[J Carter]

" wrote in

m:

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 an d Bell went through a world of hurt. *The Sean Bell
shooters even lost the ir jobs because their claims of
self-defense and "apprehended danger" were no t believed. *
Cops are held to a higher standard because of the additional
traini ng. 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 clai m of self defense is not enough to get you off
the hook. *It has to be credi ble. 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
enfo rce the law and to protect civilians. *They are less likely
to be jailed fo r a "bad shoot" than the average citizen involved
in a shooting. *They're o ut patroling the street armed because
that's what we pay them to do. *Z wa s 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 bas ed on your fear. *While reading material about the
SGY laws, a lot of peo ple 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 dangero us 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 l ife 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 ma y 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. *Th ey might have had a previous encounter no one
knows about. *If there's a t rial, 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.

I am not advocating this, but consider:
What if Martin, seing he was being followed, had fear for his life?
He would then have grounds under SYG. (Who was rhe fearer and who was
the fearee, to put it in legal terms:-)) After all, he belonged in
the condo complex by virtue of visiting his father's fiancee. Did
Zimmerman LIVE in the condo complex? I don't know where Zimmerman
lives. I don't recall any reports detailing Z's home address. Does
anyone here know?

[J Carter]

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

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
.

A man, no, but possibly a little old lady who has her eye on the other
items on sale at 50% off. Believe you me, don't ever get in the way of
a woman and a sale item, especially little old ladies. They elbow and
boy do the have sharp elbows.

[J Carter]

" wrote in

m:

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 ma n's home is his castle" laws. That makes sense. *You
shouldn't have to retr eat from your own home.

Extending that right to "wherever you are" was a stretch and the
Martin c ase might exert enough force to stretch SYG to the
breaking point. *It's ju st 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 th
eir life expectancy does not look good in the face of the
nationwide discussi on.

--
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?

ANY assertion at this point is based on hearsay and (on both sides)
personal interpretation of bits and pieces of information presented
in the media. It sounds like you were there, when in fact you are
repeating those bits and pieces yourself.

I have seen reports that anaylsis of the 911 call tape indicates that
the yelling was NOT Zimmerman. The fact that you said M had no
injuries (not even to his hands or knuckles) could be proven to a
jury that he did not strike Z. No matter what is said it is hearsay
until demonstarted to be relevant and given under oath.

There is so much here that is pure speculation and will have no
bearing unless the prosecutor can prove them to be facts.


You can say whatever you want, I don't care what conclusions you
draw. IF the prosecutor is able to piece together a case, a grand
jury has to agree to indict Z. He still must present a case to a
jury, this time with a defense attorney arguing against his case. I
don;t know what the outcome will be, but whatever it is, a lot of
people will be angry and a lot of people will be satisfied.

We can talk and argue all we want, but it won't make Zimerman guilty
until the legal system plays out. And I think most [eople want this
because of all the chaos and confusion. With all the media drawing
conclusions of his guilt, Z need his day in court.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

J Carter wrote:
I am not advocating this, but consider:
What if Martin, seing he was being followed, had fear for his life?
He would then have grounds under SYG. (Who was rhe fearer and who was
the fearee, to put it in legal terms:-)) After all, he belonged in
the condo complex by virtue of visiting his father's fiancee.

You raise an interesting point. In your scenario, BOTH have a right to stand
their ground.

In such a case, we then have to fall back on an even more primitive
principle: Don't bring a fist to a gun fight.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 5, 3:46*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Bill Kniess" wrote in message

stuff snipped

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.

Him? *A sock puppet? *Cite sources? *Use facts? *Not very likely. *His
vitrolic attacks make him the poster boy for why some people shouldn't have
a carry license, period. *Imagine bumping into him accidentally in the
parking lot of a bar when he was armed, maybe a little buzzed, acting as
nasty and belligerent as he does here. *Imagine now if Zimmerman might be
the same kind of person. *Belligerent, insulting and picking fights with
total strangers.

At least some CHL holders appear to need psychological temperament tests.
Many metro police officers are required to take psych tests to weed out the
weirdoes. *Those agencies perform the tests as a result of hiring
ill-tempered, trigger happy cops in the past with bad, expensive outcomes..

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...ariz-police-of...

But the Scottsdale Police Department had to settle with the victim's
family out of court in the officer's fifth shooting after Peters and others
cut the power to a suspect's home and shot him dead when he came out with a
gun to investigate.

Some psych test their cops because of a previous pattern of questionable
shootings that results in a consent decree with the DoJ.

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Departments...epartment/Offi...

It is an agreement between the Department of Justice and the City of
Detroit spelling out specific changes that will be made in departmental
policy in the areas under review. Among the provisions of the agreement
related to the use of force are requirements that the Detroit Police
Department:

Revise its policies governing use of force to specify the types of conduct
by individuals that would justify the use of various levels of force.
Require Detroit Police officers to successfully qualify with their
department-issued firearms every six months.

Select an intermediate force device between chemical spray and firearms for
use by officers, such as a collapsible baton.

If trained cops have to be reined in from time to time, what can we expect
of armed vigilantes?

http://lapdonline.org/search_results...basic_view/928

Following the discovery and disclosure of the Rampart Area Corruption
Incident by the Los Angeles Police Department, the United States Department
of Justice (DOJ) notified the City of Los Angeles that it intended to file a
civil suit alleging that the Department was engaging in a pattern or
practice of excessive force, false arrests and unreasonable searches and
seizures. *Whenever the DOJ has reasonable cause to believe such violations
have occurred, they may obtain a court order to eliminate the pattern or
practice. On that basis, the DOJ has entered into consent decrees with other
law enforcement agencies throughout the United States including the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Police Department; Steubenville, Ohio Police
Department; and the New Jersey State Police. *A consent decree is an
agreement between involved parties submitted in writing to a court. Once
approved by the judge, it becomes legally binding.

So who's going to supervise all the self-appointed, armed vigilantes like
Zimmerman?

--
Bobby G.

Who supervised you when you had your carry permit?
Oh, I forgot. You're a liberal who's superior to the rest of
us stupid folks so no supervision is necessary. Kind of
like Al Gore lecturing us on how we're using too much
energy while living in a 10,000 sq ft house that used
$1,000 a month in energy and flying around on private
jets.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 6, 1:52*am, J Carter wrote:
" wrote
m:





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 an d Bell went through a world of hurt. *The Sean Bell
shooters even lost the ir jobs because their claims of
self-defense and "apprehended danger" were no t believed.
Cops are held to a higher standard because of the additional
traini ng. 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 clai m of self defense is not enough to get you off
the hook. *It has to be credi ble. 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
enfo rce the law and to protect civilians. *They are less likely
to be jailed fo r a "bad shoot" than the average citizen involved
in a shooting. *They're o ut patroling the street armed because
that's what we pay them to do. *Z wa s 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 bas ed on your fear. *While reading material about the
SGY laws, a lot of peo ple 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 dangero us 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 l ife 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 ma y 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. *Th ey might have had a previous encounter no one
knows about. *If there's a t rial, 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.

I am not advocating this, but consider:
What if Martin, seing he was being followed, had fear for his life?
He would then have grounds under SYG. (Who was rhe fearer and who was
the fearee, to put it in legal terms:-)) After all, he belonged in
the condo complex by virtue of visiting his father's fiancee. *Did
Zimmerman LIVE in the condo complex? *I don't know where Zimmerman
lives. *I don't recall any reports detailing Z's home address. *Does
anyone here know?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I suggest before discussing this anymore you get the
most basic facts, which are readily available.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
J Carter wrote:


I am not advocating this, but consider:
What if Martin, seing he was being followed, had fear for his life?
He would then have grounds under SYG. (Who was rhe fearer and who was
the fearee, to put it in legal terms:-))
Interesting. I guess technically if they had shot each other, a case
could be made that both could have felt threatened and SYG ensued.

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

[Kurt Ullman]

In article ,
J Carter wrote:

A man, no, but possibly a little old lady who has her eye on the other
items on sale at 50% off. Believe you me, don't ever get in the way of
a woman and a sale item, especially little old ladies. They elbow and
boy do the have sharp elbows.

Or a LoL with her eye on her favorite slot machine.

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

[Ron]

On Apr 6, 1:52*am, J Carter wrote:
" wrote
m:









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 an d Bell went through a world of hurt. *The Sean Bell
shooters even lost the ir jobs because their claims of
self-defense and "apprehended danger" were no t believed.
Cops are held to a higher standard because of the additional
traini ng. 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 clai m of self defense is not enough to get you off
the hook. *It has to be credi ble. 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
enfo rce the law and to protect civilians. *They are less likely
to be jailed fo r a "bad shoot" than the average citizen involved
in a shooting. *They're o ut patroling the street armed because
that's what we pay them to do. *Z wa s 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 bas ed on your fear. *While reading material about the
SGY laws, a lot of peo ple 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 dangero us 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 l ife 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 ma y 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. *Th ey might have had a previous encounter no one
knows about. *If there's a t rial, 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.

I am not advocating this, but consider:
What if Martin, seing he was being followed, had fear for his life?
He would then have grounds under SYG. (Who was rhe fearer and who was
the fearee, to put it in legal terms:-)) After all, he belonged in
the condo complex by virtue of visiting his father's fiancee. *Did
Zimmerman LIVE in the condo complex? *I don't know where Zimmerman
lives. *I don't recall any reports detailing Z's home address. *Does
anyone here know?

Of course he live there. Here is an aerial map.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7zoa76z

[Oren[_2_]]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 06:55:57 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

J Carter wrote:
I am not advocating this, but consider:
What if Martin, seing he was being followed, had fear for his life?
He would then have grounds under SYG. (Who was rhe fearer and who was
the fearee, to put it in legal terms:-)) After all, he belonged in
the condo complex by virtue of visiting his father's fiancee.

You raise an interesting point. In your scenario, BOTH have a right to stand
their ground.

In such a case, we then have to fall back on an even more primitive
principle: Don't bring a fist to a gun fight.


Ya gotta be 21 (FL? ) to buy a gun. Gifts are different.

Or fist fight when it turns to that.

[J Carter]

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"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


Ohio held a referndum on the Senate Bill 5 issue last year in which
the law was voted down. Wisconsin voters are recalling their
governor in a June referendum. Referendums ARE a normal part of the
process, sort of like a check and balance, but on the citizens' side.

I don't think you can claim this won't be one of the issues. It's a
stramge world, that one of politics in this country. Anything can
happen and it usually does at the most in-opportune times.

But, if you are predicting the future, what do you think about the
Kentucky Derby next month. We are going back for the 47th year for
the mint juleps and a little help at the wagering window will help
defer the cost of the trip. What do you say?

[Robert Green]

"J Carter" wrote in message

stuff snipped

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?

ANY assertion at this point is based on hearsay and (on both sides)
personal interpretation of bits and pieces of information presented
in the media. It sounds like you were there, when in fact you are
repeating those bits and pieces yourself.

Thank you. I normally don't respond to Trader because it seems he can't see
that he's doing *precisely* what he's accusing me of. Apparently he flew to
Florida, personally took witness testimony and evaluated the truth of their
claims via personal investigation as a trained forensic tech and
investigator. Or so he would have us believe.

Of couse he didn't do that - he's obviously relying on others to have
gathered the information. Then he sifted through it looking for information
that matched his preconceptions and bad-mouthed anyone who had a different
viewpoint. Apparently no one can discuss alternate theories of the incident
without his blessing.

I was a police reporter for nearly ten years. I've interviewed so many
eyewitnesses I couldn't pretend to count them. Eyewitness testimony has
recently been in the news because DNA testing has cast serious
*further* doubt on its reliability.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/unde...tification.php

While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or
jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness
identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is
not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them,
nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory
is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully
and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.

Anyone who has actually collected eyewitness testimony in their lives knows
how four people can report four very different versions of events. It's
called the Rashomon effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect

The Rashomon effect is the effect of the subjectivity of perception on
recollection, by which observers of an event are able to produce
substantially different but equally plausible accounts of it. It is named
for Akira Kurosawa's film Rashomon, in which a crime witnessed by four
individuals is described in four mutually contradictory ways.

As for my *direct* experience with 100's, perhaps 1,000's of eyewitnesses is
this:

People are often sure they saw things they *didn't* see.
People are often sure they saw things they *couldn't* see.
People see things they *want* to see.
People don't see things they *don't want* to see.
People lie.
People get confused.
People have a relationship with those they are testifying for that's often
not immediately apparent to police.
People without LENF training are generally very poor observers of a crime in
progress.
People fixate on a certain element and then don't scan the scene unless they
are trained to.

Heybub and I discussed this people who can reliably count the number of
shots fired during a "gunfire event" (could be justifiable homicide).

I have seen reports that anaylsis of the 911 call tape indicates that
the yelling was NOT Zimmerman. The fact that you said M had no
injuries (not even to his hands or knuckles) could be proven to a
jury that he did not strike Z. No matter what is said it is hearsay
until demonstarted to be relevant and given under oath.

Absolutely. Anyone here who's ever been quoted or mentioned in the news can
assure you the reporter got their name wrong or their title wrong or some
material fact of the story wrong. I hate to be so candid about my former
profession, but they are consistently inaccurate about small details. Why
would I expect the Florida newspapers to suddenly become unimpeachable?
Ever notice how people who badmouth the media suddenly embrace it when it
seems to support their POV?

There is so much here that is pure speculation and will have no
bearing unless the prosecutor can prove them to be facts.

Agreed. I remember reading stories about OJ's trial. Matted hair found in
washing machine, blood in the drain, knife found in garbage can, etc. All
eventually turned out to be untrue.

I said I would stand by the conclusions of the special prosecutor. I'll just
feel a lot more comfortable knowing that a legal authority greater, more
thorough and probably far more competent than the original investigatory
team has examined this tragedy. That seems a reasonable response to the
concerns of people who are just now learning about what "SYG ("Stand Your
Ground/Shoot Your Gun/Silence Your Gainsayers") means. As they say in the
news biz, the tragedy now has a face.

You can say whatever you want, I don't care what conclusions you
draw. IF the prosecutor is able to piece together a case, a grand
jury has to agree to indict Z. He still must present a case to a
jury, this time with a defense attorney arguing against his case. I
don;t know what the outcome will be, but whatever it is, a lot of
people will be angry and a lot of people will be satisfied.

If I know the justice system, they will strike a compromise. Neither side
will be able to claim total victory. It's the American way. (-:

We can talk and argue all we want, but it won't make Zimerman guilty
until the legal system plays out. And I think most [eople want this
because of all the chaos and confusion. With all the media drawing
conclusions of his guilt, Z need his day in court.

More importantly, whatever happens to Z, people seem anxious to review the
laws that allowed - even encouraged - this tragedy to happen. There was a
reason why, as civilization proceeded through the west, that town after town
passed gun laws. The fight at the OK corral was over the Earps demanding
the Clantons surrender their weapons before entering Tombstone.

I'm all for seeing how things work out. In the end, I hope that CHL holders
are cross-checked with criminal records often enough to detect potential
troublemakers or bad trends.

Whatever happens, the subject of armed neighborhood watchmen will be hotly
discussed and potentially regulated. The Supreme Court in Heller said that
some regulations are permissible. A CHL holder cannot bring his gun into
most courtrooms or statehouses although a law enforcement officer can. That
tells you that judges and lawmakers still don't quite trust CHL holders with
*their* lives, just with yours and mine. (-:

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message

stuff snipped

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

The vitriolic respondents to the NYT articles seem to forget it was posted
in response to HeyBub's claim that he could find NO instances of CHL holders
committing gun crimes. Oops. The NYT found plenty of instances after
carefully researching the issue instead of simply beating their chests.
Funny how their pro-SYG people's positions change when hit squarely in the
head with facts from a detailed study. Now they're claiming "more peaceful"
instead of "no instances." They still refuse to acknowledge that because
most states don't publish a list of CHL holders, there's very little way to
determine how much crime they commit and therefore whether there's any truth
to their wild claims. And it seems they want to KEEP it that way. One can
only guess why.

The shifting stance of the respondents and their tendency to mistake insults
for scoring actual points makes true debate impossible. It's good to see
their antics are pretty transparent, at least to people like you.

Personally, I wouldn't bother responding to most of them. It only provides
them a platform for more insults and rude behavior. Just the kind of people
average citizens DON'T want running around armed. Their bad behavior makes
the case for reviewing SYG and CHL laws better than I ever could. Remember
their combative nature when a referendum on SYG comes to a state near you!

--
Bobby G.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 8, 5:02*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"J Carter" wrote in message

stuff snipped



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?

ANY assertion at this point is based on hearsay and (on both sides)
personal interpretation of bits and pieces of information presented
in the media. *It sounds like you were there, when in fact you are
repeating those bits and pieces yourself.

Thank you. I normally don't respond to Trader because it seems he can't see
that he's doing *precisely* what he's accusing me of. *Apparently he flew to
Florida, personally took witness testimony and evaluated the truth of their
claims via personal investigation as a trained forensic tech and
investigator. *Or so he would have us believe.

Of couse he didn't do that - he's obviously relying on others to have
gathered the information. *Then he sifted through it looking for information
that matched his preconceptions and bad-mouthed anyone who had a different
viewpoint. *Apparently no one can discuss alternate theories of the incident
without his blessing.

I was a police reporter for nearly ten years. *I've interviewed so many
eyewitnesses I couldn't pretend to count them. *Eyewitness testimony has
recently been in the news because DNA testing has cast serious
*further* doubt on its reliability.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/unde...isidentificati...

While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or
jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness
identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is
not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them,
nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory
is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully
and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.


See, there you go again. Another long rant telling us all what
we already know. You were lecturing us on how bad the SYG
law is, how it's going to be changed, etc. You haven't flown
to Florida and interviewed witnesses either. I merely pointed out
that the only two persons who saw what happened when Z and
Martin were fighting were Z and one eyewitness. Both are saying
that Z was on the ground, Martin was on top pummeling Z,
Z was the one yelling for help. The eyewitness shouted that
he was going to call 911, which did not stop the attack.
While calling 911 inside the house, he heard the shot.
If you have a source to another witness that says otherwise,
please post it for us. The physical evidence we know of
consists of grass stains on Z's back, a broken nose, a cut
to Z's head, which is consistent with the above.

So, why the lengthy rants about SYG? You have a witness
that says Z was able to retreat? If he was unable to retreat,
was being attacked, pleading for help, in reasonable danger
for his life, then with or without SYG, he was justified in using
deadly force. How long would YOU take a beating, not
knowing if the next punch would knock you unconscious,
so that the perp could continue until they kill you?




Anyone who has actually collected eyewitness testimony in their lives knows
how four people can report four very different versions of events. *It's
called the Rashomon effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect

rest snipped

See, there you go again. Instead of telling us what we already
know, give us a link to a witness that contradicts the two
people who were actually there. Otherwise you're just
generating a strawman to argue your SYG views.



I have seen reports that anaylsis of the 911 call tape indicates that
the yelling was NOT Zimmerman. *The fact that you said M had no
injuries (not even to his hands or knuckles) could be proven to a
jury that he did not strike Z. *No matter what is said it is hearsay
until demonstarted to be relevant and given under oath.

Absolutely. *Anyone here who's ever been quoted or mentioned in the news can
assure you the reporter got their name wrong or their title wrong or some
material fact of the story wrong. *I hate to be so candid about my former
profession, but they are consistently inaccurate about small details. *Why
would I expect the Florida newspapers to suddenly become unimpeachable?
Ever notice how people who badmouth the media suddenly embrace it when it
seems to support their POV?






There is so much here that is pure speculation and will have no
bearing unless the prosecutor can prove them to be facts.

Agreed. *I remember reading stories about OJ's trial. *Matted hair found in
washing machine, blood in the drain, knife found in garbage can, etc. *All
eventually turned out to be untrue.

I said I would stand by the conclusions of the special prosecutor. I'll just
feel a lot more comfortable knowing that a legal authority greater, more
thorough and probably far more competent than the original investigatory
team has examined this tragedy. *That seems a reasonable response to the
concerns of people who are just now learning about what "SYG ("Stand Your
Ground/Shoot Your Gun/Silence Your Gainsayers") means. *As they say in the
news biz, the tragedy now has a face.

See, there you go again.





You can say whatever you want, I don't care what conclusions you
draw. *IF the prosecutor is able to piece together a case, a grand
jury has to agree to indict Z. *He still must present a case to a
jury, this time with a defense attorney arguing against his case. *I
don;t know what the outcome will be, but whatever it is, a lot of
people will be angry and a lot of people will be satisfied.

If I know the justice system, they will strike a compromise. *Neither side
will be able to claim total victory. *It's the American way. *(-:

We can talk and argue all we want, but it won't make Zimerman guilty
until the legal system plays out. *And I think most [eople want this
because of all the chaos and confusion. *With all the media drawing
conclusions of his guilt, Z need his day in court.

More importantly, whatever happens to Z, people seem anxious to review the
laws that allowed - even encouraged - this tragedy to happen. *There was a
reason why, as civilization proceeded through the west, that town after town
passed gun laws. *The fight at the OK corral was over the Earps demanding
the Clantons surrender their weapons before entering Tombstone.

And there you go, conjuring up that SYG encouraged this to
happen. The most basic facts that we have strongly suggest that
it had NOTHING to do with it.




I'm all for seeing how things work out. *In the end, I hope that CHL holders
are cross-checked with criminal records often enough to detect potential
troublemakers or bad trends.

Yeah, let's devote more resources to examining the legal
gun holders instead of putting them on the gang bangers,
career criminals and the like that are the real source of death
and destruction.



Whatever happens, the subject of armed neighborhood watchmen will be hotly
discussed and potentially regulated.

Spoken like a true lib. Anything, absolutely anything that goes
wrong in the world and it's the justification for more regulation.
You libs turn to govt as some unfallible, perfect entity that by
passing one more regulation, can make the world right. Yet,
time after time, govt has proven how totally irresponsible,
inefficient and incompetent it is.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Robert Green wrote:

The vitriolic respondents to the NYT articles seem to forget it was
posted in response to HeyBub's claim that he could find NO instances
of CHL holders committing gun crimes. Oops. The NYT found plenty of
instances after carefully researching the issue instead of simply
beating their chests. Funny how their pro-SYG people's positions
change when hit squarely in the head with facts from a detailed
study. Now they're claiming "more peaceful" instead of "no
instances." They still refuse to acknowledge that because most
states don't publish a list of CHL holders, there's very little way
to determine how much crime they commit and therefore whether there's
any truth to their wild claims. And it seems they want to KEEP it
that way. One can only guess why.


You may very well be correct.

I don't read the New York Times.

Doctor's orders. Must keep my blood pressure down.

But as to "how much crime they [CHL holders] commit," my state DOES keep
track.

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for 101 of
these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done by a
CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...Report2009.pdf

[Robert Green]

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:B72dnYwsWfxKE-
"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.

I don't know what the status of VST and polygraphs are in Florida, but in
general, they're still not welcome in many (most?) courtrooms. There's a
law that forbids their use in many situations. The underlying premise of
the two machines is very similar - attempting to link "stress" to
"deception." Stress has a LOT of different causes. Sociopaths, psychopaths
and schizophrenics often show no stress at all when lying because like some
posters in AHR, they live in their own reality only slightly related to
ours. Truth to them is not what it is to most sane people.

AFAIK the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of admissibility of
VSTs and polygraphs (aka CQT's - controlled question tests), so the
rulesprobably vary widely depending on the jurisdiction but I haven't looked
lately - the landscape may have changed. OK - better look. We have so many
ConLaw experts in AHR I'd better not work from memory. (-:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../757/case.html

The Supreme Court has written (not in direct rulings, but as "asides" such
as this) that polygraph examinations raise the issue of Fifth Amendment
protection even though mandatory blood extraction from drunk drivers does
not!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmerber_v._California

Some tests seemingly directed to obtain "physical evidence," for example,
lie detector tests measuring changes in body function during interrogation,
may actually be directed to eliciting responses which are essentially
testimonial. To compel a person to submit to testing in which an effort will
be made to determine his guilt or innocence on the basis of physiological
responses, whether willed or not, is to evoke the spirit and history of the
Fifth Amendment. Such situations call to mind the principle that the
protection of the privilege "is as broad as the mischief against which it
seeks to guard." Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 142 U. S. 562.

It could be that the cases haven't reached the Supremes because VST/Poly
advocates pretty much know they're going to lose based on hints like those
given in Schmerber.

FWIW, I took three polygraphs using some well-known techniques to beat them
while writing an article about the rise in their use over 30 (eek!) years
ago. Many of the techniques known back then can be found he

http://listverse.com/2007/11/08/top-...-lie-detector/

The most useful one is practicing biofeedback with a GSR meter and blood
pressure monitor. The second most useful is learning to lie when answering
ALL questions, including control and "spacer" questions. A simple example.

What is your name?

I would answer "Robert Green" while thinking to myself "That's a lie because
it doesn't include my middle or confirmation name." Taking a beta blocker
like Inderal will really screw with the test. As you know, Propranolol
blocks adrenaline and prevents it from increasing heart rate, blood
pressure, and oxygen use while reducing autonomic nervous system arousal
symptoms like hyperventilation, sweating, pounding heartbeat, etc. In other
words, it fundamentally alters nearly all indicators polygraphers use to
determine "deception." It's pretty easy, with some mock testing, to learn
how to answer every question with a lie (it's REALLY easy for lawyers,
apparently). g

All my sample tests were labeled "inconclusive" which is polygraphic jargon
for "we can't tell." Aldrich Ames beat the CIA polygraphers with ease.
It's junk science, really. I've watched lawyers from big 10 law firms
Skadden, Arps and McDermott, Will *demolish* polygraphers on the stand. CQT
"experts" typically have less training than your average licensed
hairdresser. They often have a hard time refuting the many caveats to their
results and get pretty tripped up by good lawyers because they know, at
heart, they're charlatans. (-:

Perversely, the "test" is inherently biased against the truthful, because
the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence
feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail.
Conversely, liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their
physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for
example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering
one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue. Truthful
persons can also use these techniques to protect themselves against the risk
of a false positive outcome. Although polygraphers frequently claim they can
detect such countermeasures, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any
ability to do so, and peer-reviewed research suggests that they can't.
Source:

http://antipolygraph.org/ also says:

Spies Ignatz Theodor Griebl, Karel Frantisek Koecher, Jiri Pasovsky, Larry
Wu-tai Chin, Aldrich Hazen Ames, Ana Belen Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo
all passed the polygraph.

The Green River Killer passed a poly and killed again.

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml says:

"Hence, for the CQT to be valid, two assumptions must hold. The first
requires innocent individuals to be more responsive to control than relevant
questions. The second requires guilty persons to respond more intensely to
relevant than control questions. The plausibility of both of these
assumptions can be easily challenged."

I concur thoroughly. The polygraph has some use in scaring confessions out
of idiots, but when even a serial killer who's no Brainiac like TGRK can
beat it, you really have to wonder.

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).

Thief! That was going to be my next comment. If they want you, they've got
you. With mayonnaise and pickles. The question is, do they want Zimmerman
that much? I don't know. I think TPTB most of all want to demonstrate that
they are being thorough.

One of the reasons that gun laws evolved was specifically to prevent fist
fights in bars from becoming lethal events, a common occurrence with hard
drinking cowboys in the 1800's. Once that starts happening again, and the
NYT study indicates that it might be, then public opinion will once again
shift away from SYG and CHL's for nearly everyone who can fog a mirror (to
use HeyBub's phrase).

--
Bobby G.

[Han]

"HeyBub" wrote in
news
Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for
101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could
find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done
by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis.../chl/Convictio
nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who are
properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to guns?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[[email protected]]

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news
Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for
101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could
find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done
by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis.../chl/Convictio
nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who are
properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

[[email protected][_2_]]

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

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 again, reaching conclusions not supported by any
of the available evidence. Show us evidence that Zimmerman
engaged in "confrontational behaviour while armed on a regular
basis." Show us evidence that he engaged in confrontational
behavior in the Martin case.

[Han]

" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthlink. com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for
101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could
find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs
zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ds/chl/Convict
io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who are
properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. The rate of convictions among CHL is
much lower than in the general population, so either we should just hand
out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the test and (if passed)
hand out the licenses. Any rightie should be able to follow that.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[[email protected]]

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthlink .com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for
101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could
find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs
zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ds/chl/Convict
io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who are
properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. The rate of convictions among CHL is
much lower than in the general population, so either we should just hand
out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the test and (if passed)
hand out the licenses. Any rightie should be able to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. Licensed gun owners are a
self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. As usual, your lefty mind
has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 8, 1:57*pm, "
wrote:
On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:





" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthlink .com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for
101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could
find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs
zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ds/chl/Convict
io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. *Would you think this might mean that only people who are
properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. *The rate of convictions among CHL is
much lower than in the general population, so either we should just hand
out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the test and (if passed)
hand out the licenses. *Any rightie should be able to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. *Licensed gun owners are a
self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. *As usual, your lefty mind
has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can't tell if Han is serious or just funning us on this one....
I hope he's not serious.

[Han]

" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthlin k.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible
for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I
could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs
zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ords/chl/Convi
ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. The rate of convictions among CHL
is much lower than in the general population, so either we should just
hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the test and (if
passed) hand out the licenses. Any rightie should be able to follow
that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. Licensed gun owners
are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. As usual,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. If you make sure people follow a course and pass an exam
before handing out guns, much of this world could be a better place. You
have just proven to me that you basically agree with me - that licensing
guns is better than just handing them out. Obviously you now will also
agree with me that gun sellers should keep records of whom they are
selling weapons to.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[Han]

" wrote in
:

On Apr 8, 1:57*pm, "
wrote:
On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:





" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthlink .com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible
for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I
could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105
vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...cords/chl/Conv
ict
io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. *Would you think this might mean that only people who
a
re
properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. *The rate of convictions among
CHL
is
much lower than in the general population, so either we should just
hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the test and
(if passed) hand out the licenses. *Any rightie should be able to
follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. *Licensed gun owners
are
a
self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. *As usual, your
lef
ty mind
has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can't tell if Han is serious or just funning us on this one....
I hope he's not serious.

+1 trader.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 8, 3:04*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote :





On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthlin k.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible
for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I
could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs
zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ords/chl/Convi
ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. *Would you think this might mean that only people who
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. *The rate of convictions among CHL
is much lower than in the general population, so either we should just
hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the test and (if
passed) hand out the licenses. *Any rightie should be able to follow
that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. *Licensed gun owners
are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. *As usual,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. *If you make sure people follow a course and pass an exam
before handing out guns, much of this world could be a better place. *You
have just proven to me that you basically agree with me *- that licensing
guns is better than just handing them out. *Obviously you now will also
agree with me that gun sellers should keep records of whom they are
selling weapons to.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Federal law already requires gun dealers to keep records of gun sales.

[Han]

" wrote in
:

On Apr 8, 3:04*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote
innews:19k3o7ls
:





On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthlin k.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible
for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I
could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one
was done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was
105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ecords/chl/Con
vi
ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. *Would you think this might mean that only people
who are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to
guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. *The rate of convictions among
CH
L
is much lower than in the general population, so either we should
just hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the test
and (if passed) hand out the licenses. *Any rightie should be able
to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. *Licensed gun owners
are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. *As
usual, your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most
illogical.

No, I AM right. *If you make sure people follow a course and pass an
ex
am
before handing out guns, much of this world could be a better place.
*Y
ou
have just proven to me that you basically agree with me *- that
licensi
ng
guns is better than just handing them out. *Obviously you now will
also agree with me that gun sellers should keep records of whom they
are selling weapons to.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Federal law already requires gun dealers to keep records of gun sales.

Not all sellers are dealers.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[[email protected]]

On 08 Apr 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthli nk.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible
for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I
could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs
zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ords/chl/Convi
ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. The rate of convictions among CHL
is much lower than in the general population, so either we should just
hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the test and (if
passed) hand out the licenses. Any rightie should be able to follow
that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. Licensed gun owners
are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. As usual,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. If you make sure people follow a course and pass an exam
before handing out guns, much of this world could be a better place. You
have just proven to me that you basically agree with me - that licensing
guns is better than just handing them out. Obviously you now will also
agree with me that gun sellers should keep records of whom they are
selling weapons to.

Absolute nonsense. Statistics don't support your silly position.

[Han]

" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthl ink.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible
for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I
could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105
vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ecords/chl/Con
vi ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to
guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. The rate of convictions among
CHL is much lower than in the general population, so either we
should just hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the
test and (if passed) hand out the licenses. Any rightie should be
able to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. Licensed gun owners
are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. As usual,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. If you make sure people follow a course and pass an
exam before handing out guns, much of this world could be a better
place. You have just proven to me that you basically agree with me -
that licensing guns is better than just handing them out. Obviously
you now will also agree with me that gun sellers should keep records
of whom they are selling weapons to.

Absolute nonsense. Statistics don't support your silly position.

Heybub posted some data. Followed to their logical conclusion, those
data support keeping guns away from the hoi poloi, and only licensing
them to people who have proven to be able to handle them properly. It is
really quite simple. Only the interpretation of the NRA of the reading
of the second amendment is standing in the way. And guess, which
companies profit?

Quoting the relevant porion of his post:
But as to "how much crime they [CHL holders] commit," my state DOES keep
track.

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for 101
of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done by
a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...hl/ConvictionR
atesReport2009.pdf

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[[email protected]]

On 08 Apr 2012 21:35:27 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
om:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earth link.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible
for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I
could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105
vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ecords/chl/Con
vi ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to
guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. The rate of convictions among
CHL is much lower than in the general population, so either we
should just hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the
test and (if passed) hand out the licenses. Any rightie should be
able to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. Licensed gun owners
are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. As usual,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. If you make sure people follow a course and pass an
exam before handing out guns, much of this world could be a better
place. You have just proven to me that you basically agree with me -
that licensing guns is better than just handing them out. Obviously
you now will also agree with me that gun sellers should keep records
of whom they are selling weapons to.

Absolute nonsense. Statistics don't support your silly position.

Heybub posted some data. Followed to their logical conclusion, those
data support keeping guns away from the hoi poloi, and only licensing
them to people who have proven to be able to handle them properly. It is
really quite simple. Only the interpretation of the NRA of the reading
of the second amendment is standing in the way. And guess, which
companies profit?

Again, only a mental midget leftist could come to that back-assward conclusion
from the data given.

Quoting the relevant porion of his post:
But as to "how much crime they [CHL holders] commit," my state DOES keep
track.

Data. Not conclusion.

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for 101
of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could find.

Data. Not conclusion.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done by
a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...hl/ConvictionR
atesReport2009.pdf

It's your moronic leftist conclusion, given the data, that is just too silly
for words (yet you wrote them anyway).

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 8, 5:35*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote :





On 08 Apr 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthl ink.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible
for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I
could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105
vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ecords/chl/Con
vi ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. *Would you think this might mean that only people who
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to
guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. *The rate of convictions among
CHL is much lower than in the general population, so either we
should just hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the
test and (if passed) hand out the licenses. *Any rightie should be
able to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. *Licensed gun owners
are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. *As usual,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. *If you make sure people follow a course and pass an
exam before handing out guns, much of this world could be a better
place. *You have just proven to me that you basically agree with me *-
that licensing guns is better than just handing them out. *Obviously
you now will also agree with me that gun sellers should keep records
of whom they are selling weapons to.

Absolute nonsense. *Statistics don't support your silly position.

Heybub posted some data. *Followed to their logical conclusion, those
data support keeping guns away from the hoi poloi, and only licensing
them to people who have proven to be able to handle them properly. *It is
really quite simple. *Only the interpretation of the NRA of the reading
of the second amendment is standing in the way.

No, what's standing in the way is that the criminals, for the
most part, are NOT obtaining guns right now via legal channels.
They already obtain them illegally. So, I'm as bewildered as
KRW as to what point you're trying to make here and I don't
see your "logical conclusion".


*And guess, which
companies profit?

How about we outlaw guns totally? We've done that with
cocaine. Yet those that want it can readily obtain it, criminals
have it, and who's profiting from that?




Quoting the relevant porion of his post:
But as to "how much crime they [CHL holders] commit," my state DOES keep
track.

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for 101
of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done by
a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ds/chl/Convict...
atesReport2009.pdf

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Han]

" wrote in
:

On Apr 8, 5:35*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote
innews:iiv3o7l3
:





On 08 Apr 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthl ink.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were
responsible for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the
latest year I could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one
was done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation
was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis..._records/chl/C
on
vi ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. *Would you think this might mean that only people
wh
o
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to
guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this
one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. *The rate of convictions
among CHL is much lower than in the general population, so either
we should just hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone
take the test and (if passed) hand out the licenses. *Any rightie
should be able to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. *Licensed gun
owners are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding.
*As usual
,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. *If you make sure people follow a course and pass
an exam before handing out guns, much of this world could be a
better place. *You have just proven to me that you basically agree
with me
*-
that licensing guns is better than just handing them out.
*Obviously you now will also agree with me that gun sellers should
keep records of whom they are selling weapons to.

Absolute nonsense. *Statistics don't support your silly position.

Heybub posted some data. *Followed to their logical conclusion, those
data support keeping guns away from the hoi poloi, and only licensing
them to people who have proven to be able to handle them properly.
*It
is
really quite simple. *Only the interpretation of the NRA of the
reading of the second amendment is standing in the way.

No, what's standing in the way is that the criminals, for the
most part, are NOT obtaining guns right now via legal channels.
They already obtain them illegally. So, I'm as bewildered as
KRW as to what point you're trying to make here and I don't
see your "logical conclusion".


*And guess, which
companies profit?

How about we outlaw guns totally? We've done that with
cocaine. Yet those that want it can readily obtain it, criminals
have it, and who's profiting from that?




Quoting the relevant porion of his post:
But as to "how much crime they [CHL holders] commit," my state DOES
keep track.

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for
101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could
find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done
by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ds/chl/Convict.
.. atesReport2009.pdf

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like with cocaine, if youdon't do something with the suppliers, you're
not going to be able to do anything. Unlike cocaine, we're not dealing
with physical addiction (I hope), so there shouldn't be any "withdrawal",
except for NRA types, perhaps. But you are declaring yourselves as
incorrigible victims of an ultraright indoctrination that guns are good,
people are good, and all the violence is just a few criminals.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 16:20:58 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 8, 5:35*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote :





On 08 Apr 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthl ink.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible
for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I
could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105
vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ecords/chl/Con
vi ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. *Would you think this might mean that only people who
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to
guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. *The rate of convictions among
CHL is much lower than in the general population, so either we
should just hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the
test and (if passed) hand out the licenses. *Any rightie should be
able to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. *Licensed gun owners
are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. *As usual,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. *If you make sure people follow a course and pass an
exam before handing out guns, much of this world could be a better
place. *You have just proven to me that you basically agree with me *-
that licensing guns is better than just handing them out. *Obviously
you now will also agree with me that gun sellers should keep records
of whom they are selling weapons to.

Absolute nonsense. *Statistics don't support your silly position.

Heybub posted some data. *Followed to their logical conclusion, those
data support keeping guns away from the hoi poloi, and only licensing
them to people who have proven to be able to handle them properly. *It is
really quite simple. *Only the interpretation of the NRA of the reading
of the second amendment is standing in the way.

No, what's standing in the way is that the criminals, for the
most part, are NOT obtaining guns right now via legal channels.
They already obtain them illegally. So, I'm as bewildered as
KRW as to what point you're trying to make here and I don't
see your "logical conclusion".


*And guess, which
companies profit?

How about we outlaw guns totally? We've done that with
cocaine. Yet those that want it can readily obtain it, criminals
have it, and who's profiting from that?

Bad metaphor. Cocaine isn't used to save lives (other than under physician's
supervision, ...for the pedants out there).

[Attila.Iskander]

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
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.


He's really getting desperate

[Attila.Iskander]

"J Carter" wrote in message
.. .

I am not advocating this, but consider:
What if Martin, seing he was being followed, had fear for his life?

Why would he have "fear for his life" ??
Possibly explainable if he was trading dope and his supplier was after
him


He would then have grounds under SYG.

Nope
He would not



I'll stop here
Since the first part of the fantasy is false, so is the rest.

[Attila.Iskander]

"J Carter" wrote in message
.. .
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"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


Ohio held a referndum on the Senate Bill 5 issue last year in which
the law was voted down. Wisconsin voters are recalling their
governor in a June referendum. Referendums ARE a normal part of the
process, sort of like a check and balance, but on the citizens' side.


Why don't you give us a count of how many referendums in how many states are
held annually
If as you claim it's "normal" that you should have that happening in most
States on a regular basis
If NOT, then it is AT BEST "Normal" in only a few states.

And by the way, a recall vote is not usually considered a "referendum"

I don't think you can claim this won't be one of the issues. It's a
stramge world, that one of politics in this country. Anything can
happen and it usually does at the most in-opportune times.


Actually, I have a statistically high confidence that my call is the belter
one
1) Look at which directions changes in gun laws have been going in the
courts and the legislatures ACROSS the country
2) In the case of Florida, look at it's history over the last 30 years,
starting with it's "Shall issue" carry laws
3) Then look at the distribution of Democrats to Republicans in the 2
houses of the State Legislature


But, if you are predicting the future, what do you think about the
Kentucky Derby next month. We are going back for the 47th year for
the mint juleps and a little help at the wagering window will help
defer the cost of the trip. What do you say?

Thanks for this new demonstration of ignorance on your part.
IF, and that's a big IF, I am predicting the future, it's by analysis of the
data available and not by pulling out a roll of the dice.

I have been watching the whole story of erosion of gun-control in the US
over the last 15 years.
I have NOT been watching recent horse-racing.
But I will mention, that one summer, long ago in my bachelor years, while
working mostly nights, I spend every day of the week at the racing track.
After about 2 week of assiduous study, I never came back with less than I
went, and I always made enough to pay for admission and a good meal.
By the end of the summer, I was making about as much at the track as I was
at my summer job working in a Data Center, collecting shift and weekend
bonus, on-call bonus, and overtime bonus. Bonuses which when added up,
would increase my base pay by a minimum of 2x..

[Attila.Iskander]

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

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.


At least that's what you appear to desire greatly
It also may be what the Democrats are hoping will be a diversion from their
****-poor performance in the White House and both houses of Congress
Don't think it will happen though

[Attila.Iskander]

wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 5:02 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"J Carter" wrote in message

stuff snipped



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?

ANY assertion at this point is based on hearsay and (on both sides)
personal interpretation of bits and pieces of information presented
in the media. It sounds like you were there, when in fact you are
repeating those bits and pieces yourself.

Thank you. I normally don't respond to Trader because it seems he can't
see
that he's doing *precisely* what he's accusing me of. Apparently he flew
to
Florida, personally took witness testimony and evaluated the truth of
their
claims via personal investigation as a trained forensic tech and
investigator. Or so he would have us believe.

Of couse he didn't do that - he's obviously relying on others to have
gathered the information. Then he sifted through it looking for
information
that matched his preconceptions and bad-mouthed anyone who had a
different
viewpoint. Apparently no one can discuss alternate theories of the
incident
without his blessing.

I was a police reporter for nearly ten years. I've interviewed so many
eyewitnesses I couldn't pretend to count them. Eyewitness testimony has
recently been in the news because DNA testing has cast serious
*further* doubt on its reliability.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/unde...isidentificati...

While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or
jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that
eyewitness
identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is
not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see
them,
nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness
memory
is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved
carefully
and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.


See, there you go again. Another long rant telling us all what
we already know. You were lecturing us on how bad the SYG
law is, how it's going to be changed, etc. You haven't flown
to Florida and interviewed witnesses either. I merely pointed out
that the only two persons who saw what happened when Z and
Martin were fighting were Z and one eyewitness. Both are saying
that Z was on the ground, Martin was on top pummeling Z,
Z was the one yelling for help. The eyewitness shouted that
he was going to call 911, which did not stop the attack.
While calling 911 inside the house, he heard the shot.
If you have a source to another witness that says otherwise,
please post it for us. The physical evidence we know of
consists of grass stains on Z's back, a broken nose, a cut
to Z's head, which is consistent with the above.

So, why the lengthy rants about SYG? You have a witness
that says Z was able to retreat? If he was unable to retreat,
was being attacked, pleading for help, in reasonable danger
for his life, then with or without SYG, he was justified in using
deadly force. How long would YOU take a beating, not
knowing if the next punch would knock you unconscious,
so that the perp could continue until they kill you?




Anyone who has actually collected eyewitness testimony in their lives
knows
how four people can report four very different versions of events. It's
called the Rashomon effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect

rest snipped

See, there you go again. Instead of telling us what we already
know, give us a link to a witness that contradicts the two
people who were actually there. Otherwise you're just
generating a strawman to argue your SYG views.



I have seen reports that anaylsis of the 911 call tape indicates that
the yelling was NOT Zimmerman. The fact that you said M had no
injuries (not even to his hands or knuckles) could be proven to a
jury that he did not strike Z. No matter what is said it is hearsay
until demonstarted to be relevant and given under oath.

Absolutely. Anyone here who's ever been quoted or mentioned in the news
can
assure you the reporter got their name wrong or their title wrong or some
material fact of the story wrong. I hate to be so candid about my former
profession, but they are consistently inaccurate about small details.
Why
would I expect the Florida newspapers to suddenly become unimpeachable?
Ever notice how people who badmouth the media suddenly embrace it when it
seems to support their POV?






There is so much here that is pure speculation and will have no
bearing unless the prosecutor can prove them to be facts.

Agreed. I remember reading stories about OJ's trial. Matted hair found
in
washing machine, blood in the drain, knife found in garbage can, etc.
All
eventually turned out to be untrue.

I said I would stand by the conclusions of the special prosecutor. I'll
just
feel a lot more comfortable knowing that a legal authority greater, more
thorough and probably far more competent than the original investigatory
team has examined this tragedy. That seems a reasonable response to the
concerns of people who are just now learning about what "SYG ("Stand Your
Ground/Shoot Your Gun/Silence Your Gainsayers") means. As they say in
the
news biz, the tragedy now has a face.

See, there you go again.





You can say whatever you want, I don't care what conclusions you
draw. IF the prosecutor is able to piece together a case, a grand
jury has to agree to indict Z. He still must present a case to a
jury, this time with a defense attorney arguing against his case. I
don;t know what the outcome will be, but whatever it is, a lot of
people will be angry and a lot of people will be satisfied.

If I know the justice system, they will strike a compromise. Neither
side
will be able to claim total victory. It's the American way. (-:

We can talk and argue all we want, but it won't make Zimerman guilty
until the legal system plays out. And I think most [eople want this
because of all the chaos and confusion. With all the media drawing
conclusions of his guilt, Z need his day in court.

More importantly, whatever happens to Z, people seem anxious to review
the
laws that allowed - even encouraged - this tragedy to happen. There was
a
reason why, as civilization proceeded through the west, that town after
town
passed gun laws. The fight at the OK corral was over the Earps demanding
the Clantons surrender their weapons before entering Tombstone.

And there you go, conjuring up that SYG encouraged this to
happen. The most basic facts that we have strongly suggest that
it had NOTHING to do with it.




I'm all for seeing how things work out. In the end, I hope that CHL
holders
are cross-checked with criminal records often enough to detect potential
troublemakers or bad trends.

Yeah, let's devote more resources to examining the legal
gun holders instead of putting them on the gang bangers,
career criminals and the like that are the real source of death
and destruction.



Whatever happens, the subject of armed neighborhood watchmen will be
hotly
discussed and potentially regulated.

Spoken like a true lib. Anything, absolutely anything that goes
wrong in the world and it's the justification for more regulation.
You libs turn to govt as some unfallible, perfect entity that by
passing one more regulation, can make the world right. Yet,
time after time, govt has proven how totally irresponsible,
inefficient and incompetent it is.



You're wasting your time
He REALLY, REALLY wants to believe that this will be a seminal case to
overturn SYG
It's not, because, even the people who authored the SYG law stated that this
situation is not even close to SYG.
You're wasting your time on this one
He's about as open-minded as a paranoid claim in a field of starfish.

[Attila.Iskander]

"gonjah" gonjah.net wrote in message
net...
On 4/3/2012 8:07 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"Bill Kniess" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonse_and_Gaston

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Oren wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 06:55:57 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

J Carter wrote:
I am not advocating this, but consider:
What if Martin, seing he was being followed, had fear for his life?
He would then have grounds under SYG. (Who was rhe fearer and who
was the fearee, to put it in legal terms:-)) After all, he belonged
in the condo complex by virtue of visiting his father's fiancee.

You raise an interesting point. In your scenario, BOTH have a right
to stand their ground.

In such a case, we then have to fall back on an even more primitive
principle: Don't bring a fist to a gun fight.


Ya gotta be 21 (FL? ) to buy a gun. Gifts are different.


Um, most gang-bangers don't buy their guns. At least not from a licensed
dealer. Heck, some even RENT their guns (I didn't make that up).

[Attila.Iskander]

wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 3:46 pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Bill Kniess" wrote in message

stuff snipped

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.

Him? A sock puppet? Cite sources? Use facts? Not very likely. His
vitrolic attacks make him the poster boy for why some people shouldn't
have
a carry license, period. Imagine bumping into him accidentally in the
parking lot of a bar when he was armed, maybe a little buzzed, acting as
nasty and belligerent as he does here. Imagine now if Zimmerman might be
the same kind of person. Belligerent, insulting and picking fights with
total strangers.

At least some CHL holders appear to need psychological temperament tests.
Many metro police officers are required to take psych tests to weed out
the
weirdoes. Those agencies perform the tests as a result of hiring
ill-tempered, trigger happy cops in the past with bad, expensive
outcomes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...ariz-police-of...

But the Scottsdale Police Department had to settle with the victim's
family out of court in the officer's fifth shooting after Peters and
others
cut the power to a suspect's home and shot him dead when he came out with
a
gun to investigate.

Some psych test their cops because of a previous pattern of questionable
shootings that results in a consent decree with the DoJ.

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Departments...epartment/Offi...

It is an agreement between the Department of Justice and the City of
Detroit spelling out specific changes that will be made in departmental
policy in the areas under review. Among the provisions of the agreement
related to the use of force are requirements that the Detroit Police
Department:

Revise its policies governing use of force to specify the types of
conduct
by individuals that would justify the use of various levels of force.
Require Detroit Police officers to successfully qualify with their
department-issued firearms every six months.

Select an intermediate force device between chemical spray and firearms
for
use by officers, such as a collapsible baton.

If trained cops have to be reined in from time to time, what can we
expect
of armed vigilantes?

http://lapdonline.org/search_results...basic_view/928

Following the discovery and disclosure of the Rampart Area Corruption
Incident by the Los Angeles Police Department, the United States
Department
of Justice (DOJ) notified the City of Los Angeles that it intended to
file a
civil suit alleging that the Department was engaging in a pattern or
practice of excessive force, false arrests and unreasonable searches and
seizures. Whenever the DOJ has reasonable cause to believe such
violations
have occurred, they may obtain a court order to eliminate the pattern or
practice. On that basis, the DOJ has entered into consent decrees with
other
law enforcement agencies throughout the United States including the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Police Department; Steubenville, Ohio Police
Department; and the New Jersey State Police. A consent decree is an
agreement between involved parties submitted in writing to a court. Once
approved by the judge, it becomes legally binding.

So who's going to supervise all the self-appointed, armed vigilantes like
Zimmerman?

--
Bobby G.

Who supervised you when you had your carry permit?
Oh, I forgot. You're a liberal who's superior to the rest of
us stupid folks so no supervision is necessary. Kind of
like Al Gore lecturing us on how we're using too much
energy while living in a 10,000 sq ft house that used
$1,000 a month in energy and flying around on private
jets.

LOL
Excellent read.
He really REALLY is hoping that this case will someone become a seminal
SYG challenge
Too bad for him that most people realize that it's NOT an SYG case.


The is also the same idiot who claims I'm a sock-puppet.
With no basis to support his claim
Apparently the poor thing feels that copying the header from on of my posts
is proof of "sock-puppetness"
But he's not bright enough to support his claim and identify WHOSE
sock-puppet I allegedly am
It's a cheap and lazy out for an idiot who can't respond intelligently and
needs to dismiss someone who has shown him up.