RobertNashville

The very first day her donation site became active I donated to her...it was not a tiny amount but certainly not a major contribution either...I was absolutely STUNNED when she called me personally that evening to thank me. I've donated to a lot of candidates over the years and I've made bigger $$$ contributions to those candidates (local, state and national) than I made to Courtney; not a single campaign staff person, let alone the candidate, has ever called me to thank me. If she can maintain that kind of humble and thankful attitude she will serve Tennessee very well indeed. I'll be making another contribution soon too!

I don't thin it's illegal but from now on, as well as looking for threats before exiting my truck I'm also going to be looking out for anyone wearing a hoodie and carrying Skittles 'cause if anything bad happens I'll apparently be guilty of something.

Wait a moment...in your prior post you said... If he is found not guilty then it seems to me that is has to follow that the shooting was justified and if so, he has no civil liability under Florida law.Are you suggesting that he can be found not guilty of committing a crime but the shooting still be legally "not justified"??? If so, I see no way that's possible under the law. However, if, as you said in your prior post, it happens all the time I would think you wouldn't have any problems citing a few examples where that has happened. Do you have any examples; more specifically, any examples that has happened after FL law was changed to in 2005 to its current language? If you have any then I'd sure like to read the details of how it worked out that way.

Really??? Would you care to sight some actual examples from FL court cases where it was found that the shooting was justified and was sued civilly and the plaintiffs won the civil suite? I earlier cited the FL statute - Florida law says that individuals who use deadly force in self-defense are Immune from both criminal and civil liability so o I'd really like to see your examples that show that isn't true. As a practical matter, Zimmerman has no money so Travon's family can sue all they want because ultimately it won't make a damn bit of difference anyway.

I think some are missing the point. Technology isn’t the issue; how it is used and who uses it IS the issue – whether it’s a fixed wing aircraft, a drone, 007 in a jetpack or Starfleet security personnel in anti-gravity boots is immaterial. If law enforcement has just cause to search me or my property (home, vehicle, land, whatever) then they should go to a judge, convince him/her that they have a valid reason and get a warrant that specifies what they are allowed to search for, where they are allowed to search and how they are allowed to search for it…if they get that then bring it on - they should be able to use whatever technology they have available so long as it falls within the warrant. If they don’t have that just cause/don't have a warrant then they have no damn business “searching†anything with any technology. The mention of “in plain sight†is curious. It generally means that LEO can, without a warrant, seize and use as evidence any item seen in plain view during a legal search or you are in custody when the officer has probable cause to believe that the item is evidence of a crime; we don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding unconcealed items in those cases. I’m not so sure that an item that is “evidence of a crime†seen from a drone (or any other device) with the ability to “see†much more than the human eye would be capable of and flying indiscriminately over private property would come under the “plain sight ruleâ€.

There have been two or three threads like this one recently (such as the red light camera one) and based on some comments from folks I suspect that if the government decided to use technology to look right through the walls of your home and see you doing your business on the throne that would be okay with those folks too...after all, you wouldn't be doing anything illegal. We are supposed to be a republic where liberty and freedom are two of the principles that define us as a nation but what's the point of using technology to protect our republic if, in the process, we lose our freedom and liberty? Maybe the next step is a miniature "black box" inserted in our bodies to record everything we do and say? It would probably be more effective in stopping crime and save money when compared to drones - when the black box detects us breaking a law, it can automatically summon the police to come and ticket and/or arrest us...we could do away with all criminal courts and just go straight to punishment since there wouldn't be any question that we were guilty of the offense.

I think they make sights to attach to the side of your Glock for people who shoot "gansta" style done they?

The point is; I don't believe the court has that authority (nor should it) to confiscate Zimmerman's money and I'm a little surprised that anyone would suggest that; especially on a forum where people tend to be pretty supportive of things like "due process" and "private property". There is this concept called "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and last I heard, we are long way from Zimmerman being found guilty of anything. Unless or until he is found guilty, his money is his damn money, not anyone else's. Perhaps just as important, money donated to Zimmerman's defense should be used for Zimmerman's defense (or refunded to those who donated the money if it isn't used for his defense); not used to enrich Travon's family. And as far as the civil suit you allude to, for a civil suite to be successful in Florida (just like in Tennessee) Zimmerman would have to be found guilty of this ridiculous murder charge (shooting ruled not justified) for a suit to be successful. I think that paying the PowerBall is probably better odds than Zimmerman being found guilty of murder.

Pretty much how I see things too...you put in white cake cake mix don't expect to get an apple pie out of the oven...you vote for assholes and socialists then expect to live in a socialist state.

Absolutely right...we all know those "mouse guns" are worthless. Whether alcohol had a significant impact on this or not I think the phrase "stupid is as stupid does" applies here.

I'm curious about the mechanics of granting or not granting bail. I suppose it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but I always thought, apparently incorrectly, that setting bail was a decision based principally on the risk of the accused fleeing the jurisdiction with consideration also given to the seriousness of the charges. I thought that the "ability" of the person to come with the bond would be a minor consideration if it was considered at all. Even if a judge is going to consider the financial status of the accused in setting the bail amount it just doesn't seem correct to me to include donations to the accused's defense fund as part of his assets...those funds are needed to pay for his defense; not his bail. I understand that part of the problem is that the Zimmermans were allegedly "hiding" the assets...I also know that perjury is perjury and if his wife actually lied she can be charged. At the same time, it certainly wasn't a secret that there were getting donations through the website set up for that purpose (and its existence/purpose was widely reported) - were I in Zimmerman's shoes and facing all this and I was asked about my financial assets, I doubt I'd consider donations coming in or hoped for as part of my "assets" either. I guess I'd be wrong. Of course, this whole thing is, in my opinion, a witch hunt perpetrated by a bunch of gutless politicians to placate a group of racists which makes all this collateral damage all the more distasteful.

Yeah...I don't get you point though.

I just love it when armchair quarterbacks tell us who is and who isn't guilty. We really don't need to read another news story or even watch a trial (if the actually is one) - we've been told all we need to know!

She may have lied, difficult to say really...if she truly lied then the charge is appropriate (the fact that sitting Presidents don't do jail time for perjury notwithstanding). It could also be she never considered "donations" coming in through a website as something she/he would have considered "their money" in terms of assets for purposes of getting a bond approved. I certainly don't consider the Zimmerman's as people of means just because people are donating toe their legal expenses - whether the charges are justified or not, the legal expenses are going to be huge which is what the donations are for; it's not like they are pocketing the donations and taking vacations with the money. Anyway; since the time this "state prosecutor" got involved this mess has smelled like"Duke Lacrosse Team 2" and it still smells that way now. I fully expect that when all the dust has settled, the only people in jail will be those who went after the Zimmerman.

It's pretty damn easy to judge someone and what they did when you weren't there. Most of what has been passed around on internet forums about this incident has about as much substance (and is about as useful) as fairy dust. I'm also wonder why some, as early as the third post, feel the need to step all over another person's thread and bring up a subject that has ZERO to do with the OP's thread - if people want to dump on James Yeager maybe they ought to start their own thread.

I have had nothing but good experiences at Tactical Response training and despite those who don't trust James Yeager, many people in the industry do trust him and recommend him and his training...while there are many who want to paint him negatively, the official report I read of the incident notes that while mistakes were made, it does not blame Yeager for the incident and said that given the circumstances and the volume of enemy fire, the team responded as well as could be expected. People can have any opinion they want but once I put the rumors aside about this incident and concentrated on what was left, I came to the conclusion that it was simply a situation where good people did the best they could in a very bad situation...it doesn't make anyone a saint or a coward; just human.

True, no guarantees and also true, there are no guarantees about matching expected performance but if it's factory ammunition then there is no question about how the rounds are supposed to be loaded/performance of the round. I believe the issue is that with factory ammo, law enforcement/prosecution has no basis to claim that the shooter purposely used ammunition with a hotter load than "normal" or show intent to do more than stop the threat. It may seem a trivial matter to firearm enthusiasts but trivial matters can make the difference between being found guilty or even charged with a crime at all.

I've been preparing for a while now and as far as essentials go I think I can whether a storm for a good while; although if it's a very long term situation; probably not. I too think "something is coming" but even if nothing societal there is always the occasional natural disaster to worry about! I do think we have some tough financial times ahead. Debt is nothing more than a symptom of the disease of overspending and almost all governments (U.S, EU, etc) is drowning in it. No one, not a country or an individual, can continue to have more going out than coming in without repercussions. How severe those repercussions will be depends on how long you keep pushing out the inevitable. For an individual, the repercussions start happening when all the debt sources dry up; it often results in bankruptcy (usually on a reoccurring thing until/unless the person learns their lesson). A country can push things off longer than a person because a country can print money. However, the repercussions are going to be magnified as well. I truly don't know if we can still step back from the financial cliff we are standing on or not...I think we can but I'm not sure. I do know that stepping back is going to be painful...I also know that going over the cliff is going to be many times more painful. I think Greece is a lost cause...it's over the cliff and only surviving because the EU is holding out a hand for it to hold onto but as has been mentioned, the EU in general is essentially ready to go over the cliff itself...Spain and then probably France and/or the UK will be next followed by a complete dissolution of the EU. If the EU falls, it's going to hurt the U.S. for sure. It's also going to hurt every country that makes its living off our market (China, etc) because if we don't have money we can't buy their stuff and then their revenue dries up. I think we can survive it but we would be looking at a world-wide depression unlike anything ever seen before and one that is going to take some true leadership to get us out of.

Gee...for some reason I haven't seen that picture in any of the mainstream news outlets or as a blow-up behind Brother Jessie or Al. Wonder why that is???

Any safe is better than no safe but whether this is a good buy for you depends a lot on what you want it to do for you as well as the value of what you are trying to protect (and I'm not just talking about $$ value). If you are looking for really good fire and theft protection, this can get you by but not where you would want to stop. One rule of thumb with safes, too big is probably not big enough. Another is, always buy the best one you can afford at the time.

It could be I'm behind the times but every time I've herd him asked the question he's never said he absolutely would not run third-party and/or a with a write-in campaign. I've read claims that he's said he wouldn't but I've never actually heard him say it himself when asked and the stories that claim he has said it has never actually referenced when/when he has said so...maybe he has said that and I just missed it. That's my understanding as well. I wasn't suggesting that he isn't a patriot but I"m not sure patriotism is at the root of his candidacy. I think his motives will be more clear based on what happens after the convention (and he, presumably, isn't the Republican nominee). At that point, if he doesn't throw his full support behind Romney and/or he goes third-party I'd say we'll have some evidence that his motives have more to do with promoting Ron Paul than it does doing what's best for the country.Just my armchair opinion of course.

While I have some problems with some of RP's positions, my major hangup has always been with his supporters who seem to take their adoration of RP to an almost religious level - who seem willing to let the country go straight to hell if they don't get their way. The honorable thing for RP to have done and/or to do now would be to state flat out that he will not run as a third-party or a write-in candidate and urge his supporters to vote for whoever the R nominee is. He should have done that from the start of the campaign, that he still hasn't gives me cause to think that his motives for wanting the Presidency is more about RP's ego than an act of service/sacrifice to the country.

Well...many of the RP faithful don't take rejection (one might say reality) well so suspect the most likely reaction will be absolute silence If not that then we'll likely see a bunch of YouTube videos of obscure commentators (or crazy people) "explaining" how RP is still going to get the nomination at the convention and will ultimately win the Presidency.

I need to look up some more synonyms for "idiot"

Well the law (which I quoted right out of the FL code) says otherwise....I guess you can chose to believe or not.