RobertNashville

No one should ever go to Walmart...about two of every three stories I read about someone getting robbed and/or shot happen in a Walmart parking lot...they seem to be almost as dangerous as an unloaded firearm. ;)

Constitutional questions aside, we don't really need to just have opinions about the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints; there are plenty of scientific studies available to read that show they are.   Effective enough??? Well, I guess that will have to remain opinion...one thing I'm sure of is that no one has a right to put innocent people lives' at risk just because they decide to drive impaired.

Facts like Trayvon; the junked up thug-want-a-be who was trying to get a gun and had already been found with a burglary tool and had been kicked out of school (I guess because he was such a nice young man) was spotted by Zimmerman as suspicious; and likely reasonably so because Martin may well have been scoping out his next burglary house (unless you think he was looking into peoples windows for some other reason)?   Or maybe it's that Trayvon illegally started a violent confrontation (which under most circumstances should have put HIM in jail for a long time) that necessitated Zimmerman making a justified SD shoot?  Are those the facts you mean?   In other threads, you've hinted of having more than a layman's knowledge of the law; as such, how can you believe that Zimmerman is not guilty or murder but is guilty of manslaughter?  Perhaps I'm wrong but as I understand the law in FL and in most states; if Zimmerman's use of deadly force was justified under FL self-defense statute then he cannot be guilty of anything (except perhaps bad judgment)...if he was justified under self-defense then he was justified...it's no longer a criminal act.   Even if I'm wrong about the above - even if he could be not guilty of murder but legally guilty of manslaughter; saying you are opposed to one but for the other still makes little sense considering the virtually non-existent difference in sentences between the two charges.  Being in favor of one but not the other makes about as much logical sense as being opposed to the death sentence if the lethal injection is by one set of chemical mixture but just fine with it if the chemical cocktail has one less ingredient as if the end result is any different!   I honestly don't know why this particular issue/trial engenders such passion in so many, myself or anyone else.   Maybe for me it's because of guilt or innocence, I absolutely believe that this trial is unfair on its face because I believe it's wholly the result of race-baiting assholes and spineless politicians...maybe because I just don't like seeing someone who was only trying to help his community be railroaded for doing what, at the end of the day, I believe was the right thing....maybe I'm just being selfish and glad that Zimmerman pulled the trigger and eliminated a thug that someday may have threatened me.  Whatever it is, I truly can't understand some of the completely illogical statements and positions (some positions held even in the face of trial evidence that contradicts those positions) held by some here.   I'm sorry if I've offended you Dave, I really am...but I just don't understand, with regards to this case, how or why you believe what you believe or some of the statements you've made....I guess at the end of the day it's not important that I do. :-\

I'm not sure the problem rests with the political parties as much as it rests with the vacuum of morality that is now approaching the Status Quo of American society today...any flavor of democracy, including a representative one, can only truly survive so long as a significant majority of the people are willing to do the right thing...who would rather live with freedom and independence than depend on government...who will do the right thing even when no one is watching.   I'm not talking about "religion" although morals do need some sort of basis for their moral compass by whatever name you want to call it.   What I'm getting at here is that I don't really believe any more that "who" we elect or what party (or non-party) they identify with is going to make much difference....I think we may well be on a path that we can no longer stray from.

There are people who have been on this forum that long with a very modest post count; I'm not sure either time here or post count really enter into it or at least, aren't a very good measure one way or the other.   The "troll" accusation gets thrown about far too frequently and usually inappropriately

Trying to read much into what a jury is thinking is usually a fool's errand....the more serious charge in the case I served on took quite a long time to deliberate even though the evidence clearly showed that the accused was guilty as hell...unless they come back in a very short period of time it's really just one big unknown.   If they come back with "guilty" then Zimmerman will just be another person who appropriately used deadly force to defend his life but the system failed him anyway...there have been plenty of people send to jail in exactly the same way.

I think this app is much ado about nothing; or perhaps to say it another way; it's fighting technology that, even without this app, has been around for quite a while now and that Jeni is not just out of the bottle but has long since fled the jurisdiction.   If someone wants to geotag you for whatever reason or not reason I see of now way to stop them. Moreover, I seen nothing even remotely illegal/unconstitutional/morally reprehensible in them doing so.   The only way to fight this that makes sense to me is that, when it comes to firearms or any other personal matter, you should be circumspect about what you say and who you say it to including in online forums like this or any other social medial outlet....either that or just don't give a damn what other people think of you...both ways work equally well I think,

Humm...maybe I should load up a couple of E-mags myself. ;)

I'm not really thinking we'll see any rioting in TN; then again...there's always Memphis!  :)

Of course...nothing says "news" like people looting and burning down a town.

Well, I hope the six jurors are able to do their job and render a decision based on the evidence...I don't care whether people "feel" Zimmerman is guilty or not, he at least deserves an honest jury and possibly sending a man to prison for a significant part of his life (assuming he even lives through prison) is not something that should ever be done based on feelings or emotions or sympathy for the "child" Trayvon.

Well...just watch out...we all know that even unloaded guns go off completely on their own all the time. :)

    The rest of the article can be found here: http://www.breachbangclear.com/site/10-blog/428-can-they-portray-what-you-do-is-too-much,-and-how-important-are-appearances.html

30 years?  You really are an old coot. ;)   I just don't do it...I don't drink at all unless I'm either home or someplace where I'm going to be be for a long time (if I drink at all even then).   I certainly have firearms available to me in my home since bad guys may not wait until I'm not drinking to bust in but I'm not going to handle or wear a firearm if I'm having a drink.

The two criminal trials I've been a juror it was defense, prosecution in that order with each having one bite at the apple. But it was in OH, and WA, not FL

I thought that in most states, the defense always gives its closing argument first, then the prosecution...apparently, like a lot of other things, FL does things a bit differently.   This judge is even letting the prosecution go over the time they were supposed to be held to.  :shrug: 

IMHO, only an idiot would be under the influence of anything while being armed or handling a firearm...doing so is beyond stupid.   If I even have a glass of wine or a mixed drink it will be many hours before I would even think of being armed or driving or anything else that can place others at risk.

:confused:    Did you, maybe, miss this part in the post you quoted...  

Actually, there are plenty of cases where what should have been clearly seen as an appropriate use of deadly force, charges were still brought against the victim (the SD shooter) and they don't always end well for the victim...I don't have the case at my fingertips but there was a cop (off duty) who, on his own property, defended himself against a drunk armed aggressor but the city cop was charged by the county sheriff because that cop has pissed off that sheriff...the cop died in jail.   There is another case where a woman shot her husband while she was hiding it the basement with her children...the husband had promised to "kill here and the kids' and the husband was busting his way into the basement door from the kitchen and and clearly had the ability to kill here and had made his intent clear...she was still charged with murder. Fortunately for her, she was acquitted.   My point is that even if you do everything right, you may still be charged and you may even still be found guilty…there simply are no guarantees. That’s why choosing to carry a firearm is a tremendously serious decision; far more serious than, I’m afraid, many people understand.  So many just cry about it being their “right” (which it is) but seem very willing to brush aside the responsibility that comes with it…they are the ones who never get training on how and when to deploy the weapon or garner any understanding of the rules of engagement (which for the armed citizen are vastly different than for the military or the police).   After a SD shooting we are all subject to political and societal pressures…a DA looking for a feather in his/her cap…a corrupt system and a dozen other variables that we simply cannot control.  While we cannot control that we can at least be aware of it and the ramifications. At the end of that day, before you strap on that Glock or Sig or whatever you use for a carry weapon, do so understanding that you are strapping on a huge amount of responsibility too.

Yes it was; that's why the original DA decided not to charge and why FL had to go shopping for a DA/prosecutors that would do the will of the race-baiters and the media.   At least now I know that Zimmerman is a "white-Hispanic" and Obama is a "white-African American".

On this board alone there is a year and a half of threads and hundreds of posts where the "should have stayed in his truck" mantra has been repeated ad nauseum -  I think pointing out all the things Martin could have done is only proper and fair.   There was a thread here that attempted to look at what lessons could be learned from this whole incident...unfortunately it didn't take long for the the thread to go off course.   Yes; I'm sure that there are plenty of lessons that can be learned from this but at this point I'm doubting that an internet forum (this one or any other) will be the place that will dissect if fairly so I'll be waiting to hear from the folks who have followed this stuff for a lifetime and hopefully, can give an analysis that isn't dripping with emotion and ax grinding.

There is rarely 100% perfect knowledge of anything; that's why we use a system where we, hopefully, don't need to resort to guessing.  If we always had to have perfect knowledge we would either never be able to find anyone guilty of anything (or just assume guilt simply because someone has been charged). That's why I don't need to guess; not any more.  We have Zimmerman's recounting of events with no credible evidence or facts to show it's wrong combined with a ####load of evidence and facts and testimony (a good bit of which provided by the prosecution's own witnesses) that support Zimmerman's recounting of events.   At this point, there is no reason to not believe Zimmerman unless a person just doesn't want to believe him.

I know what the evidence shows; I see no need to guess at what happened.   If you want to assume things, then assume things but there is zero evidence to think that what happened is any different than what Zimmerman says happened. which means Martin violently attacked Zimmerman and than Zimmerman made a good SD shoot. That is what the facts, evidence and testimony shows to pretty much anyone who has watch the trial. if you just want to argue what Zimmerman should have done go ahead but doing so without applying the same level of "should have" to Martin is just a biased and worthless endeavor.

That's certainly not what people who have been watching the testimony know.   More to the point, it's disingenuous for people to say Trayvon had no duty to go home (or do any of a number of other things he could have done such as calling 911 instead of the idiot girlfriend or at least something other than getting into a physical assault) but concurrently claim that Zimmerman "should have" stayed in his truck.as if staying in his truck would have been some magical pill to prevent all that  happened - once you start throwing conjecture into the mix there is zero reason to assume that Martin would have just walked home with his skittles and not still started an assault on Zimmerman.   Maybe Zimmerman should stayed in his truck...maybe Martin should have gone home (he certainly had plenty of time to do so) but neither did that...when you ignore all the media-manufactured garbage and innuendo what we are left with is that Martin violently attacked Zimmerman and put him in reasonable fear for his life an he defended his life with deadly force.

I don't know...why do so many keep saying Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck; he had no duty to do so and in fact the argument can be made that as a neighborhood watch volunteer he had a duty to try and see where the thug was going/what he was up to.   But of course if you are a JFT aficionado that thought would never occur.