RobertNashville

I am part of my Neighborhood Watch although I am not a "watch captain", self-proclaimed or otherwise. We started about a year and a half ago because we noticed a significant increase in burglaries in our neighborhood. We don't have "roving patrols" or anyone even doing that on their own; we simply try to look out for each other and try to notice things that "don't look right". Yeah...you are right, unless someone is actually hurt, police don't seem to be all that interested...the good news is that since we've started watching, the number of burglaries and vandalism has gone done over the past year.

Story Here: LINK

I know and have the targets to prove that I am more accurate with any of my 1911s than I am with any of my Glocks....something I'm working on since I switched to a G31 (or a G20) doe my carry weapon. I'm not worried about whether I'll hit a target or not with any of them but my accuracy is noticeably better with my 1911s As was noted above, I'm sure it's a combination of the trigger pull as well as my less than perfect trigger handling!

This is interesting, even NBC has decided that perhaps, just perhaps, it hasn't been completely fair and accurate in its reporting of this case! NBC to probe its handling of a Trayvon Martin news report

It's certainly a reasonable analysis...unfortunately it's probably going to be a long time before we are afforded an opportunity to see real facts rather than "facts" that come though filtered sources who put their own spin on it.

Amen to that. I think we all understand that a 17 year old is not an "adult". However, calling a 17 year old a "kid"...a person who will be an adult in the eyes of the law in less than 12 months indicates to me that the one using the term "kid" may be pushing an agenda.

Subsequent to the instant background check I've purchased many new guns over the years with no problem. About three years ago I purchased a G30 at Outpost Armory and was approved with no problem...I was thinking about also buying a shotgun but wasn't sure...the next day I went back to get the shotgun and was denied! I went through the appeal process and after it taking much longer than it was supposed to I got my State Senator involved; Outpost received a "conditional approval" that same day my Senator got involved and then the full approval the next day. As it turned out, I was once charged with fraud (a felony charge) but it was case of same name/wrong person...seems that the "charge" is sill in the system but not the fact that the charges were dropped (what a surprise that a government entity would make a mistake like that). Of course, to protect our "privacy"; all the info gathered to show I was eligible to make a gun purchase has to be destroyed meaning that anytime this happens in the future I have to go through the process again. To prevent that, I decided to apply for the VAF through the FBI; sent in my fingerprints and other paperwork but the FBI said my fingerprints weren't detailed enough to match me to their files so I just gave up and if I buy a new weapon at an FFL I just warn them ahead of time that getting approval may take a while. The incorrect charge that caused the problem happened more than 20 years ago - I've never figured out why, after all that time and after many purchases with no problems, that charge became an issue. :shrug:0 BY THE WAY...Given the enormous amount of ID theft going on today (fueled largely by illegal immigrants); just because YOU have not done anything to cause a problem does not mean that someone using your name and info has not been arrested/charged...I would encourage you to get to the bottom of this and make sure that you aren't the victim of IT theft.

I agree with you; unfortunately, how is someone who works for a living supposed to do that? I get precious little vacation each year (not complaining; just making note of it) and quit a few of the days I do get have to be used for just normal "life" things that require me to be off work...I can call and write (and I do) but actually going to committee meetings and/or sitting down with my legislators is something that is not going to be possible except on a very, very limited basis.

If it has I either missed it or don't remember. I suppose I always assumed it was fairly close; if only because that's usually the case.

I have no doubt that Obummer would ban all arms of any kind if he could get away with it; just like every other socialists, despot, and demigod would because arms in the hands of the PEOPLE means power in the hands of the people; exactly where such as Obummer doesn't want power to reside. As to the "source" cited by the OP....if that idiot told me it was daylight outside at noon in his or my location I wouldn't believe it without conformation from at least two unrelated trustworthy sources.

A prosecutor can't charge someone with whatever they feel like; at least not if the judge has a shred of honesty in him/her...there must be at least enough evidence to support the charges or a decent judge will throw the charges out. I'm not saying they might not charge him with multiple crimes but they can't just pull the charges out of thin air. And as a practical matter, a DA isn't going to want to charge someone unless they really think they can convict the person of the crime....doing so not only wastes a lot of taxpayer money but makes the DA look like an idiot. While I wouldn't want to be Zimmerman right now, I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor either because this is more likely than not going to be a no-win situation. If Zimmerman isn't charged at all the race-baiters will likely have riots in the streets...if Zimmerman isn't charged with a serious enough crime (again as defined by the race-baiters); riots and worst of all would be if Zimmerman is charged found not guilty...if that happens we may see violence like this country hasn't seen since the riots and protests of the Vietnam era.

I didn't vote in the poll because "belief" about this is irrelevant. Maybe a trial is in order and maybe it isn't but anyone who claims they truly have enough information to reach an informed opinion is only fooling themselves (if that).

A few posts ago and directed specifically at me, you said ".....I think you want to believe that you can take your gun out and kill anymore that scares you" essentially accusing me of being a murderer want-a-be (or maybe a double-naught spy with a license to kill)...now I'm a "Physco"??? Who was it just complaining about ad hominem attacks. * REF:

Actually, I think you did that some time ago. However, if you really think what I wrote was a "personal attack" then I disagree...I disagree because my comments that you call a personal attack can be supported; I can cite examples from this thread where you have ignored information that doesn't support your opinion about this incident and I can cite examples of where you have attacked those who have disagreed with your position. Since I can cite those examples then my comments become a reasonable statement based on observation. If people have a closed mind about it then such an analysis is worthless. However, If they haven an open mind then I'm not worried about what they would conclude. You probably should remove all mirrors from the room before you write a post like that because I think you are looking into one as you type and confused as to who you are talking about.

Let's put this in prespective, shall we. This "kid" was over 6' tall. This "kid" was less than 12 months away from being an adult in the eyes of the law. This "kid", if he committed a serious crime would almost certainly be tried AS an adult. This "kid" may well have been the aggressor...this "kid' may well have started the physical confrontation...he may well have been acting suspicious (and not just "walking home" as his family want's to tell it) and he may have had many opportunities to avoid any physical confrontation and go home. This "kid" was "unarmed" in terms of having a firearm but that does not mean he couldn't kill or cause serious; life-threatening injury to another man. The "kid" may have reached for or for a moment even had control of Zimmerman's weapon (if you believe at least one of the witnesses). This "kid" may be as pure as the driven snow in all this...he may even be the sweet little boy his family and the opportunists (Sharpton, Jackson, and the rest) make him out to be and Zimmerman may be as guilty as hell and ought to be sent there quickly. However, you absolutely DON'T KNOW who is innocent and who isn't and neither do I. That an ex-cop can be so damn certain of something he doesn't and can't know s**t about is truly remarkable...it's also disturbing in that it makes me wonder just how many cops are out there who think they have it all figured out before they even arrive on a crime scene.

I'm sure DaveTN believes those experts and once DaveTN has spoken no one else should dare reach a different conclusion or even wait to see if additional information comes out. On a more serious, the prosecution (assuming there are charges made against Zimmerman and it goes to trial) has to get the analysis into the courtroom; as I noted above, I don't know how FL courts have ruled on such evidence in other trials (or if it ever has). If the analysis doesn't get allowed into the trial then there can be no effect on the credibility of eye-witnesses testimony that says it was Zimmerman screaming for help because the jury will never hear the analysis that claims otherwise. If it does get in, then the jury is going to have to decide who is truly credible and who isn't (which is as it should be).

Is voice analysis like this admissible in Florida courts? I may be wrong but I don't think getting this kind of evidence in is a slam dunk is it? And if it is admitted; I wonder what an impartial jury will think about an expert's opinion compared to at least some of the eyewitnesses who claim it was Zimmerman screaming for help? I feel sorry for anyone who would have to sit on that jury!

In the post I was replying to you insinuated that the prosecutor should make their decision to indite or not to indite based on what the mob would do (chiding QuiteDan because it wouldn't be "his" neighborhood burned if Zimmerman wasn't prosecuted). I said nothing in my post about you being "afraid". However, given your reply, I must have hit close to the mark. Perhaps; but I've seen no evidence to support that assertion. You may or may not fear a "man" but you do seem to be afraid of considering any information about this incident that contradicts your closed-minded opinion about it. It's been my experience that when someone thinks "it can't happen to me"/"I would never do that"; they usually find out they are wrong. Well, I'm beginning to think that you don't really do much thinking; at least not critical thinking.Moving on, while you may believe your knowledge, not just of what happened in this case but what everyone else involved was thinking, may be perfect (at least in your own, closed mind); you, Mr. ex-cop don't know s**t about me or my motivations. You also obviously don't know what's been said in this thread because I challenge you to cite even one post where I have said Zimmerman shouldn't be prosecuted; I WANT him prosecuted if and ONLY IF the evidence shows he should be; not because of fear of a mob and certainly not because some know-it-alls thinks Zimmerman should be. I've never said it was nor did I say anything of the kind in my post you are replying to. There is that perfect knowledge again...must be nice to be so "special" that way. Sure...right. ....yeah...keep saying that...there might be one or two people on TGO that hasn't already hear you say that even though you say it about every third post you make. Yeah...of course in your mind, doing "what's right" means that the system agrees with your already formed and closed-minded opinion.

No, Mike you aren't but I'm thinking there are quite a few who either don't understand or don't want to (because if they admitted they did it wouldn't fit in with the version of events they want to peddle). Based on some of the posts in this thread I'm thinking there are many who thinks there is something wrong with neighborhood watch or even just watching your own neighborhood at all...I suspect that pretty soon; even making eye contact with someone you don't recognize and wondering what he/she is doing will be considered an assault.

Yeah...right. "All you have said" could be a at least a novelette if not a full-fledged novel and for someone with no ax to grind I sure see a lot of sparks from your sharpening stone.

Now I understand the wellspring from which your extremely one-sided view of this incident comes from; people should be indited by the grand jury and go to trial because of mobs who will burn down a neighborhood if they don't...yeah that's certainly the way things should be handled...we don't need evidence; we've got a mob outside telling us what he must do! ROTFLMAO

How can you have an "opinion" about Zimmerman's guild or innocence when just a few posts ago, you were presenting "the facts" about it??? ROTFLMAO

Yeah, and d-nile isn't just a river in Egypt. We know Martin is dead and that's the only part of that sentence that is an actual "fact". Wow..."fact" hugh? Really? Please cite your references for these facts; especially your wild-sassed assertion that I ever said anything like the above garbage you attributed to me. Yes, Martin had no duty to retreat. beyond that, other than your opinion, there is no basis to assume that Martin is the victim and Zimmerman the aggressor even though that's how you want to present it. Wow...not only do you know everything that happened you even know what Zimmerman was even thinking...amazing.As I said before, It must be a real comfort to be so damn certain of something that you weren't there to observe. It must also have been a real time-saver, you know, when you were a cop...you probably never had to actually go the scene of a crime 'cause you probably just already "knew" all that needed to be known. I haven't spun anything. Where in this thread have I claimed to know what happened? If you want to see someone who claims to know what happened (even though he wasn't there) look in a mirror.The only thing I try to identify with are facts or in the case of this incident, quite a lack of them (your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding). Yep...thanks to two groups that are equally deserving of scorn and dismissal; the racists who want the "White Hispanic" dead regardless of ANY facts, and the closed minded who has convicted Zimmerman based on assumptions and assertions they try to pass off as "fact".

If we beat it enough will it become pink slime and if it does, can we then sell it to a packing plant for injection into horseburgers???

Zimmerman's "victim" may well have been the aggressor. Zimmerman's "victim" may well have been intent on a lot more than an "azz whipping" as you so colorfully put it. Zimmerman may well have been 100% justified to do exactly what he did and is alive today only because he did it. Of course, if one has already made up his mind about who was the victim and that it was only an "azz whipping" then none of the above matters. It must be comforting to be so damn certain of something that you weren't there to observe.