'Stand your ground' loses ground

[pundit.har...@inderole.com]

http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/text/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2012/0706/Stand-your-ground-loses-ground

Mr. Zimmerman is trying to raise money for a $1 million bond so that he
can be released from jail while he awaits a trial for the murder of Mr.
Martin.

The question of whether his attitudes on race affected his
decisionmaking that night may never be settled. But as the months tick
by it should be possible to use empirical research to determine if
state laws in places such as Florida that permit citizens to "stand
your ground" and use deadly force, such as a gun, in self-defense are
actually deterring crime or lessening violence.

A recent study suggests they do neither.

Going back hundreds of years English common law, which underlies much
of US law, has recognized a "duty to retreat" first before using deadly
force to counter an attacker. The exception has been the "castle
doctrine," where an intruder in one's home (castle) may be countered
immediately with lethal force. Since 2005 Florida and 20 other states
have enacted laws based on a more provocative "stand your ground"
principle, sometimes extending the "castle doctrine" to include
specific places outside one's home.

But a study of reported crimes in these states released in late June
found that the prospect of facing more aggressive self-defense from
potential victims does not deter criminals engaged in burglary,
robbery, or aggravated assault.

[ray]

In article <4ff82752$0$12893$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>,
pundit.har...@inderole.com wrote:

> http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/text/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2012/070

The Christian Science Monitor? Do you suppose they have a bias about
people having firearms? This article is very vague at best, and
provides no links to these supposed reports other than to say it was
gathered by the FBI. It says states with stand your ground type of laws
suffer over 600 additional homicides per year, but doesn't say what
relationship these additional 600 deaths have to CCW, stand your ground,
or castile doctrine.

So far, it looks like a hit piece on CCW holders in this country. No
surprise since it's coming from a group of folks who are even against
the death penalty.

--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.

[pundit.har...@inderost.com]

"The Christian Science Monitor? Do you suppose they have a bias about
people having firearms? This article is very vague at best, and
provides no links to these supposed reports other than to say it was
gathered by the FBI. It says states with stand your ground type of laws
suffer over 600 additional homicides per year, but doesn't say what
relationship these additional 600 deaths have to CCW, stand your ground,
or castile doctrine.

So far, it looks like a hit piece on CCW holders in this country. No
surprise since it's coming from a group of folks who are even against the
death penalty."

It took all of 3 minutes to find the study on google. In fact there were
two independent studies with similar results. One in Ga. and the other in
Tx., both conservative states.

Google is your friend.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 7, 8:56 am, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <4ff82752$0$12893$1c468...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  pundit.hari.kumar...@inderole.com wrote:
> >http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/text/Commentary/the-monitors-view...

Given this case and the responses it garners from some people, I can
see why. An unarmed kid committing no crime was stalked, confronted
and killed. You seem to think it's okay because it may impose on your
gun rights, even though the evidence at this point leans toward guilt.
If you were on a jury, your decision would be self-motivated, driven
by personal biases, not based on evidence.

[ray]

In article
<8ac7e47f-4d9f-47e2...@b20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >
> > The Christian Science Monitor?  Do you suppose they have a bias about
> > people having firearms?  This article is very vague at best, and
> > provides no links to these supposed reports other than to say it was
> > gathered by the FBI.  It says states with stand your ground type of laws
> > suffer over 600 additional homicides per year, but doesn't say what
> > relationship these additional 600 deaths have to CCW, stand your ground,
> > or castile doctrine.
> >
> > So far, it looks like a hit piece on CCW holders in this country.  No
> > surprise since it's coming from a group of folks who are even against
> > the death penalty.
>
> Given this case and the responses it garners from some people, I can
> see why. An unarmed kid committing no crime was stalked, confronted
> and killed. You seem to think it's okay because it may impose on your
> gun rights, even though the evidence at this point leans toward guilt.
> If you were on a jury, your decision would be self-motivated, driven
> by personal biases, not based on evidence.

And I would say the same for you. First off, what evidence do you speak
of here? All evidence points to the innocence of Zimmerman. Where is
this evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin? There is absolutely no
evidence of this at all. In fact, if you listen to the 911 tape, it
clearly tells us that Zimmerman did stop following Martin, and Martin
had more than ample time to go to the house he was staying at in the
small complex while Zimmerman continued discussing the situation with
dispatch for well over a minute.

Fact is that it was Martin who returned to Zimmerman after he felt
ashamed for running in the first place. It was he who attacked
Zimmerman, and Zimmerman's injuries, Martin's toxicology report, and his
autopsy report that showed no signs of injuries except to his knuckles
consistent with the attack and beating are all evidence of this. Not to
mention the eye witness who seen Martin using "karate style" punches to
Zimmerman's head.

[The Starmaker]

ray wrote:
>
> In article
> <8ac7e47f-4d9f-47e2...@b20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The Christian Science Monitor? Do you suppose they have a bias about
> > > people having firearms? This article is very vague at best, and
> > > provides no links to these supposed reports other than to say it was
> > > gathered by the FBI. It says states with stand your ground type of laws
> > > suffer over 600 additional homicides per year, but doesn't say what
> > > relationship these additional 600 deaths have to CCW, stand your ground,
> > > or castile doctrine.
> > >
> > > So far, it looks like a hit piece on CCW holders in this country. No
> > > surprise since it's coming from a group of folks who are even against
> > > the death penalty.
> >
> > Given this case and the responses it garners from some people, I can
> > see why. An unarmed kid committing no crime was stalked, confronted
> > and killed. You seem to think it's okay because it may impose on your
> > gun rights, even though the evidence at this point leans toward guilt.
> > If you were on a jury, your decision would be self-motivated, driven
> > by personal biases, not based on evidence.
>
> And I would say the same for you. First off, what evidence do you speak
> of here? All evidence points to the innocence of Zimmerman. Where is
> this evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin?

Zimmerman's own words is evidence...

Zimmerman said Trayvon yelled, "Yo, you got a problem?"


"Yo, you got a problem?" translates to, "Why are you confronting me?"

I would like to hear a different tranlation if you got one, Ray.

The Starmaker

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 7, 12:46 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <8ac7e47f-4d9f-47e2-b617-f0e1b347d...@b20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Christian Science Monitor?  Do you suppose they have a bias about
> > > people having firearms?  This article is very vague at best, and
> > > provides no links to these supposed reports other than to say it was
> > > gathered by the FBI.  It says states with stand your ground type of laws
> > > suffer over 600 additional homicides per year, but doesn't say what
> > > relationship these additional 600 deaths have to CCW, stand your ground,
> > > or castile doctrine.
>
> > > So far, it looks like a hit piece on CCW holders in this country.  No
> > > surprise since it's coming from a group of folks who are even against
> > > the death penalty.
>
> > Given this case and the responses it garners from some people, I can
> > see why. An unarmed kid committing no crime was stalked, confronted
> > and killed. You seem to think it's okay because it may impose on your
> > gun rights, even though the evidence at this point leans toward guilt.
> > If you were on a jury, your decision would be self-motivated, driven
> > by personal biases, not based on evidence.
>
> And I would say the same for you.  First off, what evidence do you speak
> of here?

All the evidence is supplied in the previous thread, from the initial
report to the eventual finding of probable cause. Police concluded
Z'man's actions and injuries were inconsistent with fear and a deadly
fight. What do we know about Z'man's version of events? That he has no
money but is out of jail on 1 mil bail. His version of the facts
leaves a lot to be desired.

[Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.]

"thepinkpantsuit" <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:fbcb422b-fb4d-45a4...@b20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

=================[reply]===============

There is one person whose version of the facts is
unavailable. . .

The man who assaulted Zimmerman and got shot dead when
Zimmerman acted in self defense. Dead men tell no
tales.

Zimmerman's going to walk as well he should. Using
lethal force in self-defense when lethal force is used
against you is a Constitutional right. Get over it. The
thug in the hoodie picked a fight with the wrong guy.
Even he knew it right before his heart stopped because
he said, "Ya got me!" It was all some sort of game for
the young thug. It was OK for him to attempt to kill a
white guy because a black guy is special. Well, he's
special all right. He's got his own burial plot special.

--
Gregory

[thepinkpantsuit]

> leaves a lot to be desired.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My point being this: because the victim is dead and cannot speak to
the events, and because the victim was unarmed and not comitting a
crime, this case rests on evidence gathered by investigators and the
ability of the defendant to factually relay events. Lying to the court
isn't a good start, especially when you don't have to. He had and has
over 100k. Either way he'd be out on bond. Regardless of how I feel
about gun laws, he's lying. To save his ass.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 7, 1:29 pm, Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.
<gregh...@home.fåke> wrote:
> "thepinkpantsuit" <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:fbcb422b-fb4d-45a4...@b20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

That is correct.

>
>  Dead men tell no tales.

That is correct. And living ones lie.

[Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.]

"thepinkpantsuit" <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message

news:e9b0fb5c-f076-4081...@w6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

//
// My point being this: because the victim is dead and
cannot speak to
// the events, and because the victim was unarmed and
not comitting a
// crime,

So, it's not a crime to pound a man you knocked to the
ground about the face and head full contact karate style
and it's not a crime to pound his head on a concrete
walkway?

Your point is invalid, stupid, ignorant and not worth
listening to.

--
Sir Gregory

[The Starmaker]

I don't know why anyone would shoot an..unarmed man. The only people who shoot unarmed people are Murders and Cowards.

There are a lot of cowards on the police force...

The Starmaker

["pundit.hari.kumar.vi@inderovi.com]

// My point being this: because the victim is dead and
cannot speak to
// the events, and because the victim was unarmed and
not comitting a
// crime,

"So, it's not a crime to pound a man you knocked to the ground about the
face and head full contact karate style and it's not a crime to pound his
head on a concrete walkway?

Your point is invalid, stupid, ignorant and not worth listening to."

It is relative, did the victim think he was "standing his ground" when a
stranger was following him with a gun? If the victim had a gun instead of
fists would he be in the clear?

[Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.]

<pundit.har...@inderovi.com> wrote in message
news:4ff87701$0$12888$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

Sorry but standing your ground laws do NOT apply to
people, armed or not, who attack somebody. Who commit a
battery. Stand your ground laws apply to people using
deadly force to protect life and limb against those who
would commit a battery or who do commit a battery.

This isn't even a case of stand your ground. Nobody
lying on the ground getting the crap beat out of him can
possibly said to be standing their ground. This is an
old fashioned case of self-defense.

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.]

"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:4FF876...@ix.netcom.com...

Pounding somebody's head on the sidewalk with one's
hands and arms is a battery and can result in death for
the person who is the victim of the battery. The victim
has EVERY right to use deadly force to protect his life.
EVERY RIGHT.

Zimmerman's going to walk.

--
Sir Gregory

[pundit.har...@inderoev.com]

"Pounding somebody's head on the sidewalk with one's hands and arms is a
battery and can result in death for the person who is the victim of the
battery. The victim has EVERY right to use deadly force to protect his
life."

Ah, too bad the kid didn't have a gun in his attempt to stand his ground
against zimmer, no?

[ray]

In article
<fbcb422b-fb4d-45a4...@b20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

Where is that written at? When did police find that his wounds were
inconsistent with an attack? He had a broken nose and the back of his
head was bashed in. If that's not enough to defend yourself with deadly
force, not much else is.

[ray]

In article
<e9b0fb5c-f076-4081...@w6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

Not to save his ass, but to get out of jail until the hearing. The only
thing he lied about is how much money he had, likely because he wanted
to make sure he had enough tucked away to pay his lawyer.

[ray]

In article
<69f3edcd-85a2-4eb0...@l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

The the living ones who pass a polygraph test with flying colors.

[ray]

In article <4FF876...@ix.netcom.com>,

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >
> > My point being this: because the victim is dead and cannot speak to
> > the events, and because the victim was unarmed and not comitting a
> > crime, this case rests on evidence gathered by investigators and the
> > ability of the defendant to factually relay events. Lying to the court
> > isn't a good start, especially when you don't have to. He had and has
> > over 100k. Either way he'd be out on bond. Regardless of how I feel
> > about gun laws, he's lying. To save his ass.
>
>
>
> I don't know why anyone would shoot an..unarmed man. The only people who
> shoot unarmed people are Murders and Cowards.
>
> There are a lot of cowards on the police force...

Yeah, and when it's your ass that's in trouble, you will see how fast
you call one of those cowards.

So if a 30 year old muscle bound guy attacks a 68 year old feeble man,
the feeble old man is a coward if he shoots his attacker?

[Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.]

<pundit.har...@inderoev.com> wrote in message
news:4ff881fd$0$12888$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

What don't you understand about an aggressor who is in
the act of a life-threatening battery on a victim not
being covered under stand your ground?

--
Sir Gregory

[pundit.har...@inderodo.com]

> "Pounding somebody's head on the sidewalk with one's
> hands and arms is a
> battery and can result in death for the person who is
> the victim of the
> battery. The victim has EVERY right to use deadly
> force to protect his
> life."
>
> Ah, too bad the kid didn't have a gun in his attempt
> to stand his ground
> against zimmer, no?

"What don't you understand about an aggressor who is in the act of a
life-threatening battery on a victim not being covered under stand your
ground?"

Substitute gun in the relevant places and answer your own question.

[ray]

In article <4ff87701$0$12888$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>,

No, because when the dispatcher recommended that Zimmerman quit
following Martin, that's what Zimmerman did. The pursuit was over.
Martin apparently came back to Zimmerman to settle the score. That made
Zimmerman the victim.

Now if Martin turned around while Zimmerman was chasing him to defend
himself, that's an entirely different case because Martin was standing
his ground. Martin was the victim and Zimmerman had absolutely no legal
right to use his gun in that instance.

[pundit.har...@inderote.com]

> > M- Dead men tell no tales.

>
> That is correct. And living ones lie.

"The the living ones who pass a polygraph test with flying colors."

Not accepted in court or science as a reliable measure of "lie".

[The Starmaker]

Dead man walking...

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 7, 3:05 pm, pundit.hari.kumar...@inderote.com wrote:
> > > M- Dead men tell no tales.
>
> > That is correct. And living ones lie.
>
> "The the living ones who pass a polygraph test with flying colors."

He lied to the court, fooled the judge, and got away with it too.
Temporarily.

>
> Not accepted in court or science as a reliable measure of "lie".

Not accepted as the reliable measure of the truth. That's why it finds
incredible popularity with the Springer Set. FWIR, Z didn't lie when
he said he followed Martin and he didn't lie when he said Martin asked
him what the problem was. From this investigators concluded that his
actions didn't follow his reasoning--you run in fear, not follow
someone who scares you, and that Martin never identified himself as a
concerned town watch volunteer. Zimmerman defied every town watch
rule, and ignored the advice of law enforcement.

[Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.]

<pundit.har...@inderodo.com> wrote in message
news:4ff887e8$0$12887$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

A gun has nothing to do with standing your ground. You
could use a crowbar, a bow and arrow, a rock, a knife, a
black belt in karate, etc.

Only those who are trying to take away our 2nd Amendment
rights act like a gun is capable of committing a crime.
Grow up already!

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.]

"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in

message news:4FF88C...@ix.netcom.com...

With all the savage, racist, lawless Negroids around,
that might well be the case. And the head racist at the
(In)Justice Dept. will likely ignore such a murder like
he ignored the New Black Panthers with night sticks
intimidating voters at a polling place.

--
Sir Gregory

[The Starmaker]

He wasn't defending himself from a deadly force, he was resorting to
deadly force. Cause he shouldn't have been confronting the kid
in the first place.

[Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.]

"thepinkpantsuit" <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message

news:ef86f47d-a668-4e0d...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

=============[reply]====================

Why do you lie? Could it be because you know you haven't
a legal leg to stand on?

The fact is Zimmerman turned and was walking back to his
vehicle right after the 911 operator told him 'We don't
need you to do that." (meaning we don't need you to
follow)

That's why it's SOOOOO ludicrous calling this a case of
stand your ground. Walking away is in no way, shape or
form standing your ground. It's a simple case of assault
and battery by Martin on Zimmerman. Martin's being shot
dead is an act of self-defense and protected by the U.S.
Constitution.

--
Sir Gregory

[Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.]

"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in

message news:4FF88D...@ix.netcom.com...

That's so dumb it can only be called "nigger logic".

--
Sir Gregory

[ray]

In article <4ff8888d$0$12887$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>,

No it isn't. But police still use polygraph tests because they are
generally reliable--just not perfect which is why they don't allow the
submission of the results in court. But that aside. The very act of
Zimmerman offering to take the test in the first place gives anybody
reasonable assurance that he told the truth about what happened that
night.

[ray]

In article <5p6o0u....@news.alt.net>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?__Sir_=B7_Gregory_=B7_Hall=2C__Esq.?=

Oh no. He's not ignoring it. He wants to bring federal charges against
Zimmerman. He already sent the FBI there. After all, Martin was one of
his own kind.

[ray]

In article <4FF88D...@ix.netcom.com>,

Great. Now show where he confronted Martin that forced him into a
defensible situation.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 7, 3:31 pm, Sir · Gregory · Hall, Esq.

<gregh...@home.fåke> wrote:
> "thepinkpantsuit" <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote in

> messagenews:ef86f47d-a668-4e0d...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

"With all the savage, racist, lawless Negroids around,
that might well be the case. And the head racist at the
(In)Justice Dept."

Dude......

That is all.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 7, 2:54 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <e9b0fb5c-f076-4081-a532-472b54326...@w6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

And the only reason he lied to police is because he wanted to make
sure he stayed out of jail. Same motive!

[The Starmaker]

Zimmerman's own words is evidence...

Zimmerman said Trayvon yelled, "Yo, you got a problem?"


"Yo, you got a problem?" translates to, "Why are you confronting me?"

[The Starmaker]

I never heard a judge say, "Would you be willing to take a 'stress voice
test'?"

[The Starmaker]

Voice Stress Test are less reliable than a Polygraph Lie Dector Test,
which is in itself not realiable. Its lesser than less.


Waterboard the motherfucker.

Give me 5 minutes with him.

[ray]

In article <4FF89A...@ix.netcom.com>,

Nope. That's not it at all. First off, Martin didn't yell because he
surprised Zimmerman and was in close range. Secondly, the conversation
when like this: Martin: You have a problem with me? Zimmerman: I don't
have any problem. Martin: Well you do now! And that's when Martin
assaulted Zimmerman.

[ray]

In article <4FF89C...@ix.netcom.com>,

"Voice Stress Analysis (VSA) technology is said to record
psychophysiological stress responses that are present in human voice,
when a person suffers psychological stress in response to a stimulus
(question) and where the consequences may be dire for the subject being
'tested'.[1]

In the Detection Of Deception (DOD) scenario, the voice-stress produced
in response to a Relevant Question ("did you do it?") is referred to as
psychological stress or 'deceptive stress'. No DOD technology can detect
a lie or truth unequivocally. It is the fear of being exposed to the
question being posed that produces the 'high stress' voice signature,
aka voice graph or voice tracing.

The technique's accuracy remains debated. There are independent research
studies that support the use of VSA as a reliable lie detection
technology, whilst there are other studies that dispute its
reliability.[2][3]

Air Force Research Laboratory (Haddad et al) conducted validation
studies into VSA and concluded that mainstream VSA (Diogenes & CVSA)
were as reliable as polygraph when used by expertly trained
examiner-operators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_stress_analysis

[robw]

On Jul 7, 4:50 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <4FF89A98.2...@ix.netcom.com>,

>  The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ray wrote:
>

> > > In article <4FF88D85.6...@ix.netcom.com>,

> > >  The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ray wrote:
>
> > > > > In article

> > > > > <fbcb422b-fb4d-45a4-bf27-93279fdf9...@b20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

> Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.  - Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Wow, do you do fortune telling, as well??
(snicker)

[thepinkpantsuit]

Guess that was his first lie, because that was his opportunity to
identify himself as nabe watch.

[ray]

In article
<1355bdd9-ebb6-431e...@a34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

You don't need to do fortune telling. All you have to do is read the
stories.

[robw]

On Jul 7, 5:45 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <1355bdd9-ebb6-431e-8ac4-a98ce6e1c...@a34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

Really?

So if your account is absolutely correct why has Zims been arrested???

[ray]

In article
<b4230062-c216-4805...@o7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

He is not held by law to identify himself to anybody but authorities.
And if he did identify himself, do you think Martin would have shrugged
his shoulders and said "okay!" and walk away?

This is a violent kid we are talking about here.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 7, 5:59 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <b4230062-c216-4805-8892-a80e2770f...@o7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

That may be so. But he lied to the kid. And the cops know he lied to
the kid. They know Z had suspected him of a crime and had been
following him. And instead of identifying himself so the kid knew this
was a concerned neighbor and not some dangerous maniac following him
at night, he didn't. Therefore, Martin was afraid. His actions are
consistent with fear and standing his ground, Zimmerman's are not.

> And if he did identify himself, do you think Martin would have shrugged
> his shoulders and said "okay!" and walk away?

I don't know. You don't know. Because that isn't what happened. Had Z
identified himself and the kid attacked is an entirely 'nother story.

>
> This is a violent kid we are talking about here.

Yeah, uh-huh, sure. Nothing says violent kid like unarmed.
>
> --

[ray]

In article
<ebf5db64-adc4-4186...@t20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

robw <nodd...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > > > Nope.  That's not it at all.  First off, Martin didn't yell because he
> > > > surprised Zimmerman and was in close range.  Secondly, the conversation
> > > > when like this: Martin: You have a problem with me?  Zimmerman: I don't
> > > > have any problem.  Martin: Well you do now!  And that's when Martin
> > > > assaulted Zimmerman.
> >
> >

> > > Wow, do you do fortune telling, as well??
> > > (snicker)
> >
> > You don't need to do fortune telling.  All you have to do is read the
> > stories.
> >
>

> Really?
>
> So if your account is absolutely correct why has Zims been arrested???

To placate the blacks and liberals. Because this story began as one
giant lie, it riled up the natives because that's what the media wanted
to do in the first place. Then as the truth slowly seeped out, it
became evident that Zimmerman was likely innocent in all this. That's
why the police let him go that evening.

The governments became weary, and thoughts of the Rodney King riots
began to dance through their heads. So they arrested Zimmerman to quiet
the crowd down. In essence, he was arrested by a media law and court.

Remember that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor and not the
defendant. Prosecutors need nearly absolute proof to make it stick. To
the chagrin of liberals, we still live in an innocent until proven
guilty society.

We also need to remember the judging decisions in court which is proof
beyond a reasonable doubt. So how would the prosecution prove that
Zimmerman cornered Martin? How would they prove that Zimmerman attacked
Martin, and Martin only defended himself in spite of the autopsy report
that stated his only injuries were to his fingers, and nowhere else.
How would the prosecution prove that Zimmerman continued to chase Martin
given the 911 recordings?

See, all evidence points to the story Zimmerman told. There is
absolutely no evidence (that we know of) to back up an alternative
story. So if Zimmerman is convicted on if's when's and but's, then we
no longer live in a society where evidence is proof enough to vindicate
a defendant. Evidence is irrelevant. It's the mood of the media and
country which will be the new law of the land. Even though the
popularity of self protection is growing in this country, there are
still people who despise armed citizens, and will allow those sour
feelings to convict this man.

[ray]

In article
<c47a8a38-dbd9-40ec...@n32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Guess that was his first lie, because that was his opportunity to
> > > identify himself as nabe watch.
> >
> > He is not held by law to identify himself to anybody but authorities.
>
> That may be so. But he lied to the kid. And the cops know he lied to
> the kid. They know Z had suspected him of a crime and had been
> following him. And instead of identifying himself so the kid knew this
> was a concerned neighbor and not some dangerous maniac following him
> at night, he didn't. Therefore, Martin was afraid. His actions are
> consistent with fear and standing his ground, Zimmerman's are not.
>
>
> > And if he did identify himself, do you think Martin would have shrugged
> > his shoulders and said "okay!" and walk away?
>
> I don't know. You don't know. Because that isn't what happened. Had Z
> identified himself and the kid attacked is an entirely 'nother story.
> >
> > This is a violent kid we are talking about here.
>
> Yeah, uh-huh, sure. Nothing says violent kid like unarmed.

Wait a minute. He lied to the kid? When? How? What lie? Where do
you get this stuff from?

If Martin was so afraid, why did he continue his conversation with his
girlfriend? Why didn't he hang up the phone and call the police?
Because had he done that, the police would have explained everything to
him, and he might be alive today.

And if Martin was so afraid, why didn't he continue to run to the house
he was staying at after Zimmerman lost sight of him? That complex is
not that large, and a kid Martin's size could run from one end to other
in less than two minutes. Certainly if he was scared, he could have
easily made it to his house while Zimmerman continued to discuss the
meeting place between himself and the officers arriving on the scene.

He was a violent animal. Even if we assume that Martin was protecting
himself, he went way beyond that point. Protecting yourself means
stopping your attacker--not continue to break things and pound his head
into the ground. That's not protecting yourself, that is assault.

[The Starmaker]

we live under a jury system, not an evidence system.

the jury decides whether he's innoncent or guilty, not the evidence.

I'm the jury, he's guilty. Death is his punishemnt, nothing less.

I don't care who kills him, ...I'll do it for free if it gets me on The
Jay Leno Show.

The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

The purpose of a gun is you shoot, he falls down. Martin didn't have a
gun, how else can he make Zimmerman do down? You do
it by pounding his head to the cement. Somebody has to go down...

If I say, "Yo, what's your problem?" It means...you're going down.


It's hard to kill a person if you don't have a gun. Try it...

What can Martin do, poison him?


The Starmaker

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 7, 8:32 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> ray wrote:
>
> > In article

> > <c47a8a38-dbd9-40ec-8430-78708d706...@n32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Exactly. And Zimmerman created this standoff position by not
identifying himself, after following the kid. It's dark. The kid is
unarmed and on foot, running. Z is in and out of a car with a weapon.
Who has the power? Z was actively looking for a fight. And it was
determined that Z's injuries were *marginally* consistent with what he
described as life threatening. When you menacingly follow and then
confront a stranger on a dark street, you should probably be prepared
for an altercation. And he was. With a gun. It's kind of a no
brainer. Everyone else seems to get.

>
> If I say, "Yo, what's your problem?" It means...you're going down.
>
> It's hard to kill a person if you don't have a gun. Try it...
>
> What can Martin do, poison him?

With an iced tea and skittles. What happened to the iced tea and
skittles? Because he could have just smashed him over the head with
the bottle.

[ray]

In article <4FF8D1...@ix.netcom.com>,

If that's your opinion, then you are more anti-American than Obama. Real
Americans listen and read the evidence before making a decision.

What does a jury make it's decision on if not evidence? How nice the
guy looks? How many fake tears he's able to squeeze out? How nice his
parents are? What?

It's people like you that have screwed this country up. Because people
like you vote for electors the same way you do an innocent defendant.
You don't care about the facts. You don't care about the outcome. All
you care about is venting your anger due to a personal objections. Why
worry about law and innocence when you possess the power to make
yourself feel better.

[ray]

In article <4FF8D5...@ix.netcom.com>,

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> > And if Martin was so afraid, why didn't he continue to run to the house
> > he was staying at after Zimmerman lost sight of him? That complex is
> > not that large, and a kid Martin's size could run from one end to other
> > in less than two minutes. Certainly if he was scared, he could have
> > easily made it to his house while Zimmerman continued to discuss the
> > meeting place between himself and the officers arriving on the scene.
> >
> > He was a violent animal. Even if we assume that Martin was protecting
> > himself, he went way beyond that point. Protecting yourself means
> > stopping your attacker--not continue to break things and pound his head
> > into the ground. That's not protecting yourself, that is assault.
> >
>
> The purpose of a gun is you shoot, he falls down. Martin didn't have a
> gun, how else can he make Zimmerman do down? You do
> it by pounding his head to the cement. Somebody has to go down...
>
> If I say, "Yo, what's your problem?" It means...you're going down.
>
>
> It's hard to kill a person if you don't have a gun. Try it...
>
> What can Martin do, poison him?

No, Martin could have walked away and not challenged Zimmerman.

[ray]

In article
<0d71c7c2-3ccf-40cb...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > He was a violent animal.  Even if we assume that Martin was protecting
> > > himself, he went way beyond that point.  Protecting yourself means
> > > stopping your attacker--not continue to break things and pound his head
> > > into the ground.  That's not protecting yourself, that is assault.
> >
> > The purpose of a gun is you shoot, he falls down. Martin didn't have a
> > gun, how else can he make Zimmerman do down? You do
> > it by pounding his head to the cement. Somebody has to go down...
>
> Exactly. And Zimmerman created this standoff position by not
> identifying himself, after following the kid. It's dark. The kid is
> unarmed and on foot, running. Z is in and out of a car with a weapon.
> Who has the power? Z was actively looking for a fight. And it was
> determined that Z's injuries were *marginally* consistent with what he
> described as life threatening. When you menacingly follow and then
> confront a stranger on a dark street, you should probably be prepared
> for an altercation. And he was. With a gun. It's kind of a no
> brainer. Everyone else seems to get.

No. Not many think like you and your ilk. According to polls, people
side with Zimmerman in the 40% range over Martin in the 20% range.

Again, quit with the liberal lies unless you have something to back up
your statements. There is no proof that Zimmerman was looking for a
fight. If he was looking for a fight, he would not have called the
police. WTF looks for a fight and calls police?

Fact: Zimmerman only followed Martin for a few short seconds. He did
not confront Martin. Martin accosted Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended
himself the best he could. And for that, he was arrested in spite of
the Stand Your Ground law.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 7, 9:42 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <4FF8D13D.1...@ix.netcom.com>,

Then you're saying you're not a real American?

>
> What does a jury make it's decision on if not evidence?

And right now that evidence suggests guilt.

>How nice the
> guy looks?  How many fake tears he's able to squeeze out?  How nice his
> parents are?  What?

Stop projecting. You and your ilk are the one's basing it on looks.

>
> It's people like you that have screwed this country up.

I think you mean "you people." Perhaps if we go back to a one-party
system you'd be happier.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 7, 9:50 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <0d71c7c2-3ccf-40cb-9326-a378dd9ba...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Again, quit with the liberal

Does this mean I'm sensitive? Just wondering.

[ray]

In article
<e79f9405-3192-4f96...@n32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > If that's your opinion, then you are more anti-American than Obama. Real
> > Americans listen and read the evidence before making a decision.
>
> Then you're saying you're not a real American?

Yes I am, because what I present are facts, not biased opinion based on
my hatred of armed citizens.

> > What does a jury make it's decision on if not evidence?
>
> And right now that evidence suggests guilt.

Please, what evidence????

> >How nice the
> > guy looks?  How many fake tears he's able to squeeze out?  How nice his
> > parents are?  What?
>
> Stop projecting. You and your ilk are the one's basing it on looks.

Nope, we are basing our opinions on facts. What fact do you wish to
debate???

> > It's people like you that have screwed this country up.
>
> I think you mean "you people." Perhaps if we go back to a one-party
> system you'd be happier.

I would be happier with a more informed electorate. And when has this
country ever had a one party system without the vote of the electorate?

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 7, 11:14 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <e79f9405-3192-4f96-842f-bf84589fb...@n32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > If that's your opinion, then you are more anti-American than Obama. Real
> > > Americans listen and read the evidence before making a decision.
>
> > Then you're saying you're not a real American?
>
> Yes I am, because what I present are facts, not biased opinion based on
> my hatred of armed citizens.
>
> > > What does a jury make it's decision on if not evidence?
>
> > And right now that evidence suggests guilt.
>
> Please, what evidence????
>
> > >How nice the
> > > guy looks?  How many fake tears he's able to squeeze out?  How nice his
> > > parents are?  What?
>
> > Stop projecting. You and your ilk are the one's basing it on looks.
>
> Nope, we are basing our opinions on facts.  What fact do you wish to
> debate???
>
> > > It's people like you that have screwed this country up.
>
> > I think you mean "you people." Perhaps if we go back to a one-party
> > system you'd be happier.
>
> I would be happier with a more informed electorate.  And when has this
> country ever had a one party system without the vote of the electorate?

I think Westboro Baptist is looking for members. Interested?

[pundit.har...@inderoal.com]

> It is relative, did the victim think he was "standing
> his ground" when a
> stranger was following him with a gun? If the victim
> had a gun instead of
> fists would he be in the clear?



"Sorry but standing your ground laws do NOT apply to people, armed or not,
who attack somebody. Who commit a battery. Stand your ground laws apply to
people using deadly force to protect life and limb against those who would
commit a battery or who do commit a battery.

This isn't even a case of stand your ground. Nobody lying on the ground
getting the crap beat out of him can possibly said to be standing their
ground. This is an old fashioned case of self-defense."

Yup, too bad the victim didn't have a gun to defend himself. Head bouncing
is just not as sexy somehow.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 7, 2:40 pm, pundit.hari.kumar...@inderoal.com wrote:
> > It is relative, did the victim think he was "standing
> > his ground" when a
> > stranger was following him with a gun?  If the victim
> > had a gun instead of
> > fists would he be in the clear?
>
> "Sorry but standing your ground laws do NOT apply to people, armed or not,
> who attack somebody. Who commit a battery. Stand your ground laws apply to
> people using deadly force to protect life and limb against those who would
> commit a battery or who do commit a battery.

You have no idea if Z approach with weapon drawn or in view.

>
> This isn't even a case of stand your ground. Nobody lying on the ground
> getting the crap beat out of him can possibly said to be standing their
> ground. This is an old fashioned case of self-defense."

How did someone having the crap beat out of him access his gun within
moments?

[ray]

In article
<574a4581-fe37-4f40...@o7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > This isn't even a case of stand your ground. Nobody lying on the ground
> > getting the crap beat out of him can possibly said to be standing their
> > ground. This is an old fashioned case of self-defense."
>
> How did someone having the crap beat out of him access his gun within
> moments?

Who said it was moments? They could have been struggling for the gun
for quite a few seconds before it went off. Or are you suggesting that
Zimmerman had his gun drawn right from the beginning, got knocked down
still holding the gun, received two black eyes, a bashed in back of head
and a broken nose before he decided to shoot?

--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 10, 6:28 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <574a4581-fe37-4f40-a8cb-f15fa2ebd...@o7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > This isn't even a case of stand your ground. Nobody lying on the ground
> > > getting the crap beat out of him can possibly said to be standing their
> > > ground. This is an old fashioned case of self-defense."
>
> > How did someone having the crap beat out of him access his gun within
> > moments?
>
> Who said it was moments?

Moments. Seconds. Take your pick.

>They could have been struggling for the gun
> for quite a few seconds before it went off.

Mmm hmmm.

>Or are you suggesting that
> Zimmerman had his gun drawn right from the beginning, got knocked down
> still holding the gun, received two black eyes, a bashed in back of head
> and a broken nose before he decided to shoot?

Well, yes, yes I am. I'm suggesting that either Z's gun was drawn or
the handle of his weapon was in plain sight, and the kid threw a punch
to knock the weapon out of Z's hand or prevent him from drawing his
weapon, to protect himself from the stranger with the gun who'd been
following him.

Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting.

[ray]

In article
<8d01f653-88df-4c32...@g5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

I suggest you quit watching adventure movies.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 10, 7:28 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <8d01f653-88df-4c32-b810-b78812a6b...@g5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

You know I'm right! That is the most plausible scenario. Changing the
channel to Twelve Angry Men.

[ray]

In article
<b0e1b411-ede4-448b...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Well, yes, yes I am. I'm suggesting that either Z's gun was drawn or
> > > the handle of his weapon was in plain sight, and the kid threw a punch
> > > to knock the weapon out of Z's hand or prevent him from drawing his
> > > weapon, to protect himself from the stranger with the gun who'd been
> > > following him.
> >
> > > Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting.
> >
> > I suggest you quit watching adventure movies.
>
> You know I'm right! That is the most plausible scenario. Changing the
> channel to Twelve Angry Men.

Give up the Chuck Norris movies. They are only that: movies. In the
real world, when you are unarmed and somebody holds a gun to you, your
only reasonable option is to comply with their demands. That is of
course unless you are high on pot or something.

I wish you were the prosecutor in this case. I can imagine making the
claim that in spite of Martin getting a two minute head start, Zimmerman
whisked through the skies and cornered Martin with his firearm. At that
point, Martin decided to attack Zimmerman, beat him to near blackout,
giving him two black eyes, a broken nose, and multiple wounds to the
back of his head. And then he decided to shoot his gun.

I'm sure any jury would find that account reasonable. But there are
only so many stupid people you can get on a jury, and the OJ jury is
exhausted to hear this case I'm sure.

--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 10, 11:06 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <b0e1b411-ede4-448b-b34e-85eed1cf0...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, yes, yes I am. I'm suggesting that either Z's gun was drawn or
> > > > the handle of his weapon was in plain sight, and the kid threw a punch
> > > > to knock the weapon out of Z's hand or prevent him from drawing his
> > > > weapon, to protect himself from the stranger with the gun who'd been
> > > > following him.
>
> > > > Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting.
>
> > > I suggest you quit watching adventure movies.
>
> > You know I'm right! That is the most plausible scenario. Changing the
> > channel to Twelve Angry Men.
>
> Give up the Chuck Norris movies.  They are only that: movies.

Excuse me?

>In the
> real world, when you are unarmed and somebody holds a gun to you, your
> only reasonable option is to comply with their demands.  That is of
> course unless you are high on pot or something.

Bullshit.

Storming the person to get the gun is most definitely an option. You
try to take him down before he pulls the trigger. Compliance doesn't
guarantee you live, so in the flick of a moment, it may seem the only
option. Not the first time it's happened.

>
> I wish you were the prosecutor in this case.I can imagine making the

> claim that in spite of Martin getting a two minute head start, Zimmerman
> whisked through the skies and cornered Martin with his firearm.  At that
> point, Martin decided to attack Zimmerman, beat him to near blackout,
> giving him two black eyes, a broken nose, and multiple wounds to the
> back of his head.  And then he decided to shoot his gun.

Who made that claim? After Zimmerman's suspicious behavior--stalking
the kid through the streets at night--and refusal to identify himself,
when Martin saw the firearm he immediately felt an even greater threat
and charged him.

>
> I'm sure any jury would find that account reasonable.

They will I predict.

But there are
> only so many stupid people you can get on a jury, and the OJ jury is
> exhausted to hear this case I'm sure.

O.J is guilty. And not much different than Zimmerman.

[The Starmaker]

ray wrote:
>
> In article
> <b0e1b411-ede4-448b...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, yes, yes I am. I'm suggesting that either Z's gun was drawn or
> > > > the handle of his weapon was in plain sight, and the kid threw a punch
> > > > to knock the weapon out of Z's hand or prevent him from drawing his
> > > > weapon, to protect himself from the stranger with the gun who'd been
> > > > following him.
> > >
> > > > Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting.
> > >
> > > I suggest you quit watching adventure movies.
> >
> > You know I'm right! That is the most plausible scenario. Changing the
> > channel to Twelve Angry Men.
>
> Give up the Chuck Norris movies. They are only that: movies. In the
> real world, when you are unarmed and somebody holds a gun to you, your
> only reasonable option is to comply with their demands. That is of
> course unless you are high on pot or something.

Rush a gun, run from a knife.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 11, 1:48 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> ray wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <b0e1b411-ede4-448b-b34e-85eed1cf0...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

> >  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Well, yes, yes I am. I'm suggesting that either Z's gun was drawn or
> > > > > the handle of his weapon was in plain sight, and the kid threw a punch
> > > > > to knock the weapon out of Z's hand or prevent him from drawing his
> > > > > weapon, to protect himself from the stranger with the gun who'd been
> > > > > following him.
>
> > > > > Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting.
>
> > > > I suggest you quit watching adventure movies.
>
> > > You know I'm right! That is the most plausible scenario. Changing the
> > > channel to Twelve Angry Men.
>
> > Give up the Chuck Norris movies.  They are only that: movies.  In the
> > real world, when you are unarmed and somebody holds a gun to you, your
> > only reasonable option is to comply with their demands.  That is of
> > course unless you are high on pot or something.
>
> Rush a gun, run from a knife.
>

> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to n...@netfront.net ---

Thank you!

[ray]

In article
<599108f7-1510-4d50...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

thepinkpantsuit <editor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >In the
> > real world, when you are unarmed and somebody holds a gun to you, your
> > only reasonable option is to comply with their demands. �That is of
> > course unless you are high on pot or something.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Storming the person to get the gun is most definitely an option. You
> try to take him down before he pulls the trigger. Compliance doesn't
> guarantee you live, so in the flick of a moment, it may seem the only
> option. Not the first time it's happened.

It's never an option unless you know for a fact you are going to die
anyway. Either that, or you are stupid enough to try such a stunt.

Find a friend of yours that has a gun. Make sure it's not loaded, and
tell him that when he sees you make any kind of sudden move, to pull the
trigger. Do it a few dozen times. Only then will you realize it's
impossible to strike a person before he pulls that trigger.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 11, 4:46 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <599108f7-1510-4d50-ae44-7c79f52d8...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >In the
> > > real world, when you are unarmed and somebody holds a gun to you, your
> > > only reasonable option is to comply with their demands.  That is of
> > > course unless you are high on pot or something.
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> > Storming the person to get the gun is most definitely an option. You
> > try to take him down before he pulls the trigger. Compliance doesn't
> > guarantee you live, so in the flick of a moment, it may seem the only
> > option. Not the first time it's happened.
>
> It's never an option unless you know for a fact you are going to die
> anyway.  Either that, or you are stupid enough to try such a stunt.

Then you'll enjoy this:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/49977937.html

"Investigators learned that an argument had broken out earlier after
the man asked the group to to stop using foul language and to keep
down the noise, as it was a family type of place. When the group of
suspects became aggressive, the man showed them a holstered handgun
and told them he feared for his safety, Seattle police said. The
suspects then rushed the victim and began beating him. One of the
suspects was kicking the victim in the head while the victim was lying
on the ground, investigators said. As the man and the suspects
struggled with the gun, it discharged. Nothing appeared to be hit."

Nothing was hit that time............

>
> Find a friend of yours that has a gun.  Make sure it's not loaded, and
> tell him that when he sees you make any kind of sudden move, to pull the
> trigger.  Do it a few dozen times.  Only then will you realize it's
> impossible to strike a person before he pulls that trigger.

Don't mind if I pass on that one.

[ray]

In article
<ea8073d3-3ac3-4576...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,

That might be a good idea. It's a real downer to learn realty. As for
your post, you are going to use a gun shy person to make the point that
it's a good idea to attack an armed man? The rule of thumb is never
pull out a weapon unless you have every intent to use it. If you pull
out a weapon only hoping to scare somebody, then you will likely be
harmed or killed.

In my martial arts classes, we were trained to remove a weapon from an
attacker. However, that move only works when you are less than two feet
away from the gun holder. As our CCW classes taught us, most all
shootings from CCW holders protecting themselves happened in 6 feet of
range. But in our training of martial arts, my teacher used a fake gun
with a loud click simulating the pull of the trigger. Unless you are
trying to bluff your opponent, you will be killed if you attack a person
with a firearm.

Unless Martin was a total idiot, your scenario never happened.

[thepinkpantsuit]

On Jul 11, 10:00 pm, ray <xxxray...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article

> <ea8073d3-3ac3-4576-8be1-40429dfe1...@37g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,

And I think that is precisely what happened. Z pulled or showed that
weapon to scare or send a message to M. At that point, learning he's
being followed by a man with a gun, M bumrushed the dude.

>
> In my martial arts classes, we were trained to remove a weapon from an
> attacker.  However, that move only works when you are less than two feet
> away from the gun holder.  As our CCW classes taught us, most all
> shootings from CCW holders protecting themselves happened in 6 feet of
> range.  But in our training of martial arts, my teacher used a fake gun
> with a loud click simulating the pull of the trigger.  Unless you are
> trying to bluff your opponent, you will be killed if you attack a person
> with a firearm.

I'm not doubting the proper procedure for disarming someone but the
people in question are untrained.

>
> Unless Martin was a total idiot, your scenario never happened.

Never said he was a brainchild. And it happens, as evidenced above.
Heck, I think they're both idiots. But one provoked the event and that
was Z. Moron meets moron. This is the end result.

[The Starmaker]

"In one of the calls to Sanford police, Zimmerman complained about children playing and running in the street."


He should have shot them...

I didn't know Zimmerman was a "self-appointed neighborhood watchman". That's a nut case...it was all leading
to Zimmerman killing...somebody. Case Closed.


The Starmaker

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-12/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-shooting/56166884/1

[thepinkpantsuit]

Seems like a nutcase to me too. If you are afraid, the number on rule
is do not exit your car! Why would you deliberately get out of your
car in a situation perceived as dangerous? Stupidest thing he could
do. Put he figured he was armed and ready. So he got out and started
something.