This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You can't be a lawyer.. I thought you were from the content of a few of your posts.. But are you suggesting that Zimmerman should have apologized for his actions in that hearing?
No, I think that statement is nothing but self-serving. If he's truly sorry for their loss, he should have kept his mouth shut and let those parents grieve on their own. Instead he tried to make himself feel/look better by expressing his "sorrow". The kindest thing he could have done for those parents was to stay silent, not offer his condolences.
That wouldn't help his case though. He already shot someone to save his life. What's an unappreciated appology to help keep him out of jail?
Imagine how many people he'll have to kill in self defense now.
I know!I hate it when they promise not to do it again and then they just go ahead and do it again
Neither did Zimmerman; neither you nor anyone else can tell when Martin would have stopped his alledged attack.Attack someone you don't know in the middle of the night, brake their nose, bash their head, they have a gun, you get what you get..Without knowing the real story, how can you judge the conclusion, what will "Justice for Trayvon" be? Because at this point, he might have already gotten the justice he deserved.. You can't know..Not true. Tim's taken that over now. My work here is done. I still want justice for Trayvon though. If that means aggravating people the likes of you, John mx, Boneyard Dog, Carolina Hustler etc., so be it. Not the posters I would want to be associated with, but everything is about you, so I'm sure you're fine with it.His sole purpose in life is to increase my post count in this thread. I kind of like that his happiness is dependent upon me.And what is your purpose here.. ?
Uh huh.Neither did Zimmerman; neither you nor anyone else can tell when Martin would have stopped his alledged attack.Attack someone you don't know in the middle of the night, brake their nose, bash their head, they have a gun, you get what you get..Without knowing the real story, how can you judge the conclusion, what will "Justice for Trayvon" be? Because at this point, he might have already gotten the justice he deserved.. You can't know..Not true. Tim's taken that over now. My work here is done. I still want justice for Trayvon though. If that means aggravating people the likes of you, John mx, Boneyard Dog, Carolina Hustler etc., so be it. Not the posters I would want to be associated with, but everything is about you, so I'm sure you're fine with it.His sole purpose in life is to increase my post count in this thread. I kind of like that his happiness is dependent upon me.
You don't know this. [/Christo]
Link? (showing he doesn't know this) [Christo/]
Plagiarizing other peoples jokes and using them in poor context.. :shameless: :daft:
Except that Christo has yet to challenge any statement in this thread which appears to favor George Zimmerman in any way. For some mysterious reason (given Christo's objectivity) he reserves all of his criticism for statements which attack Zimmerman.
I doubt it.. You're kidding right?
He was not a big man during the bond hearing. You never know what fight someone rteally has in them, but he didn't look to be a fighter, and his size looks to be a disadvantage as well.Not the 240lb man he was reported to be..
Looked to be maybe 5-7 and about 160 or so. I thought he was going to look like some tough mexican gang banger, but he looks like a little business man.
Well he has a bunch of tattoos if that helps. One of them is of a mask. I wonder what that means.
That is because those making unsupportedaccusations are almost exclusively made from those attacking Zimmerman.
Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
Have you abandoned your post count schtick for this emoticon schtick? Your posts are pretty enjoyable either way, just curious..
Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
I think the point is we should encourage people not to shoot each other on the street, not make laws that make it easier.Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
Regardless of the laws, I think criminal neglagence is unavoidable. As long as guns exist, they will be used to get the upper hand in both criminal and self defense situations..The laws don't stop people from being shot illegally every day. Laws only keep the honest people honest.Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
If you look at every shooting as tragic and unjustified, than I can see the point but in lieu of that I am not sure it applies here.I think the point is we should encourage people not to shoot each other on the street, not make laws that make it easier.Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?If you look at every shooting as tragic and unjustified, than I can see the point but in lieu of that I am not sure it applies here.I think the point is we should encourage people not to shoot each other on the street, not make laws that make it easier.Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
What about the people of this nation that that want to drive automobiles on our roads 100mph??Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
Responding to all:Yes, it is absolutely about making laws that discourage rather than encourage people to shoot each other.This is not at all about affecting gun ownership. It is about reforming our laws to actively discourage the improper use of firearms.It is also about drawing a more clear line between vigilantism and self-defense by making objective criteria more heavily weighted than the entirely subjective and unknowable mind of the shooter. Self-defense should not be a "cure all" defense that makes the prosecution's job impossible.We should impose harsher penalties for those that feel their firearm gives them license to act as the police. In the case of the couple held at gunpoint by their neighbors, the neighbors should have been arrested on the spot. Suspecting that a crime is occurring should not give your average gun-owning citizen a right (or a feeling of entitlement) to inject themselves into what they think is a potentially dangerous situation and put themselves and others at risk.If our laws worked as above, Joe Horn would not have shot and killed two people for burglary, same in SoCar, and it is extremely unlikely that Zimmerman would have felt entitled to do anything more than make his initial call, meaning Trayvon would be alive and Zimmerman would have his life back, something he will never get regardless of the verdict.So, for the honest folks, this does not affect them in the least. Responsible and law-abiding gun owners will not feel these laws at all. The folks who will feel them are those that feel their gun makes them Batman, and needlessly endanger themselves and others for the inflation of their ego.If you look at every shooting as tragic and unjustified, than I can see the point but in lieu of that I am not sure it applies here.I think the point is we should encourage people not to shoot each other on the street, not make laws that make it easier.Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
Any loss of life can be viewed as tragic, if you so wish. I do not know if "he deserved it" but the very fact that it happened does not make it unjust.You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?If you look at every shooting as tragic and unjustified, than I can see the point but in lieu of that I am not sure it applies here.I think the point is we should encourage people not to shoot each other on the street, not make laws that make it easier.Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
Nobody should ever take umbrage with a person walking home. Its tragic and unjust.Any loss of life can be viewed as tragic, if you so wish. I do not know if "he deserved it" but the very fact that it happened does not make it unjust.You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?If you look at every shooting as tragic and unjustified, than I can see the point but in lieu of that I am not sure it applies here.I think the point is we should encourage people not to shoot each other on the street, not make laws that make it easier.Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
I'm not talking about whether it was justifiable, that will be determined at trial. A 17 year old boy with no record of violence lost his life. I find that tragic. I can't really see how anyone could think it's not. Hell, Zimmerman feels that way and he killed him.Any loss of life can be viewed as tragic, if you so wish. I do not know if "he deserved it" but the very fact that it happened does not make it unjust.You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?If you look at every shooting as tragic and unjustified, than I can see the point but in lieu of that I am not sure it applies here.I think the point is we should encourage people not to shoot each other on the street, not make laws that make it easier.Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
No record of violence unless, of course, he was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the ground.I'm not talking about whether it was justifiable, that will be determined at trial. A 17 year old boy with no record of violence lost his life. I find that tragic. I can't really see how anyone could think it's not. Hell, Zimmerman feels that way and he killed him.Any loss of life can be viewed as tragic, if you so wish. I do not know if "he deserved it" but the very fact that it happened does not make it unjust.You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?If you look at every shooting as tragic and unjustified, than I can see the point but in lieu of that I am not sure it applies here.I think the point is we should encourage people not to shoot each other on the street, not make laws that make it easier.Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.No record of violence unless, of course, he was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the ground.I'm not talking about whether it was justifiable, that will be determined at trial. A 17 year old boy with no record of violence lost his life. I find that tragic. I can't really see how anyone could think it's not. Hell, Zimmerman feels that way and he killed him.Any loss of life can be viewed as tragic, if you so wish. I do not know if "he deserved it" but the very fact that it happened does not make it unjust.You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?If you look at every shooting as tragic and unjustified, than I can see the point but in lieu of that I am not sure it applies here.I think the point is we should encourage people not to shoot each other on the street, not make laws that make it easier.Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
Any loss of life is tragic. There are cases where deadly force is waranted though. The most obvious cases would be in defense against other guns, but those aren't the only cases. If Tray did what we've come to understand is "zimmermans story", then the shooting is a reasonable conclusion. Not that anyone "deserves to die", but if you're going to act like a savage, then you're putting someone in the position to have to choose.'TexanFan02 said:You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?'pittstownkiller said:If you look at every shooting as tragic and unjustified, than I can see the point but in lieu of that I am not sure it applies here.'TexanFan02 said:I think the point is we should encourage people not to shoot each other on the street, not make laws that make it easier.'pittstownkiller said:Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?'Clifford said:Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
Innoncent until proven guilty?Many in the media (NBC/MSNBC) have already convicted him.
You are a fool.ETA: re-read your post; sorry if I did not pick up on the sarcasm.'TexanFan02 said:Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.'pittstownkiller said:No record of violence unless, of course, he was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the ground.'TexanFan02 said:I'm not talking about whether it was justifiable, that will be determined at trial. A 17 year old boy with no record of violence lost his life. I find that tragic. I can't really see how anyone could think it's not. Hell, Zimmerman feels that way and he killed him.'pittstownkiller said:Any loss of life can be viewed as tragic, if you so wish. I do not know if "he deserved it" but the very fact that it happened does not make it unjust.'TexanFan02 said:You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?'pittstownkiller said:If you look at every shooting as tragic and unjustified, than I can see the point but in lieu of that I am not sure it applies here.'TexanFan02 said:I think the point is we should encourage people not to shoot each other on the street, not make laws that make it easier.'pittstownkiller said:Is the logic here that we can't outlaw guns, so we will outlaw bullets? What about people of this nation that want to have guns?'Clifford said:Combine this with the Joe Horn case, the SoCar case, the Arizona drive-through case, and the more recent case of new homeowners being held at gunpoint by their neighbors, and I think it's quite clear we need to rework the law regarding when a citizen is allowed to use their gun and when they are not.For instance:If the Horn case led to a law whereby if a person disobeys orders from a dispatcher and willingly engages criminals or suspicious persons, when engaging is not necessary for their immediate protection, then that person can not claim self-defense, then it's likely this case never would have happened.If we remove the entirely subjective mindset of the shooter as the sole criteria for self-defense, and place a more objective analysis, then it's quite likely the SoCar shooting never happens as well as the Arizona shooting.If we place a criminal penalty for approaching someone with a fire arm when not directly threatened, then the people who pulled a gun on their neighbors would not have done that.Our laws right now put the gun owner in the driver seat in almost all cases where a one civilian uses a gun against another. I think that if you use a gun on a fellow civilian, it should be an automatic charge of some kind. We have pre-trial hearings that are more than capable of getting cases dismissed when it is a clear, uncontested incidence of self-defense. So I think it is definitely time for our entire nation to start dialing back the rights of citizens to use guns, and handing out extremely stiff penalties when a firearm is misused or used when not completely necessary.It should not happen in the form of a conviction for Zimmerman. It should happen in the form of the people of this nation saying enough, we did not work for hundreds of years to build a society only to have a few lobbies return us to the old west.Might be one of the few posts in here you've written that I 100% agree with.
