RobertNashville

Where in the Constitution does it say that freedom stops ONLY when there is physical harm?  I've looked...don't see it in there anywhere. And no one is taking anyone's property and even if they were, the Constitution provides for exactly that. The only mention of "property rights" in the Constitution is the Takings clause of the 5th amendment and it only states that a person must be compensated; not that property can't be taken.   Further, how can you call being held to a law or an ordinance that the person has voluntarily (either by direct action or inaction) agreed to live under "wrong"?   This is not tyranny, in fact, it's the opposite of it...whether by contractual agreement with a homeowner's association or through laws passed by elected representatives...if a person doesn't like the contractual agreement he shouldn't have entered into it...if he doesn't like the laws of his community then he should use the tools available to get them changed, comply, or move to a place that has laws he is more comfortable with.

All I can tell you is what a local attorney once told me; I have no personal knowledge whether we have Code Enforcement officers or not.

I understand the distinction...but some folks don't. ;)   I'm sure they have plenty of things to do but if this is a criminal charge then they have a duty to serve a criminal complaint warrant...if it's a civil warrant, as this may well be, then somebody has to serve it...in Rutherford county that's usually the RCSO (or at least that's what I've been told).

I don't care what slang or poor spelling "young people" are using as a means of communication; stupid is still stupid. I have a niece (by marriage) who is painfully finding that out right now; she is 22 acting like she is 16; talks like her IQ is about 12 (when she is actually quite intelligent as far as IQ goes); has three kids from two bio-dads (as in not married to either) and wonders why she can't get work/doesn't have any money.  Why am I not stunned about her present situation??? :shrug:   I also don't care whether those who embrace gang/thug culture do so because they are really thugs or just want to be cool.   I don't care if Trayvon was a real thug, a want-a-be-thug or was just playing the part or even if he was just this sweet little innocent "kid" his parents tried to make him out to be; if Zimmerman's actions were truly illegal then he can't use SD as a defense to the charges whether he was in fear for his life or not. If, on the other hand, Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal/did not do anything to justify Martin's attack then he has every right to defend himself against an attack that could have resulted in his death/serious injury; what Trayvon was thinking or not thinking is absolutely immaterial.

I'm just sitting here all warm and fuzzy knowing that I'm not being accused of being a racist because, based on the evidence from that night and what has come out this past week, I think Zimmerman is innocent and got railroaded into a charge of murder simply because he is a "white-Hispanic" and sweet little Trayvon was black.     :rofl: ROTFLMAO :rofl:

How is it your right to break the laws/rules you agreed to live under?   No rights, including the right to own property or the right to bear arms, exist in a vacuum...as soon as exercising a right infringes on the rights of another then the state has an duty to seek an accommodation...in this case, the accommodation are ordinances about how a person is supposed to care for his yard. If these rules are written into the deed for the property then the property owner has even less of an excuse for not following them and no reason to cry about it when their refusal to follow the rules catches up with them

Whether someone drinks a 32ox cola or not isn't likely to impact me in any way...a neighbor who doesn't take care of his yard/property can most certainly impact MY property value (and he's breaking the laws HE has voluntarily agreed to live under).  His individual freedom STOPS when it starts to impact me negatively.   If someone isn't cutting their grass/keeping up with their yard because they are ill/old, etc...then that person's family (first) or that community (second) should step in and help. If they aren't cutting their grass because they are lazy/just don't want to then they deserve whatever the law (they agreed to  live under) says they deserve.

People can't do whatever they want with their property, safe or not if the laws say otherwise.  The laws a community has were promulgated by that community...if you live there then you agree to live under those laws or face the consequences.   If someone wants more freedom about what that they can do on their property then then need to move to a different community our away from developed areas altogether (and be willing to give up the services that a community/development provides).

Okay DAVES. :)

The police could have been more polite as the article suggested. However, this is the trip these residents (be they the landlords or tenants) signed up for.   Living in a community means you agree to follow the laws of that community...you don't like the laws you either get them changed or you go live somewhere else.

Would you care to clarify what police department/sheriff's office/agency you did carry a badge for?   I ask because at one time you identified yourself as a “Firefighter/EMT working at Fort Campbell” and then, if I remember correctly, you retired from that and became a game warden. However, there are threads, including one very recent one, where you at least seemed to insinuate that you were a LEO.   I don’t mean to disparage game wardens or the importance of their work because I'm glad we have them but it seems a bit disingenuous for someone who is a game warden to equate that with being a police officer or at least trying to leave that impression (if in fact that was your intention). If you are/were a police officer then I apologize for using the term "self-proclaimed" and I thank you for putting your life on the line for others.   What about the case do you want to discuss as it seems to be an odd statement - you seem to have a pretty closed mind on this case; having made known your hope for Zimmerman's fate to be (i.e. found not guilty so that he can be sued for everything he has, left penniless, and hounded - always looking over his shoulder because of the hits out on his life "for as long as it lasts").

The only motive I see operating in Trayvon's parents Is finding a way to profit from their son's death. As to feelings about my children are concerned yes, it appears our views are different if you would already be in prison, presumably because you murdered your child's killer because I am not going to go out and commit murder. That you, a self-proclaimed LEO seems willing to do that is disturbing. That kind of attitude has no place in the mind of someone who carries a badge and a gun.

I am still wondering what questions you really have that you want "answers " you want to have DAVE'S since you have already made it clear that what you want is for Zimmerman to be poor and hounded until some Trayvon supporter murders him??? The statements you've made in the past are not indicative of someone who is truly looking for information.

The only way that "evidence" is the "only evidence worth anything" is that the person making that valuation has decided that he isn't going to consider any other evidence.   Trayvon's parents knew exactly why their son was dead...they got their answers...they just didn't like the answers.  Now, I can fully understand why Trayvon's parents didn't like the answers they had and/or wanted different answers...I guess most parents would feel the same way.  Where I part company with them is when they (with the help of a very biased media) decided to scrub sweet little Trayvon's image into something he wasn't and THEN sued the homeowner's association for a seven figure settlement months before Zimmerman's trial started...yeah; I'd say we know pretty well what Trayvon's parents' primary motivations were.   As to you wanting "answers"; that a rather strange statement from you given that you've made it abundantly clear that you "KNOW" Zimmerman is guilty AND that you want him acquitted so that he can live a in poverty and hounded until someone murders him.

You racist. ;)

There is a plethora of evidence available, some since the beginning and some becoming available recently (coming out of the prosecution and defense) such as Zimmerman's actual statement to the police that night, etc. plus analysis of the various claims being posted by attorneys following the case...have you read any of it? If not I would invite you to do so.

Yeah DAVES...I quoted you...you asked the question as to "who" had claimed that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin...well, DAVES, at least one of the posters who claimed that was YOU, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.   ROTFLMAO

  What he was charged with is immaterial (especially since this charge seems to be based more on placating a segment of the public rather than actual evidence).  In any case,  as I said above, Zimmerman isn't guilty of either murder or manslaughter unless he specifically acted illegally and/or gave Martin sufficient legal reason to launch his attack on Zimmerman.

You are right; DAVES, there are very little facts; especially when you refuse to accept any facts that doesn't support your previously formed biased opinion such as your belief that Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon.

The hunter took the words right out of my mouth!   That's a close encounter I would prefer to not experience. :)

"Wrong"?  What's "wrong" got to do with anything?  Zimmerman's guilt or innocent isn't a morel judgment; it's a legal issue.   What's actually "cool" is a person arriving at an opinion based on evidence rather than "feelings".   On the other hand, it's decidedly "un-cool" to insinuate, as has been done in many of these threads, that those of us who believe Zimmerman is not guilty believe that because we are racists rather than accepting that we've looked at the evidence and found that the evidence supports Zimmerman's account.   It's also rather "un-cool" that only after threats from the likes of the Black Panthers, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, the State of FL decided to go shopping for the "right" DA opinion so that they could force this to trial and it's pretty "un-cool" that the news media has fallen all over itself to fan the flam or racism; even to the point of doctoring Trayvon's "image" and the 911 tape.

To borrow from Shakespeare, DAVES doth protest too much, methinks.   Not only has the issued been raised in other threads but it's been raised by you, DAVES.   Maybe you don't remember so I'll quote it for you...    

What I have DAVES, is your usual attempt to avoiding serious discussion (that you keep claiming you want) by denigrating anyone who dares to question your unsupported assertions and questionable statements just as you have in other threads to other posters.   You; a self-proclaimed LEO, wishes for a man to get "sued for millions for "wrongful death" and the dude (cowboy) cop wanna be, will never get to live a normal life. There are "hits' on him and he will always be looking over his shoulder and watching the shadows for the rest of his life. The jury can render a verdict of "innocent" and he'll pay for his stupidity for the rest of his life (how ever long that will last)" stoping just short of opening calling for Zimmerman's murder.   I would hope that most of us here, regardless of whether we think Zimmerman is guilty or not, want to see him receive a fair trial. You, on the other hand, seem to just want him acquitted so that he can be miserable and eventually be murdered. How can anyone have a serious discussion with a man who want's that for another human being who may well have don't absolutely nothing wrong?

Maybe the case was being discarded...maybe it should have been. Maybe the reason it was being discarded because the original DA (instead of the one they had to go shopping for) looked at the evidence and knew there was no crime that Zimmerman committed. ;)

^^^THIS KID wasn't involved in all that stuff. However, it wasn't that ^^^ kid who attacked Zimmerman that night (even though Trayvon's parents, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers want us to believe it was ^^^that kid that that Zimmerman killed). ;)