Zimmerman trial starts today.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by stereocuuple

the answer is simple. Nothing.

Mr Zimmerman should have made available to him the same resources and treatment that any law enforcement officer gets after being involved in a shooting. after that has taken place a report would be made to the police and if found emotionally competent his firearm should be returned.

Wow

...

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Wow

...

Double wow. I dont think he's been following the trial at all.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

So cowboys with guns can act like punks and we had better do as they say? If we resist they can kill us?

Chas, I love ya and even more important I respect ya but that is no way to live.

You basically are insisting that I carry a gun also to create a level playing field.

If the kid had a gun and RIGHTFULLY felt threatened and killed Zim for following him and making him feel threatened would that have been alright with you?

If the kid had a CC permit and did kill Zim no one would have questioned it but because the kid did not have a gun, he is dead.

I don't mind you having your guns, I don't want to live in a country where I am required to carry one to have a chance.

Concealed carry laws and the so called SYG laws are two different things.

I can't speak for everywhere, but the way it was explained to me, the Missouri SYG law doesn't give you the right to kill someone if you feel threatened, but a defense should you do so.

In other words, it is legal to use deadly force if you are actually in danger of your life or great bodily harm. Provided a reasonable person would perceive the situation as you. Basically, all the law does is to protect you from legal and civil proceedings if you did act in a reasonable manner.

If you're being attacked with a butcher knife, you will most likely be no billed. If someone threatens to kick your ass and you kill them for that alone, you will most likely be going to court...and lose.

The laws are ambiguous and discretionary. And I would be quicker to walk away from an argument if I were armed than I would if I weren't.

And as it was explained to me as well, once you pull that hogleg you have now given your adversary the same "fear of his life" that you currently have.

In other words, you pretty much have to be in dire straights before you can use lethal force. And once again, I was instructed that if you can walk away, or even run away, you'll be better off than becoming involved in a shooting...even if you win. Killing another human isn't something that the vast majority of people will react to well, even if it was necessary.

Personally, I think the biggest divide that people have over these laws are a misconception as to what they actually say. They aren't "big iron on your hip" laws, or "make my day" laws, and they won't turn the United States into "Dodge City"...besides...in the big cities we're already there.

They simply allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves, provided they act in a manner considered reasonable by their peers. And provided they can pass a background check...and there is a background check.

The laws do not require that you carry a gun, they ALLOW you to carry a gun. Whether you wish to do so depends entirely on you.

After all, we have myriad laws forbidding criminals from from not only carrying, but even possessing firearms...and that doesn't seem to slow them down.

I hope I've explained myself in a reasonable manner.

Take care,

Chas

[stereocuuple]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Double wow. I dont think he's been following the trial at all.

this just shows how foolish you all are.

not only have i watched the entire proceedings held i the presence of the jury. i also have listened to the sidebar's & case law arguments

i have a very strong background in criminal law. logic not some sense of giult over the plight of blacks guides my opinion in this matter. i have not taken as much time as i should to study Florida statute and remedies but i aint getting paid either

had martin not attacked Mr. Zimmerman and George had still shot him. i would based on his actions. filed charges of 1st deg. murder with depraved indifference & possibly added the federal hate crimes clause.

2nd murder & man 1 & 2 would also have been no brainers.

so while you sit and snivel in your self righteous ivory towers of political correctness. assured in the mindset your better than than other because your gonna stop the white devils from stepping the poor black mans throat.

im running entirely on the facts.

FACT.

Trevon Martin attacked George Zimmerman.

even the state admitted that today when their case up & blew away like a fart in the wind.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Do you think for a minute Trevon would of stayed around if he knew Zippy had a gun? Once Zippy choose to continue after being told not to he became the aggressor. He had no reason other then wanting to other then being a bad @$$ or hero in his own mind.

Under your rules of law, I could shoot you after seeing your concealed weapon bulge because was now scared?


Barney

That's not what I said, and you Goddamn well know it...or should.

You're too busy formulating your argument to give any consideration as to what I've said.

Chas

[stereocuuple]

Originally Posted by Charles

Concealed carry laws and the so called SYG laws are two different things.

I can't speak for everywhere, but the way it was explained to me, the Missouri SYG law doesn't give you the right to kill someone if you feel threatened, but a defense should you do so.

In other words, it is legal to use deadly force if you are actually in danger of your life or great bodily harm. Provided a reasonable person would perceive the situation as you. Basically, all the law does is to protect you from legal and civil proceedings if you did act in a reasonable manner.

If you're being attacked with a butcher knife, you will most likely be no billed. If someone threatens to kick your ass and you kill them for that alone, you will most likely be going to court...and lose.

The laws are ambiguous and discretionary. And I would be quicker to walk away from an argument if I were armed than I would if I weren't.

And as it was explained to me as well, once you pull that hogleg you have now given your adversary the same "fear of his life" that you currently have.

In other words, you pretty much have to be in dire straights before you can use lethal force. And once again, I was instructed that if you can walk away, or even run away, you'll be better off than becoming involved in a shooting...even if you win. Killing another human isn't something that the vast majority of people will react to well, even if it was necessary.

Personally, I think the biggest divide that people have over these laws are a misconception as to what they actually say. They aren't "big iron on your hip" laws, or "make my day" laws, and they won't turn the United States into "Dodge City"...besides...in the big cities we're already there.

They simply allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves, provided they act in a manner considered reasonable by their peers. And provided they can pass a background check...and there is a background check.

The laws do not require that you carry a gun, they ALLOW you to carry a gun. Whether you wish to do so depends entirely on you.

After all, we have myriad laws forbidding criminals from from not only carrying, but even possessing firearms...and that doesn't seem to slow them down.

I hope I've explained myself in a reasonable manner.

Take care,

Chas

finally someone who also likes facts

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by stereocuuple

the answer is simple. Nothing.

Mr Zimmerman should have made available to him the same resources and treatment that any law enforcement officer gets after being involved in a shooting. after that has taken place a report would be made to the police and if found emotionally competent his firearm should be returned.

Mr Zippy was not a trained law enforcement officer last I checked. Just a scared vigilante who bit off more then he could chew. Then used his gun as a final act of cowardliness to kill another. Now has mouth pieces and hired guns to confuses the issues.


Barney

[stereocuuple]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Mr Zippy was not a trained law enforcement officer last I checked. Just a scared vigilante who bit off more then he could chew. Then used his gun as a final act of cowardliness to kill another. Now has mouth pieces and hired guns to confuses the issues.


Barney

after all the years we have been on the same forums i really thought i owed you my respect.

i was wrong.

your a fool.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by stereocuuple

after all the years we have been on the same forums i really thought i owed you my respect.

i was wrong.

your a fool.

Go easy.

This has to be the most ideologically driven issue I've encountered here at PC. There is very little common ground.

No reason to lose your temper...like I just did.

Chas

PS: My apologies Barney...I should know better.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by stereocuuple

Mr Zimmerman should have made available to him the same resources and treatment that any law enforcement officer gets after being involved in a shooting. after that has taken place a report would be made to the police and if found emotionally competent his firearm should be returned.

Except, of course, Zims is NOT a "law enforcement officer."

And your understanding of Missouri law related to self-defense and concealed carry is troglodytic at best.

Zims is/was a pussy and slew a human being (with a weapon he did not deserve to have) due to cowardice when confronted about overstepping his bounds as a citizen.

Clearly, if you possess a handgun, the world is NOT a safer place for it.

Idiocy...