at least some of them
do. We're talking about criminals and many of them enter a life of crime
because of an IQ too low to evaluate the risks and rewards.

I don't know who he's going to believe, but I can tell you with exact
certitude he's NOT going to believe you.

But HeyBub, my 2nd grade teacher always told me the policeman was my friend.
(-:

What's the hurry to tell the DA anyway? If you think your believability
quotient goes up because of prompt revelations, all I can suggest is
"Don't
Do It!".

I concur. They'll definitely hit you with the "only the guilty need
lawyers." The answer is "Does that *really* work on anyone?"

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message

stuff snipped

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.

That's the fascinating part of this case. People are emphasizing the
evidence that supports their position and disregarding evidence that
doesn't. I'm going to wait until the investigations are complete. I've
discovered in discussing this with people that a lot of them had no idea
that SYG laws were in place that had this sort of reach.

--
Bobby G.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:




Florida
police must have an iron-clad reason to believe there was no possibility
of
self defense. In the instant case, they obviously did not. After all, it
was
Zimmerman's word against that of no one.

People make mistakes. The fact that the people who made those decisions are
off the job and other agencies are now investigating the original decision
to release Zimmerman tends to bolster the theory that a mistake was made
here.
No, it tends to bolster the theory that the squeaky wheel gets the
grease and that bureaucrats (especially elected ones like prosecutors
and governors) like to cover their asses. You gonna take the same
position if the other agencies happen to agree with the original
decision?


What "lawsuits for false arrest?" They could have held him on a material
witness warrant. End of story. No jeopardy attaches, no chance of
tampering with the crime scene or lining up "witnesses," etc. There are
damn good reasons for keeping a shooter like Zimmerman on ice until the
facts are confirmed. The noises so far is that at least someone in
authority had an issue with his release. But we won't know for sure until
weeks or months from now.
How could he or how did he tamper with the crime scene. The cops had
already done most of the crime scene evaluation, they had taken his gun,
they had taken their photos, etc. If they hadn't been through with the
scene, they still had custody and he wouldn't have been able to tamper
with anything.
I won't even address the quotation marks around witnesses.
You then hit the nail on the head. So far it is only noises.



There was NOTHING to be gained by the state in arresting Zimmerman.

Disagree. This whole big snowball might have been avoided if people thought
there was at least some discomfort to Zimmerman to taking a life. He
engaged in a confrontation he was warned by police agents NOT to have. It
was a confrontation he provoked by approaching Martin, at least according to
some reports.
He wasn't warned not to do anything. It was only said in the
transcripts that they would handle and he did not have to follow the
dude. There was no affirmative statement for him to stay away.
According to some reports? Not really a high bar compared to beyond
a reasonable doubt.


What the Z/M shooting has shown is that people strongly believe in the
rumors and "factoids" that most line up with their world view.
You amongst them..

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

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Robert Green wrote:

Maybe. At least they would have run his criminal record and might
have discovered information material to the case. A good reason for
not releasing him as quickly as they did was that if he was guilty,
he would have a chance to go back and tamper with the crime scene or
potential witnesses. I think people who have spent more time in
police custody than Zimmerman did in much less serious circumstances
are irked by how quickly Zimmerman was released. That may be what
the law demands - now. But that can and probably will change.

Meanwhile, the "speedy trial" clock starts ticking and the
possibility of retaliatory lawsuits for false arrest start dropping.

What "lawsuits for false arrest?" They could have held him on a
material witness warrant. End of story. No jeopardy attaches, no
chance of tampering with the crime scene or lining up "witnesses,"
etc. There are damn good reasons for keeping a shooter like
Zimmerman on ice until the facts are confirmed. The noises so far is
that at least someone in authority had an issue with his release.
But we won't know for sure until weeks or months from now.

Agreed, they could have held him as a "material witness." For about two
hours. The rules for holding a material witness are much the same as setting
bond: What are the chances the subject will flee the jurisdiction of the
court. In the instant case, Zimmerman had a home, family, job, (evidently)
no criminal record, good standing in the community, and so forth. Any lawyer
could have sprung him in an instant.



There was NOTHING to be gained by the state in arresting Zimmerman.

Disagree. This whole big snowball might have been avoided if people
thought there was at least some discomfort to Zimmerman to taking a
life. He engaged in a confrontation he was warned by police agents
NOT to have. It was a confrontation he provoked by approaching
Martin, at least according to some reports.

Yep, that's true. But the blame for the mob mentality lies with the mob, not
Zimmerman.


Jeez, we know how twitchy YOU get when someone comes up to you in the
parking lot of Home Depot with construction material in their hands.
(-: What if you shot that guy with the rebar but an investigation
showed he had just bought it and was doing concrete repair;. What if
it further showed he was locked out or his car and hoped you would
call AAA for him? What if the cellphone he was carrying showed he
has dialed AAA just before approaching you but the battery died? I
can think of a dozen bad outcomes for you had you shot a guy just for
approaching you in the parking lot of a construction supply store
with construction material in his hand.

Guess what? It does't matter what the guy in the parking lot had as his
reasons or motives. It doesn't matter who he called or whether he was a
member of the Salvation Army collecting donations. The ONLY thing that
counts is what I believed and whether that which I believed is the same
thing that a "reasonable person" would also believe.

The offense is in the eye of the beholder, not the actions of the actor.



This isn't abstract stuff for me. I've been there and I know had I
shot the guy who "wanted a match" at 3AM outside a DC restaurant I
most likely would have been right - he wanted to rob me - but I could
easily been cast in the wrong light. He could have been a queer
trying to pick me up with absolutely no record of violence or
criminal activity.

Again, it doesn't matter what the actor's past history might be. All that
counts is your perception of the instant.



So I dropped the matches on the ground between us and stepped
backwards, with my hand on my Beretta in my pocket. When he said
"pick them up" we both knew what was happening. Did he need
shooting? Yeah. Did I need days, weeks, months worth of inquiries,
paperwork and hassle over a street thug? Nah. I was thankful the
confrontation didn't escalate. I was probably the same age as
Zimmerman when it happened. But I was trained defensively. I knew if
I got involved in a shooting I'd have to answer to my editor and face
the possibility he would no longer support my having a CHL. If I lost
my CHL I'd lose the ability to defend myself. Those thoughts helped
me from crossing the line into thinking I was the police.

Of course. You live(d) in a non-SYG state. You were obligated to retreat
rather than defend your life.


As I've said, though, my training emphasized over and over that I was
not the police. My trainer was 100% correct when she said that I'd
start to think I was the police, just because I carried a gun. I had
a CHL 25 years ago in a state that issued very, very few. It cost
close to $5K. The background investigations back then included
detailed interviews with references and record checks with the FBI,
etc. Today's background checks seem to be very lax compared to what
I went through. The North Carolina study and the shortfalls in
police departments across the nation leads me to believe that
followup on CHL holders is not nearly as good as it needs to be.

The reason today's background check seems trivial compared to what you went
through has two reasons: a) A cursory background check has proven - in
almost all cases - to be sufficient, and b) Your state doesn't WANT people
carrying weapons and the $5,000 you spent has proven an effective deterrent
to those who entertain the idea.


You may be right. Often the first reports are the ones that stick
even if subsequent facts differ. For example, it turns out that the
"Skittles and iced tea" meme is a complete fabrication. Martin had
neither, nor Snickers and Coke, or anything similar.

That's why when a paper prints a retraction "LA man NOT convicted
child molester - we regret the error" the person named wrongly in the
initial article never feels "avenged."

In the Police & Emergency Police Blotter of the Dayton Democrat-Republican:

6:02am, 3602 Davis St, Milton Furby beaten by wife
....
7:15am, corner Davis & Hilton, Milton Furby beaten by bus riders
....
8:05am, Dawson Furniture, 1157 Main, Milton Furby beaten by co-workers.
....
12:07pm, Burger Ranch, Milton Furby beaten by restaurant patrons and workers
....
5:32pm, in front of Dawson Furniture, 1157 Main, Milton Furby beaten by taxi
driver

Twelve pages later, in the "Corrections" section:

"Milton Furby, 36, was not arrested for child molestation and animal cruelty
by Dayton Police yesterday. The actual arrestee was Hildebrant Folsom, the
police department was the Dade County Police in Florida, and the offense was
car parked overnight in a residential area. We regret the error."

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Robert Green wrote:

Hence, Miranda. You have the right to remain silent and that's what
you should be until your lawyer arrives.

Here's how it works in real life. As a police officer, you approach a body
with a knife sticking out of his back and a crowd gathered 'round.

"Anybody see what happened?" (You're allowed to ask a general question of a
group without focusing on an individual).

One man steps forward: "I did it! I killed him!" he exclaims.

The next words out of your mouth have to be: "You have the right to remain
silent..." So what do you do?

You make a note in your notebook then, saying nothing, you look expectantly
at the killer.

After about a minute of awkward silence he says: "I caught him with my
wife."

You make more notes. You look up. You raise your eyebrows.

He stares at you for another minute or two (while the crowd edges away).
Finally he says: "I kilt her too. She's buried in the backyard. That's all
there is to it."

You make some more notes. Then you say "Pay attention, scrot: You have the
right to remain silent..."

Later at trial, when the prosecutor asks you what happened at the scene, you
pull out your notebook and say: "According to my notes I made at the time,
the defendant stepped forward and said, and I quote, 'I did it. I killed
him. I caught him with my wife. I killed her too. She's buried in the
backyard.' At which point I cautioned the defendant with the Miranda
warning."


Again, wrong. People confess for any number of reasons, many of
which are problematic.

That's why, for example, no one can be convicted based solely on
their confession.

Oh, I don't know about that. That's how it *should* work but I am
not sure that's how it *does* work.

Yeah, well, it IS pretty easy to conjure up corroborating evidence ("We can
prove the defendant was in the same hemisphere as the victim...")


People NEVER confess because they are guilty;

What? Didn't you ever watch Perry Mason when you were growing up?
(-:

they ALWAYS confess for some
other reason:
* To "cleanse" their soul (very rare)
* To avoid a more serious conviction
* A plea-bargain
* To pick their place of punishment and the conditions thereof
* To protect another
* And many others

I submit that they do confess when they are guilty - at least some of
them do. We're talking about criminals and many of them enter a life
of crime because of an IQ too low to evaluate the risks and rewards.


I agree that people confess when they are guilty. I just suggest they don't
confess BECAUSE they are guilty. The confess for the reasons I stated
above - and a variety of others that only the human mind can concoct. It's
also not unknown for a squint to confess to something he didn't do to avoid
a trial for something he did.

And they're not TOTAL morons - or at least they have lawyers. I recall, back
in the day, when our state prisons were overcrowded, some defendants were
refusing a felony plea-bargain down to a misdemeanor! Here's why. A 3rd
degree felony conviction would yield a two-to-five year sentence in the big
house. But due to overcrowding, the average stay in a state prison facility
was two months. A guilty plea to a Class A misdemeanor (next step down from
a 3rd degree felony) was twelve months in the county jails, which were NOT
overcrowded. So, it became two months vs. twelve. Jeeze, what would the
stink-eye pick. Stand back, let the man think....


But HeyBub, my 2nd grade teacher always told me the policeman was my
friend. (-:


He generally is. I used to tell complainants "If it was up to me, I'd loan
you my gun."

Unless you are remotely associated with an illegal act.

Think about it. The cop seldom sees the goblin, but he ALWAYS sees the
victim.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 4, 7:24*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Bill Kniess" wrote in message

stuff snipped

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.

That's the fascinating part of this case. *People are emphasizing the
evidence that supports their position and disregarding evidence that
doesn't. *I'm going to wait until the investigations are complete. *I've
discovered in discussing this with people that a lot of them had no idea
that SYG laws were in place that had this sort of reach.

--
Bobby G.

SYG doesn't even apply.
The only two witnesses to the actual event were Zimmerman and
one other witness. Both say that Martin was on top, Zimmerman was
on the ground yelling for help, with Martin pummeling him. The
witness shouted out that he was calling 911, which apparently didn't
stop what was going on. Even with a requirement that Z was supposed
to
retreat, if possible, before using deadly force,you want to explain to
us
how that was possible?

[Robert Green]

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

Maybe. At least they would have run his criminal record and might
have discovered information material to the case. A good reason for
not releasing him as quickly as they did was that if he was guilty,
he would have a chance to go back and tamper with the crime scene or
potential witnesses. I think people who have spent more time in
police custody than Zimmerman did in much less serious circumstances
are irked by how quickly Zimmerman was released. That may be what
the law demands - now. But that can and probably will change.

Meanwhile, the "speedy trial" clock starts ticking and the
possibility of retaliatory lawsuits for false arrest start dropping.

What "lawsuits for false arrest?" They could have held him on a
material witness warrant. End of story. No jeopardy attaches, no
chance of tampering with the crime scene or lining up "witnesses,"
etc. There are damn good reasons for keeping a shooter like
Zimmerman on ice until the facts are confirmed. The noises so far is
that at least someone in authority had an issue with his release.
But we won't know for sure until weeks or months from now.

Agreed, they could have held him as a "material witness." For about two
hours. The rules for holding a material witness are much the same as
setting
bond: What are the chances the subject will flee the jurisdiction of the
court. In the instant case, Zimmerman had a home, family, job, (evidently)
no criminal record, good standing in the community, and so forth. Any
lawyer
could have sprung him in an instant.

As long as he came up with the MONEY for a "good lawyer." The ones I know
don't work for free.

There was NOTHING to be gained by the state in arresting Zimmerman.

Disagree. This whole big snowball might have been avoided if people
thought there was at least some discomfort to Zimmerman to taking a
life. He engaged in a confrontation he was warned by police agents
NOT to have. It was a confrontation he provoked by approaching
Martin, at least according to some reports.

Yep, that's true. But the blame for the mob mentality lies with the mob,
not
Zimmerman.

Doesn't matter where the blame lies now that the lion's out of the cage, so
to speak. That's the problem with these sorts of incidents. They can take
on a life of their own very quickly. Zimmerman's in hiding, his gun
confiscated and the New Black Panthers have a bounty on his location and
arrest. That's not an outcome I would call "good" for Zimmerman.

Jeez, we know how twitchy YOU get when someone comes up to you in the
parking lot of Home Depot with construction material in their hands.
(-: What if you shot that guy with the rebar but an investigation
showed he had just bought it and was doing concrete repair;. What if
it further showed he was locked out or his car and hoped you would
call AAA for him? What if the cellphone he was carrying showed he
has dialed AAA just before approaching you but the battery died? I
can think of a dozen bad outcomes for you had you shot a guy just for
approaching you in the parking lot of a construction supply store
with construction material in his hand.

Guess what? It does't matter what the guy in the parking lot had as his
reasons or motives. It doesn't matter who he called or whether he was a
member of the Salvation Army collecting donations. The ONLY thing that
counts is what I believed and whether that which I believed is the same
thing that a "reasonable person" would also believe.

You say that but my experience is that what happens is someone gets to
decide what your state of mind was. It could be the State's Attorney, as it
seems to have been here, or it could be the grand jury, a trial jury or a
trial judge. If you shot a widower with 5 mewling kids at home, no criminal
record and the CCTV cameras in the parking lot record you acting not
frightened looking enough, you could be in a world of hurt. Just because
you *say* you were in fear for your life doesn't legally excuse you from
proving it, or even worse, being unable to prove it. All a victim's lawyer
need do is assemble a number of your more opinionated posts here and you'd
might find yourself on the defensive trying to prove self-defense.

The offense is in the eye of the beholder, not the actions of the actor.

I can refute that easily by pointing out the cops that shot Diallo and Bell
went through a world of hurt. The Sean Bell shooters even lost their jobs
because their claims of self-defense and "apprehended danger" were not
believed.

This isn't abstract stuff for me. I've been there and I know had I
shot the guy who "wanted a match" at 3AM outside a DC restaurant I
most likely would have been right - he wanted to rob me - but I could
easily been cast in the wrong light. He could have been a queer
trying to pick me up with absolutely no record of violence or
criminal activity.

Again, it doesn't matter what the actor's past history might be. All that
counts is your perception of the instant.

Disagree. You have to convince the legal system that you acted based on
your fear. While reading material about the SGY laws, a lot of people claim
self-defense but their claims are not believed. For instance, Zimmerman's
alleged 47 calls to 911 are going to weigh against him. If he was so
fearful, why did he continually expose himself to potentially dangerous
situations, one of which ended up with a dead teenager? I know what you're
saying - that's how the law is written - but there's a pretty big gulf
between what's written and how law enforcement, the courts and public
opinion decide lies within the range of that law.

So I dropped the matches on the ground between us and stepped
backwards, with my hand on my Beretta in my pocket. When he said
"pick them up" we both knew what was happening. Did he need
shooting? Yeah. Did I need days, weeks, months worth of inquiries,
paperwork and hassle over a street thug? Nah. I was thankful the
confrontation didn't escalate. I was probably the same age as
Zimmerman when it happened. But I was trained defensively. I knew if
I got involved in a shooting I'd have to answer to my editor and face
the possibility he would no longer support my having a CHL. If I lost
my CHL I'd lose the ability to defend myself. Those thoughts helped
me from crossing the line into thinking I was the police.

Of course. You live(d) in a non-SYG state. You were obligated to retreat
rather than defend your life.

I can't deny that training about what my "rights" were affected my actions,
but common sense dictated I retreat. Why? Because asking for and fumbling
a pack of matches might mean hostile intent to me, but not to possible
witnesses or (unlikely back then) ubiquitous CCTV cameras scanning the area.

When someone confronted me with a deadly weapon in another incident I broke
the safety on the Beretta thumbing the hammer back the adrenaline was
flowing so freely. I had decided that if the perp moved forward one inch, I
would have shot him in the chest, duty to retreat or not. And I would have
left him there without calling the police or 911 to avoid having to explain
anything to anyone. There was absolutely no doubt in my mind he would have
attacked me had I let him get within knife range. He must have sensed my
resolved telepathically because he rocked from side to side, trying to
decide whether the .380 Beretta was real or not, but he did not move a
millimeter toward me. At that point, he turned and ran away. And so did I.

As poor Zimmerman discovered (and I already knew from covering any number of
shootings) when you shoot someone, there's a lot of blowback. I wonder why
he allowed Martin to get close enough to him to hit him. I don't think that
would have happened to me. The three times I've had to actually display my
weapon, I recall saying at least once, "back off, or you're dead." The
whole point of having a gun is to be able to deal deadly force FROM A
DISTANCE!!!! I've used my guns as deterrents, and to do that, you have to
let the other person know you've got a gun - FROM A DISTANCE! (-:

As I've said, though, my training emphasized over and over that I was
not the police. My trainer was 100% correct when she said that I'd
start to think I was the police, just because I carried a gun. I had
a CHL 25 years ago in a state that issued very, very few. It cost
close to $5K. The background investigations b-+ack then included
detailed interviews with references and record checks with the FBI,
etc. Today's background checks seem to be very lax compared to what
I went through. The North Carolina study and the shortfalls in
police departments across the nation leads me to believe that
followup on CHL holders is not nearly as good as it needs to be.

The reason today's background check seems trivial compared to what you
went
through has two reasons: a) A cursory background check has proven - in
almost all cases - to be sufficient, and b) Your state doesn't WANT people
carrying weapons and the $5,000 you spent has proven an effective
deterrent
to those who entertain the idea.

Agreed on the last part, not so sure on the first one. I think we're going
to find that a lot of CHL's have gone to people who didn't deserve them.
The laws of many states are new enough and the research into who's a CHL
holder AND a criminal is very difficult to do. As for the $5,000 spent on
lawyers, fees, etc. I felt it was money well spent and was rather glad the
hoi polloi wasn't able to afford a CHL.

You may be right. Often the first reports are the ones that stick
even if subsequent facts differ. For example, it turns out that the
"Skittles and iced tea" meme is a complete fabrication. Martin had
neither, nor Snickers and Coke, or anything similar.

That's why when a paper prints a retraction "LA man NOT convicted
child molester - we regret the error" the person named wrongly in the
initial article never feels "avenged."

In the Police & Emergency Police Blotter of the Dayton
Democrat-Republican:

6:02am, 3602 Davis St, Milton Furby beaten by wife
...
7:15am, corner Davis & Hilton, Milton Furby beaten by bus riders
...
8:05am, Dawson Furniture, 1157 Main, Milton Furby beaten by co-workers.
...
12:07pm, Burger Ranch, Milton Furby beaten by restaurant patrons and
workers
...
5:32pm, in front of Dawson Furniture, 1157 Main, Milton Furby beaten by
taxi
driver

Twelve pages later, in the "Corrections" section:

"Milton Furby, 36, was not arrested for child molestation and animal
cruelty
by Dayton Police yesterday. The actual arrestee was Hildebrant Folsom, the
police department was the Dade County Police in Florida, and the offense
was
car parked overnight in a residential area. We regret the error."

Just more proof that it's hard to put things back the way they were once the
genie's out of the bottle.

Do you think Zimmerman would do things differently if he could turn the
world back to the day before the shooting?

--
Bobby G.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I can refute that easily by pointing out the cops that shot Diallo and Bell
went through a world of hurt. The Sean Bell shooters even lost their jobs
because their claims of self-defense and "apprehended danger" were not
believed.
Cops are held to a higher standard because of the additional training.
Hardly relevant to this situation.


Disagree. You have to convince the legal system that you acted based on
your fear. While reading material about the SGY laws, a lot of people claim
self-defense but their claims are not believed. For instance, Zimmerman's
alleged 47 calls to 911 are going to weigh against him. If he was so
fearful, why did he continually expose himself to potentially dangerous
situations, one of which ended up with a dead teenager?
He made 47 CALLS. Any indication of how many times he followed a
person around or other wise "expose(d) himself to dangerous situations.
Also, if he was such a loose cannon how come doesn't have 47 other
bodies lying around?

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

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 4, 11:19*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

Again, it doesn't matter what the actor's past history might be. All that
counts is your perception of the instant.

Disagree. *You have to convince the legal system that you acted based on
your fear. *While reading material about the SGY laws, a lot of people claim
self-defense but their claims are not believed. *For instance, Zimmerman's
alleged 47 calls to 911 are going to weigh against him. *If he was so
fearful, why did he continually expose himself to potentially dangerous
situations, one of which ended up with a dead teenager?


Maybe because he was a patriot, not a pussy, like you?



*I know what you're
saying - that's how the law is written - but there's a pretty big gulf
between what's written and how law enforcement, the courts and public
opinion decide lies within the range of that law.

Yeah, that's for sure. Look at what the activist, lib judges
have done.



So I dropped the matches on the ground between us and stepped
backwards, with my hand on my Beretta in my pocket. *When he said
"pick them up" we both knew what was happening. *Did he need
shooting? *Yeah. *Did I need days, weeks, months worth of inquiries,
paperwork and hassle over a street thug? *Nah. *I was thankful the
confrontation didn't escalate. *I was probably the same age as
Zimmerman when it happened. *But I was trained defensively. I knew if
I got involved in a shooting I'd have to answer to my editor and face
the possibility he would no longer support my having a CHL. If I lost
my CHL I'd lose the ability to defend myself. *Those thoughts helped
me from crossing the line into thinking I was the police.

Of course. You live(d) in a non-SYG state. You were obligated to retreat
rather than defend your life.

I can't deny that training about what my "rights" were affected my actions,
but common sense dictated I retreat. *Why? *Because asking for and fumbling
a pack of matches might mean hostile intent to me, but not to possible
witnesses or (unlikely back then) ubiquitous CCTV cameras scanning the area.

When someone confronted me with a deadly weapon in another incident I broke
the safety on the Beretta thumbing the hammer back


If the gun was in your pocket, as you claim, it's hard to believe
that in the middle of this short confrontation, you actually did that.
And what was the point? If it went as you claim, the gun was
in your pocket so the perp could not see that you were cocking
it.



the adrenaline was
flowing so freely. *I had decided that if the perp moved forward one inch, I
would have shot him in the chest, duty to retreat or not.

Oh, my and YOU are coming down on Zimmerman?



And I would have
left him there without calling the police or 911 to avoid having to explain
anything to anyone.

Nice going lib. Of course if a Republican did that and the perp was
a minority it would be a clear case of racism and hiding guilt.


There was absolutely no doubt in my mind he would have
attacked me had I let him get within knife range. *He must have sensed my
resolved telepathically because he rocked from side to side, trying to
decide whether the .380 Beretta was real or not, but he did not move a
millimeter toward me. *At that point, he turned and ran away. *And so did I.

Of course, you ran, you probably wet your pants too, because you're a
lib pussy. I bet you turned that gun in to one of the police cash for
guns programs, didn't you?

[Robert Green]

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

stuff snipped

Zimmerman's word against that of no one.

People make mistakes. The fact that the people who made those decisions
are
off the job and other agencies are now investigating the original
decision
to release Zimmerman tends to bolster the theory that a mistake was made
here.

No, it tends to bolster the theory that the squeaky wheel gets the
grease and that bureaucrats (especially elected ones like prosecutors
and governors) like to cover their asses. You gonna take the same
position if the other agencies happen to agree with the original
decision?

Yes. But I don't see that happening with all the heat generated already.
I've said a number of times that I'm content to wait until the special
investigator finishes. The Martin case may be settled one way or another,
but the issue of vigilantes, armed neighborhood watchmen and SYG laws has
only just begun. This case isn't nearly as clear cut as the guy who shot
someone trying to carjack him. We just don't know what happened between
those two moments before the shooting.

You're engaging in circular logic Kurt. Have you wondered why the wheel is
squeaking? Because enough people feel that a miscarriage of justice
occurred to make it squeak. It wasn't a case of let's make a mountain out
of a molehill 'just because.' People, especially parents, are worried that
some vigilante is going to gun down their kids for wearing a hoodie and
being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The politicians are not just covering their asses, they're examining the
future of the current CHL and SYG laws. Zimmerman initiated the contact.
In NYC, you learn early in life that you don't even LOOK SOMEONE IN THE EYE
on the subway lest a confrontation ensue. What happened was going to happen
eventually as we march back to the Wild West. Eventually we'll re-learn why
cities passed gun carrying restrictions in the first place as the pendulum
swings.

Martin's inability to present his side of the story generates a lot of doubt
for some people. Hence the wheel squeaks. What you're calling "ass
covering" I call "being a hell of a lot more thorough than the initial
investigation." The mistake in this case could easily be the current
implementation of the Florida CHL/SYG laws. Incidents like this often serve
as a focal point for change.

We may soon have a "Trayvon's Law" passed as a result. (I can hear people's
blood vessels bursting from here at the thought!) Think of "Amber Alerts"
and "Meagan's Law" etc. and you'll see this is just part of how society
functions. Despite assurances that these laws have been all hashed out and
are well-understood and popular, I see just the opposite with people asking
"when did neighborhood watchmen start arming themselves?"

What "lawsuits for false arrest?" They could have held him on a
material
witness warrant. End of story. No jeopardy attaches, no chance of
tampering with the crime scene or lining up "witnesses," etc. There are
damn good reasons for keeping a shooter like Zimmerman on ice until the
facts are confirmed. The noises so far is that at least someone in
authority had an issue with his release. But we won't know for sure
until
weeks or months from now.

How could he or how did he tamper with the crime scene. The cops had
already done most of the crime scene evaluation, they had taken his gun,
they had taken their photos, etc. If they hadn't been through with the
scene, they still had custody and he wouldn't have been able to tamper
with anything.

Please. You're *assuming* that they were thorough. I've worked with a lot
of small police departments (the DC area has over 25 different local police
agencies). Very few of those interactions gave me any reason to believe in
their thoroughness or investigatory skills. The *real* cops (often the
state police or the FBI) were lucky not to have the whole crime scene
contaminated by the local cops. Forensic techs used to lament loudly the
butchering of crime scenes when the first responders were "township" cops.

I've seen the local small town cops traipse through blood, ruin fingerprint
evidence, move evidence before photographing it and committing all sorts of
other evidentiary atrocities before a forensic expert got to them. Remember
the cops who took blood from OJ? They were accused of sprinkling it around
the crime scene hoping (knowing?) it would be discovered in a closer
examination of the area.

Remember Chandra Levy? I distinctly remember the DC police chief assuring
the public that Rock Creek Park was being thoroughly searched for her. To
prove it, a bus full of academy recruits pulled up in front of the TV
cameras and they debarked and began searching. But it turned out it was
really just a photo op and as soon as the reporters left, the recruits
reboarded the bus and left. A guy with a dog found her decomposed body a
year later, just off one of the trails. You can't convince me that cops are
always thorough. It's just not been my experience with police departments
like Sanford's.

It takes but a minute to collude with witnesses. I've seen that happen
personally. Did it happen here? No way to tell without an investigation,
but from what I've read, there appear to be conflicts in witness reports as
I would expect.

That reminds me of watching some township cops doing investigations by
questioning the witnesses together in a group. LENF 101 violation.
Witnesses align their stories in groups. Always interrogate individually.
That was the kind of error very typical of small town cops. I've worked with
the FBI, Treasury, ATF, the Secret Service (they nearly shot me!), the
NYPD,.DC Metro, Baltimore PD, tons of county police forces and God only
knows how many 3 to 10 man township police. There's a noticeable difference
in training, experience and overall intelligence.

Even lower on that totem pole than township cops are the wannabees -
security guards that have taken the police exams and failed. Those are the
guys who shoot suspected shoplifters in the back as they run from who they
believe to be a crazy man with a gun hollering after them. I believe I read
that Zimmerman tried to become a LEO of some sort and failed. But I don't
believe that's been officially confirmed. (-:

I won't even address the quotation marks around witnesses.
You then hit the nail on the head. So far it is only noises.

As I said, I'm willing to wait until the investigators are finished. I
don't know where you're getting your unimpeachable information. Just
remember the famous picture of Truman holding up the paper that said "Dewey
Wins!" when you consider newspaper reports as credible.

There was NOTHING to be gained by the state in arresting Zimmerman.

Disagree. This whole big snowball might have been avoided if people
thought
there was at least some discomfort to Zimmerman to taking a life. He
engaged in a confrontation he was warned by police agents NOT to have.
It
was a confrontation he provoked by approaching Martin, at least
according to
some reports.

He wasn't warned not to do anything. It was only said in the
transcripts that they would handle and he did not have to follow the
dude. There was no affirmative statement for him to stay away.

That's hair splitting. A jury (if ever empanelled) might impart much
greater weight to his decision not to listen to the dispatcher. Considering
that jury might be mothers of kids Martin's age, they might find Zimmerman's
decision to follow despite the what the dispatcher said make him an
instigator.

According to some reports? Not really a high bar compared to beyond
a reasonable doubt.

Which only serves to point out that even if he's not criminally prosecuted,
Zimmerman, like OJ, is looking down the barrel of a wrongful death suit
where only a preponderance of the evidence is needed. Either way, I
wouldn't want to be Zimmerman. This case is not only likely to go badly for
Zimmerman, but it's also likely to draw serious attention to SYG laws and
might even lead to their repeal or modification. Like the Affordable Care
Act, just because SYG laws were passed doesn't mean they're going to stay on
the books. Anyone who thinks that people aren't really up in arms over the
shooting (both black and white) isn't being realistic.

What the Z/M shooting has shown is that people strongly believe in the
rumors and "factoids" that most line up with their world view.

You amongst them.

Look in the mirror. (-: As I said, people strongly believe in anything they
hear that lines up with their world view. That obviously includes both of
us and virtually everyone who's posted on the subject, some of them wound so
tightly they're going to explode. That's just human nature. Sadly, it's
just another dimension of polarization in modern America. HomeGuy will be
happy to know I voted for Ron Paul in the primary.

--
Bobby G.

[Attila.Iskander]

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote in message
"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.

LOL
Now that's a CROCK..
So tell us who invited Sharpton or Jackson to all of their recent debacles
?
And who invited the New Black Panthers to post a Reward ?

Take as many screens as you need.


Theirpresence 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.


Not hard to despise blood dancers of ANY ilk, like the New Black
Panthers,
Sharpton, Jackson, et all.


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.


Sure it it...

rest of silliness ignored
snip
#
# My, you ARE delusional if you think I'd waste more 45 seconds on a sock
# puppet. Back into your drawer, sockie . . .
#
# Bobby G.


SO you can't support your claims
And you're stupid enough to imagine that calling me a sock-puppet will
cover your ignorant ass ?
Are you really this STUMP STUPID ?

Poor, poor booby...
Run away and hide...

[Attila.Iskander]

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"Bill Kniess" wrote in message

stuff snipped

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.

That's the fascinating part of this case. People are emphasizing the
evidence that supports their position and disregarding evidence that
doesn't. I'm going to wait until the investigations are complete. I've
discovered in discussing this with people that a lot of them had no idea
that SYG laws were in place that had this sort of reach.

--

It doesn't and even the people who put the law in place says so
And I suspect they would know more about they you do.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


decision
to release Zimmerman tends to bolster the theory that a mistake was made
here.

No, it tends to bolster the theory that the squeaky wheel gets the
grease and that bureaucrats (especially elected ones like prosecutors
and governors) like to cover their asses. You gonna take the same
position if the other agencies happen to agree with the original
decision?

Yes. But I don't see that happening with all the heat generated already.
Heat generated, but not a lot of light, which is the main issue here.

I've said a number of times that I'm content to wait until the special
investigator finishes. The Martin case may be settled one way or another,
but the issue of vigilantes, armed neighborhood watchmen and SYG laws has
only just begun. This case isn't nearly as clear cut as the guy who shot
someone trying to carjack him. We just don't know what happened between
those two moments before the shooting.
You are content to wait until the investigator finishes and then you
can hang him? You are putting all this talk out about waiting but in the
about the same breath you go on about how the heat being generated by
those with more agenda than information and how that somehow seems (at
least my reading of your words) indicates that he is guilty.


You're engaging in circular logic Kurt. Have you wondered why the wheel is
squeaking? Because enough people feel that a miscarriage of justice
occurred to make it squeak. It wasn't a case of let's make a mountain out
of a molehill 'just because.' People, especially parents, are worried that
some vigilante is going to gun down their kids for wearing a hoodie and
being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Better than no logic. So we are now convicting people based on who yells
the loudest or who has the best PR? S

The politicians are not just covering their asses, they're examining the
future of the current CHL and SYG laws. Zimmerman initiated the contact.
In NYC, you learn early in life that you don't even LOOK SOMEONE IN THE EYE
on the subway lest a confrontation ensue. What happened was going to happen
eventually as we march back to the Wild West. Eventually we'll re-learn why
cities passed gun carrying restrictions in the first place as the pendulum
swings.
They are covering their asses. Zimmerman was following, at a
distance, you have no idea yet who initiated the contact.


Martin's inability to present his side of the story generates a lot of doubt
for some people. Hence the wheel squeaks. What you're calling "ass
covering" I call "being a hell of a lot more thorough than the initial
investigation." The mistake in this case could easily be the current
implementation of the Florida CHL/SYG laws. Incidents like this often serve
as a focal point for change.
That side is being presented by the forensics and facts. Besides
why does he get bestowed with Sainthood because he took the bullet?



How could he or how did he tamper with the crime scene. The cops had
already done most of the crime scene evaluation, they had taken his gun,
they had taken their photos, etc. If they hadn't been through with the
scene, they still had custody and he wouldn't have been able to tamper
with anything.

Please. You're *assuming* that they were thorough. I've worked with a lot
of small police departments (the DC area has over 25 different local police
agencies). Very few of those interactions gave me any reason to believe in
their thoroughness or investigatory skills. The *real* cops (often the
state police or the FBI) were lucky not to have the whole crime scene
contaminated by the local cops. Forensic techs used to lament loudly the
butchering of crime scenes when the first responders were "township" cops.
Actually I am not. I am assuming that whatever was done was done, but
if they had released the crime scene nothing would have been admissable
anyway, at least without a bunch of hassle. If they hadn't let go of
the scene, then they should have left it secured and he wouldn't be able
to get to it anyway. Tampering of the crime scene (another little of
lightless heat) is a non-issue.


I've seen the local small town cops traipse through blood, ruin fingerprint
evidence, move evidence before photographing it and committing all sorts of
other evidentiary atrocities before a forensic expert got to them. Remember
the cops who took blood from OJ? They were accused of sprinkling it around
the crime scene hoping (knowing?) it would be discovered in a closer
examination of the area.
And, as in this case, there was no evidence of such happening. But
heat beat out light.


It takes but a minute to collude with witnesses. I've seen that happen
personally. Did it happen here? No way to tell without an investigation,
but from what I've read, there appear to be conflicts in witness reports as
I would expect.
Again with lightless heat. Actually from my experience, collusion
occurs when the stories agree too much.


That reminds me of watching some township cops doing investigations by
questioning the witnesses together in a group. LENF 101 violation.
Witnesses align their stories in groups. Always interrogate individually.
That was the kind of error very typical of small town cops. I've worked with
the FBI, Treasury, ATF, the Secret Service (they nearly shot me!), the
NYPD,.DC Metro, Baltimore PD, tons of county police forces and God only
knows how many 3 to 10 man township police. There's a noticeable difference
in training, experience and overall intelligence.

Any indication any of this happened?


I won't even address the quotation marks around witnesses.
You then hit the nail on the head. So far it is only noises.

As I said, I'm willing to wait until the investigators are finished. I
don't know where you're getting your unimpeachable information. Just
remember the famous picture of Truman holding up the paper that said "Dewey
Wins!" when you consider newspaper reports as credible.
Yet you haven't.

some reports.

He wasn't warned not to do anything. It was only said in the
transcripts that they would handle and he did not have to follow the
dude. There was no affirmative statement for him to stay away.

That's hair splitting. A jury (if ever empanelled) might impart much
greater weight to his decision not to listen to the dispatcher. Considering
that jury might be mothers of kids Martin's age, they might find Zimmerman's
decision to follow despite the what the dispatcher said make him an
instigator.
No it isn't. It is a fact. The jury MIGHT impart greater weight *IF*
the dispatcher had actually said something specific, gave an order. This
was a whole lot different from warning him not to do something.



What the Z/M shooting has shown is that people strongly believe in the
rumors and "factoids" that most line up with their world view.

You amongst them.

Look in the mirror. (-: As I said, people strongly believe in anything they
hear that lines up with their world view. That obviously includes both of
us and virtually everyone who's posted on the subject, some of them wound so
tightly they're going to explode. That's just human nature. Sadly, it's
just another dimension of polarization in modern America. HomeGuy will be
happy to know I voted for Ron Paul in the primary.
Never said otherwise, just wanting to put that on the record (grin).




--
Bobby G.

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

[Oren[_2_]]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:19:03 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

The ONLY thing that
counts is what I believed and whether that which I believed is the same
thing that a "reasonable person" would also believe.

You say that but my experience is that what happens is someone gets to
decide what your state of mind was. It could be the State's Attorney, as it
seems to have been here, or it could be the grand jury, a trial jury or a
trial judge.

I guess that depends on the evidence. If I follow the CD/SYG law in
Florida, a "justified" shooting, provides immunity from arrest or
civil liabilities. Each CD/SYG state have variations of what applies.

Z has already taken a voice stress test (similar to a lie detector?).
If he, for some reason, goes to a Grand Jury he should take the 5th.

[metspitzer]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:36:27 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"With a single punch, Trayvon Martin [the deceased] decked the Neighborhood
Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then
Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman [the non-deceased] and slammed
his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law enforcement
authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.

We will just ignore that the racial element was planted by NBC and use
this as a teachable moment anyway.

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

Glad soemone out there is up to date. I don't watch TV, in any form.

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

wrote in message
...
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

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Robert Green wrote:

The offense is in the eye of the beholder, not the actions of the
actor.

I can refute that easily by pointing out the cops that shot Diallo
and Bell went through a world of hurt. The Sean Bell shooters even
lost their jobs because their claims of self-defense and "apprehended
danger" were not believed.

Giggle. Did any of the 109 officers who shot at Diallo or Bell go to jail?
Or a trial? Or even get arrested?

I rest my case.


Again, it doesn't matter what the actor's past history might be. All
that counts is your perception of the instant.

Disagree. You have to convince the legal system that you acted based
on your fear. While reading material about the SGY laws, a lot of
people claim self-defense but their claims are not believed. For
instance, Zimmerman's alleged 47 calls to 911 are going to weigh
against him. If he was so fearful, why did he continually expose
himself to potentially dangerous situations, one of which ended up
with a dead teenager? I know what you're saying - that's how the law
is written - but there's a pretty big gulf between what's written and
how law enforcement, the courts and public opinion decide lies within
the range of that law.



Of course. You live(d) in a non-SYG state. You were obligated to
retreat rather than defend your life.

I can't deny that training about what my "rights" were affected my
actions, but common sense dictated I retreat. Why? Because asking
for and fumbling a pack of matches might mean hostile intent to me,
but not to possible witnesses or (unlikely back then) ubiquitous CCTV
cameras scanning the area.


The reason today's background check seems trivial compared to what
you went through has two reasons: a) A cursory background check has
proven - in almost all cases - to be sufficient, and b) Your state
doesn't WANT people carrying weapons and the $5,000 you spent has
proven an effective deterrent to those who entertain the idea.

Agreed on the last part, not so sure on the first one. I think we're
going to find that a lot of CHL's have gone to people who didn't
deserve them. The laws of many states are new enough and the research
into who's a CHL holder AND a criminal is very difficult to do. As
for the $5,000 spent on lawyers, fees, etc. I felt it was money well
spent and was rather glad the hoi polloi wasn't able to afford a CHL.

That's where you and I differ. Current law states that if an individual
cannot afford a lawyer, the state will provide one to make sure his rights
are not violated. In my view, if an individual cannot afford a firearm, the
state should provide one. Guns are certainly cheaper than lawyers.


"Milton Furby, 36, was not arrested for child molestation and animal
cruelty by Dayton Police yesterday. The actual arrestee was
Hildebrant Folsom, the police department was the Dade County Police
in Florida, and the offense was car parked overnight in a
residential area. We regret the error."

Just more proof that it's hard to put things back the way they were
once the genie's out of the bottle.

Do you think Zimmerman would do things differently if he could turn
the world back to the day before the shooting?

I'm reminded of the famous movie line: "You're damn right I shot him and I
hope he roasts in Hell!"

I would hope Zimmerman would repeat his actions if he could do it over or if
faced with the same situation in the future.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Attila.Iskander wrote:



Jeez, we know how twitchy YOU get when someone comes up to you in the
parking lot of Home Depot with construction material in their hands.
(-:

There you go presuming more ****.


What if you shot that guy with the rebar but an investigation showed
he had
just bought it and was doing concrete repair;. What if it further
showed he
was locked out or his car and hoped you would call AAA for him? What if
the
cellphone he was carrying showed he has dialed AAA just before
approaching you but the battery died? I can think of a dozen bad
outcomes for you had you shot a guy just for approaching you in the
parking lot of a construction
supply store with construction material in his hand.



More stupid presumptions


He's referring to a (much) earlier post of mine wherein I offered that I've
drawn my weapon twice in Home Depot parking lots, once when a stink-eye was
approaching with a two-foot hunk of rebar and the other time when the goblin
had a piece of a 2x4.

While he waxes eloquent about someone in a building supply store's parking
lot with a bit of construction material possibly being as pure as a sainted
reverend father, he omits my part of the story where the smell-bad ignored
my commands to "STOP-COME NO CLOSER!"

They both backed off after a very big gun (a 1911) appeared. One even went
so far as to offer as an excuse "Hey, man, I just wanted to borrow a
cigarette!" (and I intend to light it with this here piece of pipe?).

In both cases, I talked to the manager of the store and urged him to call
the cops. Both times the cops appeared. One even patted me on the head
(figuratively) with the approbation, "Good job! Maybe the rest of the
squints will get the word."

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

I saw one, years ago. If guns were treated like cars. There was a whole
list, that I really enjoyed. You could fly to a far away state, and rent a
gun for a couple days, and bring it home. Take it to another Rent A Gun,
and they would get it back to its home port.

I think if Zim did it again, he'd be wise to stay in his car, like the 911
operator suggested he do.

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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

That's where you and I differ. Current law states that if an individual
cannot afford a lawyer, the state will provide one to make sure his rights
are not violated. In my view, if an individual cannot afford a firearm, the
state should provide one. Guns are certainly cheaper than lawyers.

Do you think Zimmerman would do things differently if he could turn
the world back to the day before the shooting?

I'm reminded of the famous movie line: "You're damn right I shot him and I
hope he roasts in Hell!"

I would hope Zimmerman would repeat his actions if he could do it over or if
faced with the same situation in the future.

[Robert Green]

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

The offense is in the eye of the beholder, not the actions of the
actor.

I can refute that easily by pointing out the cops that shot Diallo
and Bell went through a world of hurt. The Sean Bell shooters even
lost their jobs because their claims of self-defense and "apprehended
danger" were not believed.

Giggle. Did any of the 109 officers who shot at Diallo or Bell go to jail?
Or a trial? Or even get arrested?

No, because they were police officers who are given more legal leeway in a
shooting situation because that's part of their job. But you can't call
losing that job and your pensions, as the Sean Bell shooters did a "good
outcome." The point remains the same. YOU may think you're acting in fear
of your life but in many cases that's up to someone else (trial judge, jury,
the Chief of Police) to decide. There's still a chance that some vigilante
yahoo is going to gun Zimmerman down. I'd call that the ultimate "bad
outcome" for Zimmerman.

I rest my case.

What case? Did you make a case? It must have been very, very tiny because
it slid though the space between the letters. (-:

stuff snipped

Do you think Zimmerman would do things differently if he could turn
the world back to the day before the shooting?

I'm reminded of the famous movie line: "You're damn right I shot him and I
hope he roasts in Hell!"

I would hope Zimmerman would repeat his actions if he could do it over or
if
faced with the same situation in the future.

I know that you do, but somehow I doubt he does. I think his actions "blew
up" on him and he never expected in his wildest dreams to be in hiding,
gunless, being hunted down by the NBP and facing a wrongful death suit no
matter what happens in the criminal courts. That's not a good outcome in my
book, although it might be in yours. "Yes, I ended up dead, but so did that
other guy." Faint comfort in my world. The very few times I had to "break
leather" I was pretty cognizant of what would happen if I had to shoot,
particular in a state that has no SYG law.

--
Bobby G.

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

What kind of gun should the tax payers buy me, when you're President?

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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

He's referring to a (much) earlier post of mine wherein I offered that I've
drawn my weapon twice in Home Depot parking lots, once when a stink-eye was
approaching with a two-foot hunk of rebar and the other time when the goblin
had a piece of a 2x4.

While he waxes eloquent about someone in a building supply store's parking
lot with a bit of construction material possibly being as pure as a sainted
reverend father, he omits my part of the story where the smell-bad ignored
my commands to "STOP-COME NO CLOSER!"

They both backed off after a very big gun (a 1911) appeared. One even went
so far as to offer as an excuse "Hey, man, I just wanted to borrow a
cigarette!" (and I intend to light it with this here piece of pipe?).

In both cases, I talked to the manager of the store and urged him to call
the cops. Both times the cops appeared. One even patted me on the head
(figuratively) with the approbation, "Good job! Maybe the rest of the
squints will get the word."

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Stormin Mormon wrote:
What kind of gun should the tax payers buy me, when you're President?


They may not have to buy any. Simply establish that all the guns confiscated
in Detroit, Chicago, New York, New Jersey, D.C., and a few other places
escheat to the feds. These guns would be reconditioned and made available,
upon application, to the righteous.

[Bill Kniess]

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

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!


Oh! I forgot about that....never mind.

[Bill Kniess]

Jim Yanik wrote in
4:

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...d-guns-and-som
e- 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...ti-s-bad-gun-s
ta 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.

By whose standards? What metric do you use to judge veracity of an
article in a publication?

It sounds like any right wing pub is truthful by definition? They
have no positions to support, only printing the pure unadulterated


facts? Any publication centrist or left wing only prints lies?
Modifies the facts to support positions contrary to YOUR ieas and
beliefs?

Out of curiosity, what do you thinnk of the website factcheck.org?

Bill Kniess

[Robert Green]

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:19:03 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

The ONLY thing that
counts is what I believed and whether that which I believed is the same
thing that a "reasonable person" would also believe.

You say that but my experience is that what happens is someone gets to
decide what your state of mind was. It could be the State's Attorney, as
it
seems to have been here, or it could be the grand jury, a trial jury or a
trial judge.

I guess that depends on the evidence. If I follow the CD/SYG law in
Florida, a "justified" shooting, provides immunity from arrest or
civil liabilities. Each CD/SYG state have variations of what applies.

I agree. A lot will depend on what evidence is collected. The catch is
that under the law it has to be a "justified" shooting. That word just
screams someone's going to judge whether is was justified or not. DA's can
be wrong. Looking at Mike Nifong's relentless (and baseless) prosecution of
the Dukies.

Prosecutorial misconduct is so widespread that the Supremes just ruled only
a pattern of illegal behavior can be the basis for a suit. (-: One-off's
don't even count anymore. There's a lot of external pressure being brought
to bear in this case and sometimes that causes justice to deflect a little.
It seems that some people hate the idea that a miscreant like Sharpton can
actually affect outcomes. He couldn't be effective unless the media was
complicit in giving him a soapbox. They do that to sell newspapers.

There's a concept in liability law about who has the "last clear chance to
prevent an accident." This was not a guy on his way home accosted by
muggers, this was someone who engaged in confrontational behavior while
armed on what seems to be a fairly regular basis. Trouble was bound to
happen. I'm going to be most interested in what Z considered suspicious
about M.

Z has already taken a voice stress test (similar to a lie detector?).
If he, for some reason, goes to a Grand Jury he should take the 5th.

I don't think VST's are yet admissible in court. I've read that sound
experts are examining the 911 recordings. My experience with "expert
witnesses" is that both sides will produce their own saying exactly opposite
things. Victory probably goes to the side whose witnesses induce the least
sleepiness or has the best hair. )-:

After just agreeing with HeyBub that one should never talk to a cop without
a lawyer present, I don't know how I would advise Zimmerman to behave in
front of a grand jury. Taking the 5th is too well-associated with mobsters
and I believe confers at least a tinge of guilt. There's a difference
between not talking to investigators and not talking to a grand jury that
has the power of indictment.

The lawyers I worked with always were in favor of the accused making as few
statements as possible, because, as HeyBub pointed out, each one of them
binds you to a particular sequence of events. That really limits legal
wiggle room that lawyers love so much. So I suppose you're right in the
long run, but they'll crucify him for standing mute in the short run. In
any case, I wouldn't want to be Zimmerman.

--
Bobby G.

[Ron]

On Apr 3, 9:37*pm, "Attila.Iskander" wrote:

Correct
* * It was.
Now watch that video and explain to me WHY the police officer examines the
back of Zimmerman's head
Now go back and watch the recently released "enhanced" video

* * Oops

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.

I didn't present "proof', you dummy
Although I did speak from personal experience as a volunteer firefighter/EMT
* * I had occasion to patch up lacerations and contusions at accidents.
Some bled, some did not

Another poster noted thatKobeBryantrecently suffered a broken nose at a
game.
Minimal bleeding or swelling
* * Broken nose confirmed by MRI after the game in which Bryant continued to
play.

Why don't you just copy and paste what I wrote next time?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...b5dd2fcf39525e

[Robert Green]

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


decision
to release Zimmerman tends to bolster the theory that a mistake was
made
here.

No, it tends to bolster the theory that the squeaky wheel gets
the
grease and that bureaucrats (especially elected ones like prosecutors
and governors) like to cover their asses. You gonna take the same
position if the other agencies happen to agree with the original
decision?

Yes. But I don't see that happening with all the heat generated
already.

Heat generated, but not a lot of light, which is the main issue here.

If you say so. It's not my main issue.

I've said a number of times that I'm content to wait until the special
investigator finishes. The Martin case may be settled one way or
another,
but the issue of vigilantes, armed neighborhood watchmen and SYG laws
has
only just begun. This case isn't nearly as clear cut as the guy who
shot
someone trying to carjack him. We just don't know what happened between
those two moments before the shooting.

You are content to wait until the investigator finishes and then you
can hang him?

Jeez, where do you read THAT into what I wrote? You're still angry that I
want to tax the rich like they used to be taxed when this country was at its
most prosperous. I said "the Martin case might be settled one way or
another." How do you turn that into hanging him? I just don't see it. No
matter what happens to Zimmerman, there's now going to be a very wide-based
public discussion of CHL and SYG laws.

You are putting all this talk out about waiting but in the
about the same breath you go on about how the heat being generated by
those with more agenda than information and how that somehow seems (at
least my reading of your words) indicates that he is guilty.

Your reading of my words is wrong. "One way or another." Guilty or not
guilty. No matter what that outcome, Pandora's box is now open concerning
SYG and CHL laws - especially all the recent changes in state laws. I
suspect some state will even put the issue to referendum. That's what
happens when enough people decide they don't like a particular law. Take
California's gay marriage law and subsequent referendum.

Now, because of Zimmerman, guilty or not, we're having a discussion about
vigilantes, armed neighborhood watchmen, what constitutes suspicious
behavior, use of deadly force and more. All because Z shot M. Irrespective
of him being charged or nolle prossed (actually in FL I think it's called
"No Information Filed) there's going to be a long, hard look at carry and
SYG laws.

You're engaging in circular logic Kurt. Have you wondered why the wheel
is
squeaking? Because enough people feel that a miscarriage of justice
occurred to make it squeak. It wasn't a case of let's make a mountain
out
of a molehill 'just because.' People, especially parents, are worried
that
some vigilante is going to gun down their kids for wearing a hoodie and
being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Better than no logic. So we are now convicting people based on who yells
the loudest or who has the best PR? S

You haven't been paying attention to American history, have you? How is
this different from the hundreds of protests that have come before, whether
it was the Vietnam War, Watergate, Wisconsin union busting, Muslim mosques
near Ground Zero, etc? Being for a process when it works for you and against
it when it doesn't seems less than evenhanded. Welcome to America - this is
how it works.

The politicians are not just covering their asses, they're examining the
future of the current CHL and SYG laws. Zimmerman initiated the
contact.
In NYC, you learn early in life that you don't even LOOK SOMEONE IN THE
EYE
on the subway lest a confrontation ensue. What happened was going to
happen
eventually as we march back to the Wild West. Eventually we'll re-learn
why
cities passed gun carrying restrictions in the first place as the
pendulum
swings.

They are covering their asses. Zimmerman was following, at a
distance, you have no idea yet who initiated the contact.

When he left the house, Zimmerman selected and tracked Martin and it seems
Martin became aware of it. Subtract that element and there's no shooting in
all probability. A good attorney will hammer on that point. He will try to
convince the jury, if there is one, that Zimmerman left the house looking
for trouble and found it.

I can't see how Florida legislators can get by without doing something,
cosmetic or not, about the current laws. Just because a law got passed
doesn't mean people actually support it, whether it's ACA or SYG. The sheer
size and anger of the response indicates at least some people think the law
needs to be changed.

Martin's inability to present his side of the story generates a lot of
doubt
for some people. Hence the wheel squeaks. What you're calling "ass
covering" I call "being a hell of a lot more thorough than the initial
investigation." The mistake in this case could easily be the current
implementation of the Florida CHL/SYG laws. Incidents like this often
serve
as a focal point for change.

That side is being presented by the forensics and facts. Besides
why does he get bestowed with Sainthood because he took the bullet?

Why? Because there's no appellate court that can reverse his deadness. How
many black parents do you think have kids that have had run-ins with
authorities of some kind? I'll bet most of them see the attempts to portray
Martin as a sociopath worry that the same would happen to their kid in
similar circumstances. Hell, at that age I had a "record" of sorts. That
didn't stop me from getting a TS clearance, a CHL permit, etc. Forensics
and facts can only say so much about what happened. Z can say almost
anything he wants without any chance of refutation. Being able to confront
your accuser is a cornerstone of American justice and that becomes difficult
when your accuser is working from the grave.

How could he or how did he tamper with the crime scene. The cops had
already done most of the crime scene evaluation, they had taken his
gun,
they had taken their photos, etc. If they hadn't been through with the
scene, they still had custody and he wouldn't have been able to tamper
with anything.

Please. You're *assuming* that they were thorough. I've worked with a
lot
of small police departments (the DC area has over 25 different local
police
agencies). Very few of those interactions gave me any reason to believe
in
their thoroughness or investigatory skills. The *real* cops (often the
state police or the FBI) were lucky not to have the whole crime scene
contaminated by the local cops. Forensic techs used to lament loudly
the
butchering of crime scenes when the first responders were "township"
cops.

Actually I am not. I am assuming that whatever was done was done, but
if they had released the crime scene nothing would have been admissable
anyway, at least without a bunch of hassle. If they hadn't let go of
the scene, then they should have left it secured and he wouldn't be able
to get to it anyway.

Secured? A township police department? Not bloody likely.

Tampering of the crime scene (another little of lightless heat) is a
non-issue.

Just because you say it's a non-issue? Sorry, I'll have to pass. There are
all sorts of idiots running around on both sides capable of anything. The
more people like Sharpton are involved, the more I suspect witness
tampering.

I've seen the local small town cops traipse through blood, ruin
fingerprint
evidence, move evidence before photographing it and committing all sorts
of
other evidentiary atrocities before a forensic expert got to them.
Remember
the cops who took blood from OJ? They were accused of sprinkling it
around
the crime scene hoping (knowing?) it would be discovered in a closer
examination of the area.

And, as in this case, there was no evidence of such happening. But
heat beat out light.

You say there was no evidence yet you were not there collecting any. Who's
calling the pot black?

It takes but a minute to collude with witnesses. I've seen that happen
personally. Did it happen here? No way to tell without an
investigation,
but from what I've read, there appear to be conflicts in witness reports
as
I would expect.

Again with lightless heat. Actually from my experience, collusion
occurs when the stories agree too much.

As I said "as I would expect." There's certainly going to be a difference
in thoroughness between the two investigations just because of available
resources. What you call "lightless heat" are simply the hallmarks of a
thorough investigation. The kind small township police departments are
notorious for not performing. Here's some fun reading:

http://www.google.com/search?q=tampe...+crimes+scenes

That reminds me of watching some township cops doing investigations by
questioning the witnesses together in a group. LENF 101 violation.
Witnesses align their stories in groups. Always interrogate
individually.
That was the kind of error very typical of small town cops. I've worked
with
the FBI, Treasury, ATF, the Secret Service (they nearly shot me!), the
NYPD,.DC Metro, Baltimore PD, tons of county police forces and God only
knows how many 3 to 10 man township police. There's a noticeable
difference
in training, experience and overall intelligence.

Any indication any of this happened?

I can't tell from over a thousand miles away, can you? Why are your remote
"guesses" always so much more acceptable to you than mine? (-: Now that
more experienced people *seem* to be on the case, it's just another thing to
consider.

I won't even address the quotation marks around witnesses.
You then hit the nail on the head. So far it is only noises.

As I said, I'm willing to wait until the investigators are finished. I
don't know where you're getting your unimpeachable information. Just
remember the famous picture of Truman holding up the paper that said
"Dewey
Wins!" when you consider newspaper reports as credible.

Yet you haven't.

Haven't what? Been willing to wait? Does that mean I have to table all
discussion about my opinions? No one else seems to have done that,
including you. I want them to be thorough. I expect to see Florida's laws
about CHL's, SYG and even neighborhood watches modified in some way.
Sharpton may be effective, but to stir up this sort of passion requires
people to feel strongly. And it's very clear they do, on both sides.
Florida's laws are very likely going to change as a result of this shooting
because it's stirred up such a large public outcry.

some reports.

He wasn't warned not to do anything. It was only said in the
transcripts that they would handle and he did not have to follow the
dude. There was no affirmative statement for him to stay away.

That's hair splitting. A jury (if ever empanelled) might impart much
greater weight to his decision not to listen to the dispatcher.
Considering
that jury might be mothers of kids Martin's age, they might find
Zimmerman's
decision to follow despite the what the dispatcher said make him an
instigator.

No it isn't. It is a fact. The jury MIGHT impart greater weight *IF*
the dispatcher had actually said something specific, gave an order. This
was a whole lot different from warning him not to do something.

Ah, so now you're joining some others in assuring us you know the inner
workings of another person's mind. A jury would be free to attach whatever
meaning the chose in Zimmerman's response to what 911 told him. You're
interpreting it one way, others seem to be construing it as Zimmerman's
flagrant disregard for the very authority whose opinion he appeared to be
seeking.

What the Z/M shooting has shown is that people strongly believe in
the
rumors and "factoids" that most line up with their world view.

You amongst them.

Look in the mirror. (-: As I said, people strongly believe in anything
they
hear that lines up with their world view. That obviously includes both
of
us and virtually everyone who's posted on the subject, some of them
wound so
tightly they're going to explode. That's just human nature. Sadly, it's
just another dimension of polarization in modern America. HomeGuy will
be
happy to know I voted for Ron Paul in the primary.

Never said otherwise, just wanting to put that on the record (grin).

You devil you. Or is it "you advocate, you?"

--
Bobby G.