TMF

I'm looking and don't see anyone dispensing advice except for you. My post was very clear, making a choice to defend your life is not something that is methodically planned and accepted. It is a decision that is made in the moment that your life is threatened. If one is considering the law on whether or not they should use deadly force to defend themselves then they must not be in danger, because I would assume that laws and lawsuits are secondary to the preservation of ones life. Am I wrong... I mean, are you more concerned with going to jail then dying? I know I'm not.

I saw a video a few years ago of a pawn shop being robbed by three gun men. There were two clerks at the counter. One clerk pulled a gun and began firing. The robbers turned to flee. One of the robbers fired several shots as he was running out the door, hitting the other clerk in the neck. The robber wasn't even facing the direction he was shooting. As far as I'm concerned, if they are still armed they are still a threat. If police disagree then fine. I'll let a jury decide. If twelve people can all agree that I wasn't in fear for my life then I would be surprised. I'd be curious to see the burden of proof the state would have to get 12 people to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I wasn't in fear for my life... real curious. The police have video evidence and they aren't so much as charging him. I wouldn't be surprised if they give him some kind of honorary reward. Either way, I'm not going to lose sleep over what one person's opinion of the law is versus another. It really doesn't matter. If I'm in fear for my life then I'm in fear for my life. It is really that simple. If my decision to shoot or not is contigent on whether I think I might be charged or sued afterwards, then I must not be in fear for my life, because if I was, the concern for what happens after the incident would be moot... because I'd likely be dead.

Wrong. The 82nd was deployed to New Orleans for humanitarian/rescue ops. In fact, air assets such as UH-60 helicopters that were rescuing people from rooftops had to suspend operations for nearly a day because looters were shooting at them. I'd be all about them shooting back, but they had not weapons on board! Kinda funny for a bunch of jack booted thugs bent on taking your guns away. I agree, they should have left those people on their roofs to starve, right? If you can find me a picture of any federal troops carrying a weapon with ammo please let me know. From what I understand, although the 82nd deployed with rifles, they weren't issued any ammo. So I don't know where you get this idea that US Troops were "beaten up" by one of the most prestigious units in United States Military history. In fact, if you could please do me a favor and find the quote, any quote, from an officer in the 82nd telling his men they should "kill anyone in the entire city/area of NO" as you put it. Your assertions are insulting to everyone that has put on a uniform. There is absolutely no facts supporting any troops engaging in the behavior you described. Your only proof that such things happened is the absence of proof. The same logic used to explain UFOs and aliens... "well of course we don't know.... it was a COVERUP!!!" Here are some actual facts about what your federal troops were doing in New Orleans. Here is a picture of one of those jack booted thugs bent on taking your freedom... oh gee, he doesn't even have ammo! I can't imagine why someone who hates his fellow countrymen so much that he would violate the Constitution he swore to uphold would then go to Iraq and give his life along with 6 members of his platoon in Samarra. I know, I know... everyone in a uniform is a mindless robot that just blindly follows orders from some evil man sitting in a room somewhere, twirling is comically long mustache. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stanleyneworleans.jpeg Here is another. http://www.katrinadestruction.com/images/v/hurricane/CSkdA-2005-09-09-090952-katrina-photos.html

Yeah, and that is a part of a larger problem that is unrelated to Zimmerman, however, could be exploited in the event that Zimmerman is found not guilty. The thought that it could happen in Central Florida though I think is more far fetched than most any other population center in the US, even though this is where it took place. I still hold out the opinion that any widespread civil unrest will come of this. As much as so many on the left want to believe that this is the '60s, it ain't. The social injustice that was going on in the decades that preceded the civil rights movement is so far gone that there are few alive that can remember what it was like. I'm sure the black Americans that are still around who experienced those injustices look at some examples of modern day cries of inequality and think "you have no effing idea what you're talking about." And you know, I think deep down even the extreme lefties know that too. I think that the reason the Jesse Jacksons of the world flock to stuff like this is because they want to live the glory and romance of the history making events of the civil rights movement. Kinda like life imitating art or something. Deep down this isn't going to be something that sets people off into total destruction, at least not widespread. If a place like LA devolves into chaos for a week or two I don't think that is relevant to the rest of us.

Yeah, that's what the article said. $1M minimum is what's important to me. I think presupposing that they will generate $100M in profits is a little ambitious unless they aren't considering overhead, so at least he threw the $1M in there as a minimum. But hey, if it catches on and they make big bucks on it then that's just more money generated. Better spent on the WWP, but at least it's something.

Well, I think for the sake of the scenario it should be assumed that it is immediately obvious that an innocent is being assaulted.

The counter example would be post-Hurricane Andrew S. Florida in the area of Homestead. Having experienced Andrew (luckily living on the W. coast of Florida at the time) I would say that it was one of the most powerful storms of last century to make landfall and certainly one of the largest in size. Homestead was destroyed in every sense of the word. Some folks decided not to leave after the destruction, still living in half destroyed homes or (in the case of family friends) borrowing a camper and parking it in their drive way. Even with the presence of National Guard, there wasn't nearly enough security to deal with looters (many of whom came from outside the destruction area). There were untold numbers of looters and criminals shot down there during the months that followed. I recall seeing on the news a message spray painted on the side of a home which read "Looters welcome, I need more target practice." As far as I know there were no residents that were ever charged with any crime related to the killing of looters. Law Enforcement and Nat'l Guard didn't care. In fact, talking to Guard guys who were down there they were scared patrolling on foot at night for fear of being mistaken for looters.

Clearly I misunderstood your post then. You know what your words mean better than anyone else. My apologies for jumping to conclusions.

If you remove the original white paint from the front sight what color is your dot during daytime use? Is it just as easy to acquire during the day? I have two pistols with tritium sights on them, and one has a visibile white ring around the tritium part which makes it nice and visible during daylight.

The point being made is that you claim that I can have my opinion after posting a comment suggesting that folks outside of a jury have no business giving their opinion. It has been the theme on these threads. I'm pretty open-minded and can see how one would arrive at the conclusion that Zimmerman acted in self defense. I can also understand how many would suspend judgement since the facts are so muddy. What I can't understand is folks saying "I think he was justified in shooting Martin" and then saying that if someone disagrees it is wrong for them to have an opinion. That is illogical.

No, you can't be held liable for not intervening, but you can be held liable for intervening. Once again, let your conscience be your guide.

True, it presupposes level heads on all sides, but I'm basing that off of the majority of LEO interactions. I was using that scenario more to demostrate that if caught carrying at an establishment that is not clearly posted there is a 99.999% chance that you will not have any legal problems for it. I'm basing that assumption on the fact that it hasn't happened yet and this law has been in place for a while. Where I see someone getting busted is if the HCP holder decides to get pissy about it, which is also unlikely but possible. Using the story of the HCP holder in Las Vegas who was shot by police - he had been told that weapons were not allowed and then he argued with the assistant manager and didn't leave. If that happened in TN that would be trespassing and would likely get charged with carrying past a sign (if it was posted as well). Either way, I'm not sweating it and no one else should. If I don't see the sign when I go in then it wasn't posted clearly enough.

The only way that courts and legistators start to acknowledge stuff like this is when it ends really, really badly. Sometimes my house is vacant for a month or two at a time. If I came back to squatters with some BS paperwork there would be no going to a judge to get them out. They would be given the option to walk out or be carried out, but I wouldn't be leaving until one of those two options were satisfied.

I think the moral dilemma boils down to what you can live with. The majority of the population would be fine just dialing 911 and watching a helpless person die. They would justify it in their minds as either "there was nothing I could do" or "it's the job of law enforcement to handle that." I'm not standing in judgement of that rationale... I don't expect that every old lady or fearful person should intervene in wrongdoings such as a superhero, but for folks like myself it is different. If I see something like that and I know in my heart that I am capable of stopping the death of an innocent I'm going to do something, whether I have a weapon or not. If I choose not to intervene then I know I will live the rest of my life with the guilt of an innocent death. It's one thing if it's just a confrontation between two people, especially if it's a domestic type situation. I remember being in Walmart once and seeing an altercation between a couple with the man calling her all sorts of awful names and her giving it back to him. Perhaps in chivilrous days one would step in and explain that one should not talk to a lady that way, but I wasn't convinced that she was a lady. What's more, getting involved in someone else's problems/disputes is a sure way to have all that anger directed at you. That is a 911 scenario and one you shouldn't get involved in. If the scenario is that a helpless person will likely die unless you immediately intervene it is really up to what your conscious can handle that decides what you do. I intentionally misspelled some words there and used improper contractions... play along and see if you can find them!

1st place right there.

He stopped making 2 million an episode a few years ago when he was fired. I highly doubt that he is making anywhere near that now. Charlie Sheen is worth quite a bit, but he doesn't have the amount of money that he used to. Just the upkeep of his standard of living breaks the bank I figure. $1M might not have been a lot of money to him a few years ago, but I think it's a lot of money to him now. Also, from what I understand this is the largest individual donation to the USO, which means no rich celeb has ever donated this much before and we've been engaged in combats ops on a large scale for over a decade. Something to keep in mind.

Perhaps in other areas such as LA where there is little control over the third world areas I guess. I mean, with the proper amount of hype and a motivational riot leadership I you can get a good riot going in those places any day of the week. In Florida where this is all going on I don't see anything happening. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the short answer is that the environment does not support it. Even the black community in Sanford isn't going to support a bunch of outsiders coming in and stirring up trouble, because in the end it will be their neighborhoods that bear the destruction. Beyond the other side of this issue in regards to the race baiting and such and media slant, there is an equally disturbing undertone I've noticed which seems to invite the idea of such a breakdown as an opportunity for a cultural purging; an armed reaction to it. If folks knew what something like that actually looked like, smelled like.... sounded like, they wouldn't be wishing for it. They'd be praying that such an awful day would never come.

I know that it is somehow fundamentally wrong for me to even suggest this, but what if he's found guilty because the evidence supports his guilt?

So if I see a post on TGO that supposes that Eric Holder is guilty of a crime (although he hasn't even been charged) I am to believe that is not okay? I ask because I see that all the time and don't see anyone jumping in to claim that there should be a presumption of innocence on Holder. Likewise, I don't understand invoking a presumption of innocence argument on the internet. It's just an opinion. Presumption of innocence is great in the courtroom, but people have opinions on stuff whether you like it or not, and generally they are split down lines of various prejudices. While I agree that the media has raked him across the coals, I still believe that we can have an impartial jury and I still beileve that he will get a fair trial. I get upset all the time when I see someone I think is guilty walk free, but I also recognize that it is better to have a guilty person go free due to lack of evidence than see a guilty person be convicted due to prejudices. The latter scenario undermines our entire judicial system. I don't think I am unique for feeling that way. I don't think they'll be hard pressed to find jurors who feel that way either. Don't forget, there is a dominant percentage of Floridians in Seminole County that don't like the circus that media has turned this into and are even less impressed with how the media has portrayed their community.

I can't say with a great degree of certainty that if I had Sheen's wealth I would not be in a mansion somewhere snorting coke off of a couple of large breasted, 20 year old porn stars. Luckily I was blessed with a small bank account and have a much fuller life than that. However, if I was blessed with tiger blood I'd still support the troops, and I'd mean it. I think he does.

You mean the rest of America doesn't have Korean drinky bars on every block? And here I thought I could be "numba one G.I." everywhere!

You got proper tools to assemble it or are you getting help on that?

Looks like there is blame (based on the officer's story) going in both directions. The K9 officer said that the door opened and all he saw was the muzzle of the weapon. I take that to mean that the weapon was being pointed at them when they shot him. I don't know if it went down like that, but if it did the deceased certainly plays a part in his demise. Unannounced at 2 am though? I don't know if opening the door at all would be my first reaction. If I did I would be armed, but not pointing a weapon. As abnormal as it is to have your door pounded on at 2 am, it doesn't automatically justify pointing a firearm at the knocker. If the Deputy didn't announce himself as law enforcement then that should be a procedural issue that needs to be addressed. I read in one of the articles the suggestion that the officers may have not announced themselves as to have the element of surprise on the suspect. Well, I don't think that is a good procedure if you don't know if the door you're knocking on is the correct door. In addition to that, they had just been in a high speed chase with the suspect, so it's safe to assume he would have been expecting law enforcement. I dunno, seems like there is a lot going on here that could suggest either side to varying degrees of responsibility. The "x" factor here is that the deceased is an alleged drug dealer. This assumption was made based on the scales in the apartment in addition to drugs found. While that doesn't mean the officers have the right to shoot him or enter his apartment without a warrant, it opens up the possibility that the deceased may have been the aggressor since he only had one way out of that room (the front door). If anything this should serve as a reason for LEAs to revisit policies on announcing themselves to avoid such things. We've seen the stories of no-knock warrants on wrong houses, and most of us would respond to that as a home invasion, not knowing that it's LEOs. The onus is on LEAs to be responsible for the outcomes of mistakes made on those operations, not the citizen. I should have no reason to assume an intruder is anything less than a threat to the lives of me and my family and I should have the right to defend them using deadly force.

If he donated to an "anti-bullying" or an "anti-stand your ground" campaign I might think it was the brainchild of his publicist. Celebrities don't really get much exposure or credit for USO tours. You'd be amazed at how many go over there to visit troops that you never hear about in the media. I think most celebs know this and the ones that participate are the ones that actually care, which makes me think this was a genuine gesture.