RobertNashville

It's a shame, isn't it, that you can't hook a power line to your vehicle so that if someone tries to open it they get a nice little incentive to more on...of course I guess that would be mean.

I don't believe anyone posting on this forum or in this thread was there but if you have actual evidence that shows Zimmerman started the fight I'm sure we would all be happy to see it.

You don't see how because it isn't "starting a confrontation" nor does it justify Marti's violent attack.   Like you, the original DA had the figured out...the DA the state went shopping for is going to find it out the hard way I think (and after spending a large amount of the state's tax revenue).

The person wasn't minding his own business...he was refusing to comply with the laws he voluntarily agreed to live under. As far as your referring ti me as being one of those "folks who claim to believers in the constitution and its foundational principles of individual freedom with the rights of the individual to direct their own life, liberty and property but in reality are nothing more than authoritarian statists whose only real and substantial difference from the brand of marxist/socialist/communist statist they purport to stand against is in the details that they wish to control in the lives of others." I'm not surprised you regress to such attacks.   I'm not surprised about the insults as it's a pretty typical response from Libertarians whenever someone doesn't agree with their particular brand of political thought. I've seen it happen for years now and in an especially vehement way during the last Presidential election cycle.  What I find strange is that Libertarians attack others in this way and then can't figure out why their ranks are small or why their candidates never make any real inroads.   Maybe insulting people as a way to get them to see things the Libertarian way works with some folks but it doesn't work with me and and think the Libertarian party's lack of success is a pretty good indicator that it's not working for many other people either. :shrug:

Who didn't know this would all tie together...I'd be once it gets looked into Zimmerman is responsible for the Benghazi attack. ;)

This sort of stuff does absolutely NOTHING good for those who want to openly carry.

I'd be happy to, Francis, but I don't think I'm the one or at least not the only one who needs to lighten up...the ;) is usually a pretty good indicator that the person was joking.  :wave:

Really bad analogy since the calf, I'm pretty sure, did not decide of his own accord to be there or have the freedom to leave anytime he wanted or change his "pen".   Why do want to keep going on and on about this?  Do you think doing so is actually going to bring me to see things your way?   How about you let me live the way I want and you live the way you want...just don't move to my community unless you are willing to live under the laws we've agreed to live under.

You sure waited a while to go there.  :shrug:   I'm purposely ignoring DAVES at this point...nevertheless, I think what he claimed was his ultimate "hope" for Zimmerman was, at best, damn irresponsible.

I watched (well, more listened than watched) until the lunch break...I agree, the joke didn't go over well although I do think it was a tiny bit funny. Other than that I think he's been doing a good job.   Frankly, unless this jury is just out to get Zimmerman I don't see how they will ever reach a unanimous decision of guilty of either murder2 or manslaughter.

I believe if you check that both TN and FL law requires a significant level of aggression from someone (Zimmerman) in this case before he would lose the right to defend his life with deadly force from the other person (Martin).  In other words, Zimmerman would have had to do something specifically illegal or something so overt/threatening that Martin's attack against Zimmerman was justified.   There is no evidence known so far that shows that Zimmerman did anything illegal...following someone is not illegal...asking someone that is unfamiliar to you why they are in your neighborhood (if Zimmerman did that) is also not illegal. It may have made Martin nervous..it may have made Martin mad...if might make me or you mad or nervous...but being nervous or mad is not sufficient legal justification to violently attack someone.   We can say all day long that Zimmerman "shouldn't have" followed Martin but there is a long way from "shouldn't have" to being "illegal to do" and unless someone can definitively show that what Zimmerman did was illegal or was sufficiently threatening to Martin that Martin's attack was justified then Zimmerman is guilty of neither murder or manslaughter.

No one is taking anything without consent; these laws get passed through some mechanism or another by consent of the governed; just because someone else doesn't like them is immaterial and most especially immaterial if you don't even live there...it's not anyone's business what rules/laws my community in Murfreesboro decides to have unless you live there...our decisions don't impact your rights in any way.   I'm quite secure in my definition of freedom and liberty; that you or Chuck doesn't agree isn't going to change my mind.

Yuup...and not just the average person.   Most police forces, as a matter of policy, won't question an officer who is involved in a shooting until two-three days after the event (Officer-Involved Shooting Guidelines, 2009; IACP Police Psychological Services Section).   Studies have shown that after such an event with adrenalin and other chemicals being pumped into your system that the brain simply isn't "working" properly.  That's one of the reasons why an attorney will tell you to NOT give a detailed statement to the police just hours after defending yourself.

I really appreciate you all trying to educate me on Libertarian thought and the Constitution....but I like to think for myself; thank you.   What laws me and my community chose to live under is no one's business but ours.   If we chose to use criminal codes rather than tort law to cover such issues as having standards for how property must be taken care of there is NOTHING wrong with that; all your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

There is nothing authoritarian about people freely crafting what laws they want to live under in their community and for people who don't live in that community it's none of their business.   The person who owned their property prior has a right to make his feelings known, vote for representatives and/or for specific laws and then live with the consequences or try to change them or move. No rights violated...nothing unfair...nothing unequitible about that.

there is nothing more libertarian than people freely entering into contracts that establish how a community member must do things like maintain his property in that community. Similarly, it is quite libertarian for people to elect representatives to represent their interests and, when needed, establish laws that require residents to maintain their property in that community in a certain way. No one is being forced to live in a community with those laws...no one is being held in that community against their will and all who do live there can use the democratic process to try and change or remove laws that they believe should be. Part of our "freedom" is the freedom to chose where we will live and what laws we want to live under.

I'm well aware of the difference between the two issues; HOA/deed restrictions and laws/codes of the community.   With regards to community laws, no one stole or is steeling anyone's rights...laws are usually made by elected representatives; elected by the people who have to live under the laws these elected representatives make. That is  not despotic...that is not taking your rights away...or making up laws out of thin air...that is our system of government.  If a person doesn't like those laws they have some choices, live under them anyway, try to change them, move or don't follow them and face the consequences.   Whoever owns the property in this story is facing the consequences; that seems totally fair and equitable to me.   You also seem intent on ignoring one very simple point; when a property owner living in a community decides to not take care of his property in the way the laws of the community require, he IS impacting his neighbors and that impact can have a negative financial and a health impact on that person's neighbors...your property rights do not grant you the right to hurt me financially or impact my health whether it's not maintaining your yard, storing junk cars in your front yard or any number of other things.   The takings clause doesn't apply here; requiring someone to mow their yard is not "taking" anyone's property or causing that person any undue hardship that he needs to be compensated for.

BINGO

If changing it back means that my next door neighbor can decide to turn his lot into a junk yard then I'll more than happy to keep things as they are. I'm quite happy that I live; in fact I chose to live in a community that has basic requirements on what my neighbors (and I) can do and not do on my property because what those neighbors do can DIRECTLY affect my health and my finances and MY ability to enjoy MY property.   Show me where requiring someone to mow their grass is violation of the 5th amendment?   Tell me again where in the Constitution where it says citizens can't enter into contracts or voluntarily agree to abide by community standards (such as in a HOA or dead restrictions)?   If I wanted to live in a community that didn't allow anything but electric cars into the community and I join with fellow citizens who want the same, that Constitution you mention protects MY and my fellow citizen's right to enter into that contractual agreement (through a HOA or dead restrictions, for example).    When it comes to actual community codes/zoning, etc. those "despots" you talk about were put into office by the very people who have to live under the laws they passed or in some cases, these laws are directly voted into law by those same citizens...that's not "out of thin air"; that's free people deciding how they want THEIR community to operate and frankly; it's really no one's business how that community operates except those who chose to live there.

You old pervert. ;)

After watching/listening to Zimmerman's defense attorney I believe that he'll get a fair trial; at least unless the judge let's the prosecution walk all over the rules of evidence and/or loses control of the courtroom.   Six women or six men or three and three of any color, sex, etc....our system of justice and the courtroom, far from perfect, seem to have a way of getting to the truth and making the right decision.   Many cite the O.J. trial as an example where that didn't happen but I think it was an example of the system working correctly...O.J. was acquitted because the prosecution was incompetent and the judge more worried about being on TV than running the court room; under those circumstances any defendant should have been acquitted. ;)

Well stated.  :up:

Home Owner's Associations, dead restrictions, community ordinances, etc. do some very needful things. It would be wonderful if people would do the right things by their neighbors on their own but unfortunately, that often isn't the case today. One needs do no more than drive through neighborhoods where there aren't such restrictions to see just how much such restrictions are needed. Grand Torino nailed it when he said...

Yuup and a lot of folks are doing a lot of speculating rather than looking at what is actually known (or feigning ignorance of what is known if what we know doesn't support their speculating). :)

Actually, the Tennessee constitution has nothing to do with the issue since the incident didn't happen in Tennessee...I don't know if this issue violated the PA constitution or not but I suspect not; and it certainly doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution.   Further, any community where people voluntarily gather together in any state has a right to set its own rules and to enforce those rules and it's really no one's business other than the people of that community.