[Robert Green]

"Norminn" wrote in message
...
On 3/29/2012 2:37 AM, John Carter wrote:

Don;t know who is telling the truth, but one thing
I know for sure - either Zimmerman wasn't properly
trained in the neighborhood waych program, or he was
ignoring what he waas told. I am a member of our
city neighborhood watch program, and I know for sure that
NO guns permitted. It's the neighborhood WAYCH proram, not
the neighborhood LAW ENFORCENENT program.

Agreed. I think that's going to weigh against him if he's indicted. Every
watch program I've known of follows similar rules. Why? Zimmerman showed
us why. )-:

The police want eyes
and ears out there, not an untrained civilian with sidearms
going after a suspicious character. We operate in pairs and
without weapons. We did disnss a member for bringing a gun to
a watch. Our watch program is now inits seventh year, and during
that time, we have been responsible for many leads leading to arrets.
Our local police department loves the work we do to help them.

I've said it before. Cops like the assist from well-run neighborhood watch
programs but a lot of them don't like the idea of lone, armed vigilantes
running around acting like the police. That's especially true of undercover
and plainclothes cops who even fear being shot by their uniformed and
well-trained brethren.

The Orlando paper had a story about the Sanford neighborhood watch/PD
roles. Not only is NW NOT supposed to carry weapons, they are not
supposed to PATROL. There is an entirely separate group, trained by PD
and driving marked vehicles, who are supposed to patrol under their
program.

That makes perfect sense. There's an incredible difference in stopping a
person to ask them what they're doing when you're in marked patrol car and
when you're in your private vehicle. In the former case, your intent and
association with law enforcement is clear. In the latter, who knows what
kind of sociopath you are?

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Norminn wrote:

The Orlando paper had a story about the Sanford neighborhood watch/PD
roles. Not only is NW NOT supposed to carry weapons, they are not
supposed to PATROL. There is an entirely separate group, trained by
PD and driving marked vehicles, who are supposed to patrol under their
program.

And if a member of the community DOES carry a weapon and DOES patrol, even
in a marked vehicle, what're the police to do? Taunt him a second time?

Very soon in Florida and elsewhere there could be a laws to address that.
Roam around looking for trouble while armed? You'll get arrested. Or
revoke your handgun permit. Or charge you with being an unlicensed security
guard. Or do any number of things quite more unpleasant than a taunting.
Heller didn't give Americans unfettered carry rights, despite what some
people incredibly choose to believe. It said there could be reasonable
conditions places on gun ownership.

As the pendulum swings, don't be surprised to see anti-vigilante laws being
passed in a number of states. Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions. All
that has to happen is one conservative member retires for the calculus to
change completely. H & McD concerned, primarily, handgun ownership bans,
real and defacto. There will need to be a large number of lawsuits in order
to determine whether any other existing gun regulations might also be
unconstitutional. As far as I know, NYC's Sullivan law still stands.

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
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.

Interesting for you to clip what I was refuting and then make a point not
particularly relevant. I said, and still stand by the fact that a claim of
self defense is not enough to get you off the hook. It has to be credible.
The DA in this case originally found that to be true. It may very well be
that the special prosecutor will find that to be true as well. I would say
cops are held to a lower standard because of their responsibility to enforce
the law and to protect civilians. They are less likely to be jailed for a
"bad shoot" than the average citizen involved in a shooting. They're out
patroling the street armed because that's what we pay them to do. Z was out
there patroling the streets armed because that was what he chose to do. Big
difference.

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?

My comment was directed at his possible defense of being afraid for his life
yet putting himself into a potentially dangerous situation repeatedly. As
HeyBub might tell us, he knew the risks but continued with his armed
patrolling. Z had to be pretty stupid if he thought he would never face
someone who took exception to being followed around. You and others may
deny it, but very few people "enjoy" the experience of being followed at
night by a total stranger - if indeed M and Z were total strangers. They
might have had a previous encounter no one knows about. If there's a trial,
a lot will hinge on Z's conduct, his interaction with 911 and the reasons he
believed M was acting suspiciously.

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:02:02 -0400, Ron wrote:

This thing stinks like old fish:


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


Yes, it does!

... and then:

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

So this expert just uses one side of the evidence?

Lawyer: How much is 2 plus 2?

Expert Witness: How much do you want it to be?

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"gonjah" gonjah.net wrote in message
...
On 4/1/2012 1:40 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:02:02 -0400, wrote:

This thing stinks like old fish:


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

Yes, it does!
... and then:

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

So this expert just uses one side of the evidence?

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

Probably not recorded the way 911 calls are. Experts will most likely be
able to obtain a sample of Martin's voice eventually. One single scream is
going to be a hard match to prove or disprove. Not enough of a sample.

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"gonjah" gonjah.net wrote in message
...
On 4/1/2012 11:34 AM, harryagain wrote:
"Robert wrote in message
...
wrote in message

...
On Mar 26, 5:47 pm, wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

The little snowflake, Trayvon Martin, has some skeletons:

* He was on suspension from school for graffiti, after being found
with a
bag of woman's jewelry and burglar tools
* Another suspension for possession of Marijuana
* Another suspension for tardiness and truancy

All of this is, of course, irrelevant to his fatal altercation in a
burglary-ridden sub-division.


http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/2...-expected-at-t...
So does Zimmerman.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/bq4c8qj

Interesting article. It appears that he might have been close to
losing
his
gun because of the domestic violence beef the Sentinel article
discusses.



http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-20/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-20120320_1_robert-zimmerman-domestic-violence-online-petition?pagewanted=all

Neither of them appears to be an "angel" which is no surprise to me.
Zimmerman's father nailed it when he said ""George is going to suffer
for
years and years," he said." Unfortunately, he or his loved ones could
easily wind up dead as the hunter becomes the hunted. No one comes out
a
winner in Sanford. Zimmerman will undoubtedly face a wrongful death
civil
suit funded by some very deep pockets.
Wonderful place America. I expect the next thing will be that Zimmerman
knew all this before he shot him.



This thing stinks like old fish:


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

There are certainly still a lot of unanswered questions. We'll see how this
all shakes out in a month or so. If Martin *was* doing the screaming,
Zimmerman's self-defense claim loses credibility.

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:00:55 -0400, Ron wrote:

stuff snipped

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


No matter what an investigation show, Florida authorities are under a
lot of pressure from assorted protest groups. They may charge him
just to appease them. I would hope they still go by facts of the case
though, not political pressure.

Agreed. However it shakes out for Zimmerman, there's going to be a lot of
discussion about Florida's gun laws and I suspect some changes will be made.
The law, as many do, had good intentions. It was meant to avoid
criminalizing and unduly harrassing people who had clearly shot in
self-defense. Without witnesses and with the conflicting evidence that's
shown up, it may never be possible to determine what happened that night in
Sanford with certainty.

--
Bobby G.

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

You've got my vote, for President. Makes more sense than anything I've ever
heard.

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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
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.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:00:55 -0400, Ron wrote:

stuff snipped

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


No matter what an investigation show, Florida authorities are under a
lot of pressure from assorted protest groups. They may charge him
just to appease them. I would hope they still go by facts of the case
though, not political pressure.

Agreed. However it shakes out for Zimmerman, there's going to be a lot of
discussion about Florida's gun laws and I suspect some changes will be made.
If it goes to court, it should make for one heckuva interesting
change of venue motion.

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

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:




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. )-:
This is at least as jumbled as the law on polygraphs. Some states may
okay them if the results are stipulated to by both attorneys while
others don't let them come in at all, and some have system that allows
them in over the objection of one of the attorneys under very strict
provisions. There are even a couple cases in some states that seem to
indicate that any use of VST is grounds for a mistrial.



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.

I'm not sure it makes all that much of a difference using the ham
sandwich test (g).

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

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Robert Green wrote:
No matter what an investigation show, Florida authorities are under a
lot of pressure from assorted protest groups. They may charge him
just to appease them. I would hope they still go by facts of the
case though, not political pressure.

Agreed. However it shakes out for Zimmerman, there's going to be a
lot of discussion about Florida's gun laws and I suspect some changes
will be made. The law, as many do, had good intentions. It was meant
to avoid criminalizing and unduly harrassing people who had clearly
shot in self-defense. Without witnesses and with the conflicting
evidence that's shown up, it may never be possible to determine what
happened that night in Sanford with certainty.

I disagree on two fronts:

1. The authorities will not arrest Zimmerman just to appease those who are
exercised over the incident.
a) Zimmerman can always be arrested later. If done now, the "speedy trial"
clock starts. Why would a prosecutor limit himself unnecessarily?
b) If an arrest takes place without sufficient evidence of probable cause,
every functionary involved opens themselves to false arrest civil suits.
c) An arrest would serve no purpose. Zimmerman would get bonded out within
the hour. Probably even released on PR.

2. There will be no changes in Florida law.
a) Those who spotted the "flaw" in the SYG law made their case when the
law passed originally. There is no reason to believe legislators have
changed their mind; at least none have made a public statement on the
subject that I've heard.
b) This is FLORIDA, for crying out loud! Remember, Florida was the first
state in the nation to pass "shall issue" concealed handgun permitting.
"Shall issue" means that if an applicant meets the statutory requirements
for concealed carry (able to stand up, see lightning, and hear thunder), the
permit MUST be issued. There is no discretion on the part of the issuing
agency. That is, Florida believes in private citizens killing the goblins.
It's a money-saving measure, at least for the state.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Stormin Mormon wrote:
You've got my vote, for President. Makes more sense than anything
I've ever heard.


You don't recall my "Flat-Flat Tax" plan? Or my compromise on school
busing?*

-------
* Children are bused to the school nearest their home, but the busses detour
for a minimum of one hour through neighborhoods of an ethnicity that differs
from their passengers (sort of toe in the water).

Each side gets what they want: One side gets their kids in a school close to
home, the other side gets to have kids on a bus two hours each day.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Robert Green wrote:

And if a member of the community DOES carry a weapon and DOES
patrol, even in a marked vehicle, what're the police to do? Taunt
him a second time?

Very soon in Florida and elsewhere there could be a laws to address
that. Roam around looking for trouble while armed? You'll get
arrested. Or revoke your handgun permit. Or charge you with being
an unlicensed security guard. Or do any number of things quite more
unpleasant than a taunting. Heller didn't give Americans unfettered
carry rights, despite what some people incredibly choose to believe.
It said there could be reasonable conditions places on gun ownership.

As the pendulum swings, don't be surprised to see anti-vigilante laws
being passed in a number of states. Heller and McDonald were 5-4
decisions. All that has to happen is one conservative member retires
for the calculus to change completely. H & McD concerned, primarily,
handgun ownership bans, real and defacto. There will need to be a
large number of lawsuits in order to determine whether any other
existing gun regulations might also be unconstitutional. As far as I
know, NYC's Sullivan law still stands.

Giggle.

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

I'll admit, I must have been sleeping when you announced that. More
excellent.

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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
You've got my vote, for President. Makes more sense than anything
I've ever heard.


You don't recall my "Flat-Flat Tax" plan? Or my compromise on school
busing?*

-------
* Children are bused to the school nearest their home, but the busses detour
for a minimum of one hour through neighborhoods of an ethnicity that differs
from their passengers (sort of toe in the water).

Each side gets what they want: One side gets their kids in a school close to
home, the other side gets to have kids on a bus two hours each day.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


Very soon in Florida and elsewhere there could be a laws to address that.
Roam around looking for trouble while armed? You'll get arrested. Or
revoke your handgun permit. Or charge you with being an unlicensed security
guard. Or do any number of things quite more unpleasant than a taunting.
Heller didn't give Americans unfettered carry rights, despite what some
people incredibly choose to believe. It said there could be reasonable
conditions places on gun ownership.
But this issue, at least on the criminal side, has nothing to do with
ownership. It has to do with use of the gun. Under what circumstances
can you legally put a hole in somebody. The ownership issue is beside
the point entirely and licensing only peripherally. Is there anything in
the record to indicate Z couldn't have gotten the permit or that it was
illegally obtained?


As the pendulum swings, don't be surprised to see anti-vigilante laws being
passed in a number of states. Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions. All
that has to happen is one conservative member retires for the calculus to
change completely. H & McD concerned, primarily, handgun ownership bans,
real and defacto. There will need to be a large number of lawsuits in order
to determine whether any other existing gun regulations might also be
unconstitutional. As far as I know, NYC's Sullivan law still stands.
Not on this issue, though.

--
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:
"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.


All your lawyer would have to do is assemble a number of your
posts and you'd have a good insanity or incompetence defense.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 5, 5:04*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...

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.

Interesting for you to clip what I was refuting and then make a point not
particularly relevant. *I said, and still stand by the fact that a claim of
self defense is not enough to get you off the hook. *It has to be credible.
The DA in this case originally found that to be true. *It may very well be
that the special prosecutor will find that to be true as well. *I would say
cops are held to a lower standard because of their responsibility to enforce
the law and to protect civilians. *They are less likely to be jailed for a
"bad shoot" than the average citizen involved in a shooting. *They're out
patroling the street armed because that's what we pay them to do. *Z was out
there patroling the streets armed because that was what he chose to do. *Big
difference.



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?

My comment was directed at his possible defense of being afraid for his life
yet putting himself into a potentially dangerous situation repeatedly. *As
HeyBub might tell us, he knew the risks but continued with his armed
patrolling. Z had to be pretty stupid if he thought he would never face
someone who took exception to being followed around. *You and others may
deny it, but very few people "enjoy" the experience of being followed at
night by a total stranger - if indeed M and Z were total strangers. *They
might have had a previous encounter no one knows about. *If there's a trial,
a lot will hinge on Z's conduct, his interaction with 911 and the reasons he
believed M was acting suspiciously.

--
Bobby G.

Uh, no. How he came into contact with Maritn is immaterial. What
matters is whether the eyewitness and Z's account can be shown
to be lies. And whether the physical evidence supports their
version of events. Just because you follow someone you believe
to be suspicious, doesn't give them the right to punch you, knock
you to the ground and beat you while you yell for help and the
eyewitness announces they are calling police.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 5, 12:27*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"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.

According to Z, after the police told him not to follow, he continued
walking to the end of the street, about a block to get an address to
give to police so they would know the correct spot. Martin had made
a 90 deg turn onto another sidewalk and he had lost sight of him.
Z turned around and was walking back to his car when M reappeared,
walked up to him and said "You have a problem?" Z said, "No"
Martin said "Well you do now." and punched him.

AFAIK, no one has a differing account of the engagement.
Nothing in that scenario nor what's in evidence on the calls
suggests that Z was the aggressor.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 5, 2:30*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Norminn" wrote in message

...

On 3/29/2012 2:37 AM, John Carter wrote:
Don;t know who is telling the truth, but one thing
* I know for sure - either Zimmerman wasn't properly
* trained in the neighborhood waych program, or he was
ignoring what he waas told. *I am a member of our
city neighborhood watch program, and I know for sure that
NO guns permitted. *It's the neighborhood WAYCH proram, not
the neighborhood LAW ENFORCENENT program.

Agreed. *I think that's going to weigh against him if he's indicted. *Every
watch program I've known of follows similar rules. *Why? *Zimmerman showed
us why. *)-:

It figures you'd agree with something that as stated, is
not based on facts or logic. Just because the neighborhood watch
programs you and Norminn are involved with prohibit guns
doesn't mean all neighborhood watch programs even have
an opinion on the matter.

The Sanford police department has a 17 page manual on their
neighborhood watch program and the subject of guns is not
mentioned once. Funny thing, that. If they had such a policy
one would think it would be in the handbook. And I'd say the
actual Sanford program is factual, while Normin's experience
and opinions have no bearing.

[Attila.Iskander]

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message
...
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?


How about by past performance
The NYT has a LONG history of bias and dishonest spin to outright lies

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


The difference seems to be that they provide both sides of the story and
don't try to spin it to suit their ideology
See the recent NBC editing the 911 call played to make Zimmerman look like
a racist.



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


Nice strawman
"only print lies"
We never made such a claim
But they DO have a LONG chain of incidents behind them where they did lie
and where they spun the truth.



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


SO far so good
But then, I do NOT paint with a broad brush
But I will IMMEDIATELY put a flag on ANY media source that has previous
history of spinning.

[Robert Green]

"HeyBub" wrote in message

stuff snipped

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

You do see how that presents a problem for the justice system. All someone
has to do is get the drop on you in some remote location, shoot you, punch
themselves in the face with your dead fist (hopefully you're wearing a ring
that will tear flesh and transfer DNA evidence) and they've gotten away with
murder. Harry's probably rounding up his BlackWatch buddies for a trip to
Texas right now. (-:

That kind of law is not going to last long. Zimmerman has changed the game
no matter what happens to him.

The Zimmerman shooting has focused attention on SYG and CHL laws in a way
that CHL holders clearly don't like. He may avoid criminal liability, but
not civil liability, even though the law appears to immunize him. In the
past, when state laws all but prevented the prosecution of whites who killed
blacks, the Feds stepped in with prosecutions for civil rights violations.
There are still a lot of twists and turns this case can take. I view this
as an excellent opportunity to explain the dangers of carrying a handgun to
the person carrying it. No one, except perhaps for you, would enjoy going
through what Z, his family, his friends, people with his name, people that
look like him, etc. are going through right now.

Search Google in 6 month periods for SYG. That will tell you how much
attention Zimmerman has brought on SYG laws.

About 7,980 results in the last 24 hours
About 57,300 results in the last week
About 169,000 results in the last month
About 572,000 results in the last year

You taught math. Tell us what we can conclude about SYG use on the web in
the last month? Unlike that study you once noted that tried to measure
which political group had the foulest speakers, this is actually a valid
research technique used by social scientists. Oh hell, I know better than
to ask you to draw your own conclusion. (-: What those numbers say are that
the occurrences of SYG have risen dramatically just recently.

In the last month, SYG has been found 169,000 times. Multiple by 12 and
that gives you a rate of 2,028,000 hits per year. That indicates an
astounding and recent rise in searches for SYG since the rate for the whole
year was only 572,000. Extrapolating the rate for the last 24 hrs gives a
rate of 2,920,000 hits per year. People are researching SYG laws like never
before and many are saying (at least in the comments sections of the sites I
read) who the F authorized this "license to kill law?"

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

Agreed. That points to a defect in the law. It seems a lot of people
including me feel this case wasn't as clear cut as the man who shot a
carjacker in front of witnesses and CCTV cameras. When there's no doubt,
release him. In the Zimmerman case there was and still is doubt that may
never be resolved. When that's the case, a full-blown judicial hearing will
probably be required in the future. It may be that both the ACA and SYG
laws are going to meet similar fates. How ironic. (-:

--
Bobby G.

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

I think that the Trayvon's law should read that if you jump someone, knock
him to the ground and pound the hell out of him, that you should be shot to
death. If not by the victim, then later by the cops.

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


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.

[Stormin Mormon[_7_]]

Supposing I'm at the mall. I've been heading to JC Penney. Behind me is
another shopper, who is also going to the sale 30% off, of neck ties. Does
that mean I have the right to knock him down, and beat him?

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

wrote in message
...
Just because you follow someone you believe
to be suspicious, doesn't give them the right to punch you, knock
you to the ground and beat you while you yell for help and the
eyewitness announces they are calling police.

[Robert Green]

"Ron" wrote in message
ng.com...
Robert Green wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

...
On Mar 26, 5:47 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

The little snowflake, Trayvon Martin, has some skeletons:

* He was on suspension from school for graffiti, after being found with
a
bag of woman's jewelry and burglar tools
* Another suspension for possession of Marijuana
* Another suspension for tardiness and truancy

All of this is, of course, irrelevant to his fatal altercation in a
burglary-ridden sub-division.


http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/2...-expected-at-t...

So does Zimmerman.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/bq4c8qj

Interesting article. It appears that he might have been close to losing
his
gun because of the domestic violence beef the Sentinel article
discusses.



http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...pagewanted=all

Neither of them appears to be an "angel" which is no surprise to me.
Zimmerman's father nailed it when he said ""George is going to suffer
for
years and years," he said." Unfortunately, he or his loved ones could
easily wind up dead as the hunter becomes the hunted. No one comes out
a
winner in Sanford. Zimmerman will undoubtedly face a wrongful death
civil
suit funded by some very deep pockets.

Check this out


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

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

I dunno. His fate may rest in the hands of 12 people not smart enough to
get out of jury duty. (-: But I think you're right. He will be charged
with something, if only to placate the protestors. Not, perhaps how it
should be, but certainly how it's been throughout US history.

--
Bobby G.

[Attila.Iskander]

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


Well you finally got something right
Too bad you couldn't keep it up..

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.


There you go with your stupid presumptions again
THERE IS NO DATA to support YOUR claim that Z went out of his way to create
a confrontation
And NO, being armed, or getting out of your vehicle is NOT AUTOMATICALLY
"engaging in confrontational behavior"
And NO, there is no Z "did it (confrontational behavior" on a regular basis"

That just YOUR spin for YOUR AGENDA.



snip

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 5, 9:50*am, "Attila.Iskander" wrote:
"Bill Kniess" wrote in message

...





Jim Yanik wrote in
. 44:

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?

How about by past performance
The NYT has a LONG history of bias and dishonest spin to outright lies

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

The difference seems to be that they provide both sides of the story and
don't try to spin it to suit their ideology
See the recent *NBC editing the 911 call played to make Zimmerman look like
a racist.



Yeah, that's a classic. NBC is supposed to be conducting an
investigation into how it happened. That was days ago. How
long does that take? You get the person who did the editing
and ask them how and why they did it that way. And if anyone
told them how to do it. Should take an hour.

Along those lines, Fox News is the only media that I've seen
that is using current pictures of both Z and M. The others
continue to use the pic of M as a 12 year old and Z in an
orange shirt, when he was much heavier, looking like a criminal.

[Attila.Iskander]

wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 12:27 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"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.

According to Z, after the police told him not to follow, he continued
walking to the end of the street, about a block to get an address to
give to police so they would know the correct spot. Martin had made
a 90 deg turn onto another sidewalk and he had lost sight of him.
Z turned around and was walking back to his car when M reappeared,
walked up to him and said "You have a problem?" Z said, "No"
Martin said "Well you do now." and punched him.

AFAIK, no one has a differing account of the engagement.
Nothing in that scenario nor what's in evidence on the calls
suggests that Z was the aggressor.



Just a note
It was the dispatcher, NOT the police.
And the statement was something of the sort:
"we don't need that (you follow)".

Stating that the police told him not to follow is both false and misleading

[Attila.Iskander]

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


Highly doubtful
The same yammering heads from the gun-control side will yammer their
ignorant cant, stupid projections, and usual nonsense.
Most people will yawn and ignore them
The politicians will mouth platitudes and do nothing.
There has been a MAJOR sea-change in gun control, and it's in favor of
LESS...



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.


Very few states hold referendums like California
And this won't be one of those issues, except for the hopeful hoplophobes


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.


Three is no real discussion here
The yammering heads are spouting all kinds of ignorant cant, presumptions
and outright lies about what happened to justify their hoplophobic or racist
agendas
The rest of the people are sitting back and watching the show as the
hoplophobes and racists are spinning their wheels and churning mud.


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.


YAWN
Spin speech a again
"selected and tracked"
Try "noticed and reported"
There was NO menu of people to "select" from
This was not some forest to "track"..
And it was PERFECTLY LEGAL for him to do so.

Try again,


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.


yawn

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.


More spin
Zimmerman was NOT "the authorities"
And remember that according to the FBI UCR report, blacks on white killings
are DOUBLE white on black killing, even though blacks are 1/6 the population
(12%/72%).
And black-on-black killings are the same TOTAL NUMBERS than white on white,
again when blacks are 1/6th the population of whites
That means Blacks have 6-12 times the propensity to kill others than whites.
So frankly, although I may be sympathetic to individual tragedies, I'm not
very sympathetic when people try to play the race card.
And if the black community doesn't like that reality, it's for them to wake
up, smell the coffee, and CHANGE that part of their culture which is the
cause of it.

The race apologists are NOT helping to solve what is in fact a cultural
problem that has evolved in the last 60+ years


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.


Another stupid presumption
Apparently you don't seem able to avoid them for your agenda.


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.


Yawn

The police have already interviewed most people and those that appeared in
the Media where of the sort,
"I think I heard something" or "I think this is what happened" as
opposed to
"I saw (or heard ) this, this and this" .



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?

The only black pot around here, is you spewing ignorant and unfounded
presumptions every time you dribble your cant.



not worth continuing with the unending list of presumptions

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

I dunno. His fate may rest in the hands of 12 people not smart enough to
get out of jury duty. (-: But I think you're right. He will be charged
with something, if only to placate the protestors. Not, perhaps how it
should be, but certainly how it's been throughout US history.

And when he is acquitted, large numbers of people will get brand new
plasma TVs and other trinkets for free.. Win-win for some people.

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

[Attila.Iskander]

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"Norminn" wrote in message
...
On 3/29/2012 2:37 AM, John Carter wrote:

Don;t know who is telling the truth, but one thing
I know for sure - either Zimmerman wasn't properly
trained in the neighborhood waych program, or he was
ignoring what he waas told. I am a member of our
city neighborhood watch program, and I know for sure that
NO guns permitted. It's the neighborhood WAYCH proram, not
the neighborhood LAW ENFORCENENT program.

Agreed. I think that's going to weigh against him if he's indicted.
Every
watch program I've known of follows similar rules. Why? Zimmerman showed
us why. )-:

The police want eyes
and ears out there, not an untrained civilian with sidearms
going after a suspicious character. We operate in pairs and
without weapons. We did disnss a member for bringing a gun to
a watch. Our watch program is now inits seventh year, and during
that time, we have been responsible for many leads leading to arrets.
Our local police department loves the work we do to help them.

I've said it before. Cops like the assist from well-run neighborhood
watch
programs but a lot of them don't like the idea of lone, armed vigilantes
running around acting like the police. That's especially true of
undercover
and plainclothes cops who even fear being shot by their uniformed and
well-trained brethren.

The Orlando paper had a story about the Sanford neighborhood watch/PD
roles. Not only is NW NOT supposed to carry weapons, they are not
supposed to PATROL. There is an entirely separate group, trained by PD
and driving marked vehicles, who are supposed to patrol under their
program.

That makes perfect sense. There's an incredible difference in stopping a
person to ask them what they're doing when you're in marked patrol car and
when you're in your private vehicle. In the former case, your intent and
association with law enforcement is clear. In the latter, who knows what
kind of sociopath you are?


More ignorant presumptions
Particularly when one considers that civilians actually shoot more than
twice the criminals that police, while the police shoot more than 6 times
the innocent bystanders than civilians

It would make more sense for you to be better informed when you spout your
agenda

[Attila.Iskander]

wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 2:30 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Norminn" wrote in message

...

On 3/29/2012 2:37 AM, John Carter wrote:
Don;t know who is telling the truth, but one thing
I know for sure - either Zimmerman wasn't properly
trained in the neighborhood waych program, or he was
ignoring what he waas told. I am a member of our
city neighborhood watch program, and I know for sure that
NO guns permitted. It's the neighborhood WAYCH proram, not
the neighborhood LAW ENFORCENENT program.

Agreed. I think that's going to weigh against him if he's indicted.
Every
watch program I've known of follows similar rules. Why? Zimmerman
showed
us why. )-:

It figures you'd agree with something that as stated, is
not based on facts or logic. Just because the neighborhood watch
programs you and Norminn are involved with prohibit guns
doesn't mean all neighborhood watch programs even have
an opinion on the matter.


He has been consistent in that at least

The Sanford police department has a 17 page manual on their
neighborhood watch program and the subject of guns is not
mentioned once. Funny thing, that. If they had such a policy
one would think it would be in the handbook. And I'd say the
actual Sanford program is factual, while Normin's experience
and opinions have no bearing.


He hasn't let facts interfere with any of the presumptions or ignorant cant
he has spouted so far.
Maybe that's why he needs to believe I'm a "sock-puppet".

[Attila.Iskander]

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

The Orlando paper had a story about the Sanford neighborhood watch/PD
roles. Not only is NW NOT supposed to carry weapons, they are not
supposed to PATROL. There is an entirely separate group, trained by
PD and driving marked vehicles, who are supposed to patrol under their
program.

And if a member of the community DOES carry a weapon and DOES patrol,
even
in a marked vehicle, what're the police to do? Taunt him a second time?

Very soon in Florida and elsewhere there could be a laws to address that.
Roam around looking for trouble while armed? You'll get arrested. Or
revoke your handgun permit. Or charge you with being an unlicensed
security
guard. Or do any number of things quite more unpleasant than a taunting.
Heller didn't give Americans unfettered carry rights, despite what some
people incredibly choose to believe. It said there could be reasonable
conditions places on gun ownership.


Man,
You're getting more and more stupid and desperate as time goes on.

And NO, Heller did not give rights
JUST LIKE THE CONSTITUTION does not "GIVE RIGHTS"

As to "reasonable conditions", THERE ARE NOT "reasonalbe conditions" allowed
under the letter of the 2nd AMendment
ANd notwithtanding Scalia's opining on it, the 2nd Amendment does NOT say
"..he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,
EXCEPT FOR.."
It just says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
That's a pretty ABSOLUTE dicta when you think about it
Isn't it funny how ACTUALLY READING the law, simplifies it...




As the pendulum swings, don't be surprised to see anti-vigilante laws
being passed in a number of states.

yawn
Won't happen
But it's a typical solution to pacify the idiot, the unthinking and the
ignorati.
More laws that don't do anything more than the existing laws, were they
enforced.
Vigilantism, is already a crime covered under current criminal code
Typically under kidnapping, illegal detention, assault and homicide


Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions. All that has to happen
is one conservative member retires for the calculus to change completely.

At least that's what the wishfull thinking left would love to believe
But the US Supreme Court has a LONG history of NOT going back on previous
decisions (look up Stare Decisis)
And there is also a good chance that judges with questionnable integrity
like Sotomajor and


HE & McD concerned, primarily, handgun ownership bans,
real and defacto. There will need to be a large number of lawsuits in
order
to determine whether any other existing gun regulations might also be
unconstitutional. As far as I know, NYC's Sullivan law still stands.


It still stands because it has NOT been challenged since Heller and
MacDonald
But not surprised you would spout such an ignorant strawman..
Par for the course
Meanwhile various other States have already been challenged and have had
some or all of their restrictions knocked down as unconstitutional

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 5, 10:05*am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Apr 5, 12:27 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"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.

According to Z, after the police told him not to follow, he continued
walking to the end of the street, about a block to get an address to
give to police so they would know the correct spot. *Martin had made
a 90 deg turn onto another sidewalk and he had lost sight of him.
Z turned around and was walking back to his car when M reappeared,
walked up to him and said "You have a problem?" *Z said, "No"
Martin said "Well you do now." and punched him.

AFAIK, no one has a differing account of the engagement.
Nothing in that scenario nor what's in evidence on the calls
suggests that Z was the aggressor.

Just a note
It was the dispatcher, NOT the police.
And the statement was something of the sort:
* * "we don't need that (you follow)".

Stating that the police told him not to follow is both false and misleading- Hide quoted text -


I agree 100%. Thanks for correcting that. In other posts
I've said the same thing that you did above. It was a dispatcher
who asked if Z was following M and when he said yes, the
dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that".

The media has turned that into the police told him to stop
following. I'd say the dispatcher only suggested it.

[Robert Green]

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

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

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

Remember, the key word in that law is "justified." If a court finds
Zimmerman's use of force unjustified, all those protection vanish into thin
air.

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

The lesson of the ACA should be clear here. Just because a law is passed
doesn't mean it's going to pass constitutional muster.

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

You're the one who recently said, IIRC, if they can't get someone on state
charges, they Feds can go after them without fear of double jeopardy. The
Feds can go after Zimmerman for violating Martin's civil rights regardless
of the state law. That was a quite popular tactic in the South where some
states had laws that made it almost impossible for a white person to be
tried for killing a black one.

This incident, as they say in the news business had "grown legs" and there's
no telling where those legs might take it. With big money on both sides of
the issue, I suspect this case will end up in the Supreme Court. I am sure
that more than one or two thugs and gangstas are saying to themselves "All I
have to do is ambush a dude where there are no witnesses, muss myself up to
look like I was attacked and I can kill anyone I want to and walk." Even
die-hard 2nd Amendment fans are going to find such cases hard to choke down.

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message

stuff snipped

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

It's considered common law doctrine but it's not nationwide.

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

That's the part that's going to change, IMHO. People are all for "a man's
home is his castle" laws. That makes sense. You shouldn't have to retreat
from your own home.

Extending that right to "wherever you are" was a stretch and the Martin case
might exert enough force to stretch SYG to the breaking point. It's just
too easy to ambush someone where there are no witnesses, kill them, muss
yourself up a bit and then declare "self-defense" under SYG laws. Like the
ACA law, SYG laws did get passed in many Statehouses across the US but their
life expectancy does not look good in the face of the nationwide discussion.

--
Bobby G.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 5, 1:06*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...

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

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

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

Remember, the key word in that law is "justified." *If a court finds
Zimmerman's use of force unjustified, all those protection vanish into thin
air.

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

The lesson of the ACA should be clear here. *Just because a law is passed
doesn't mean it's going to pass constitutional muster.

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

You're the one who recently said, IIRC, if they can't get someone on state
charges, they Feds can go after them without fear of double jeopardy. *The
Feds can go after Zimmerman for violating Martin's civil rights regardless
of the state law. *That was a quite popular tactic in the South where some
states had laws that made it almost impossible for a white person to be
tried for killing a black one.

This incident, as they say in the news business had "grown legs" and there's
no telling where those legs might take it. *With big money on both sides of
the issue, I suspect this case will end up in the Supreme Court. *I am sure
that more than one or two thugs and gangstas are saying to themselves "All I
have to do is ambush a dude where there are no witnesses, muss myself up to
look like I was attacked and I can kill anyone I want to and walk." *Even
die-hard 2nd Amendment fans are going to find such cases hard to choke down.

--
Bobby G.

Like those thugs needed this to figure that out? Where's the outrage
from the libs, media, Sharpton, Jackson and all the other race baiters
regarding all the black on black murders?

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 5, 1:14*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Bill Kniess" wrote in message

stuff snipped

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

It's considered common law doctrine but it's not nationwide.

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

That's the part that's going to change, IMHO. *People are all for "a man's
home is his castle" laws. That makes sense. *You shouldn't have to retreat
from your own home.

Extending that right to "wherever you are" was a stretch and the Martin case
might exert enough force to stretch SYG to the breaking point. *It's just
too easy to ambush someone where there are no witnesses, kill them, muss
yourself up a bit and then declare "self-defense" under SYG laws. *Like the
ACA law, SYG laws did get passed in many Statehouses across the US but their
life expectancy does not look good in the face of the nationwide discussion.

--
Bobby G.

One more time for the one here who doesn't get it. Per Z and
THE ONLY EYEWITNESS TO THE ATTACK, it was Martin who was
on top. Z was on the ground, getting beaten and yelling for help.
The eyewitness shouted that he was going to call police. While the
eyewitness was in the house doing that, he heard the shot.
The police stated that Z had a broken nose and injuries to the
back of his head. M had no injuries.
Under those conditions, the shooting would be justified in
all 50 states, SYG law or not. Capiche?

Why is it that you can go conjure up all kinds of crap, links to
garbage that is meaningless, endless rants to no point,
yet you prefer to either remain ignorant of the most basic
facts or ignore them?

[HeyBub[_3_]]

wrote:

You do see how regardless of SYG one can always try to rig
a crime scene. For example, no need for a remote location.
Just get them into your house, shoot them and put a knife or
gun in their hand. A lot easier than trying to punch yourself with
a dead person's fist to create a realistic injury. Even your
strawman arguments are pathetic.

You don't have to put the weapon in their hand. You can put it on the coffee
table.

"Yes, officer, I moved it. The goddamn scrot was twitching and I didn't want
him to retrieve it."

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Robert Green wrote:

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

Agreed. That points to a defect in the law. It seems a lot of people
including me feel this case wasn't as clear cut as the man who shot a
carjacker in front of witnesses and CCTV cameras. When there's no
doubt, release him. In the Zimmerman case there was and still is
doubt that may never be resolved. When that's the case, a full-blown
judicial hearing will probably be required in the future. It may be
that both the ACA and SYG laws are going to meet similar fates. How
ironic. (-:

A "defect in the law"? Good lord, man, ALL arrests have to have probable
cause! Cops can't arrest someone because he smells funny.

There IS a full-blown judicial hearing when someone is arrested. A judge
MUST sign a warrant before ANYBODY can be placed in jail. The affidavit for
the arrest must lay out the particulars by which the requesting officer (or
other official) believes probable cause exists.

A cop does not (and can not) "arrest" someone and throw them in the clink
while the paperwork catches up. There IS prompt judicial oversight of every
arrest.

[Oren[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 13:14:00 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

SYG laws did get passed in many Statehouses across the US but their
life expectancy does not look good in the face of the nationwide discussion.

Giggle. A fight in 1871, Nevada, escalated into I'll kill you the
next time I see you.

They meet a short time later. The person threatened, shot the person
who was out to kill him.

Shooter convicted, 15 years for murder.

1872, Appellate court ruled the shooter had a right to stand his
ground.

SYG has been part of Nevada for 140 years.

This past couple of legislative sessions have brought the laws,
rulings, precedence, etc. into a simple law : stand your ground.

Nevada has never been a retreat to the wall state, best I can tell.