Never Waiste A Good Crises.......BHO.

[BarkNBite 15]

IMO........the attack on firearms of late due to the incident in Sanford Fla. is another opportunity for the administration in their quest to "Never Waiste A Good Crises". Obviously, the agenda for the next term includes an all out attack on the

2nd Amendment. But the SYGL as I see it has little to do with the use of firearms as much as it does with baseball bats, sticks or any other instrument chosen to stop a deadly threat.....SYGL is a defensive tool for law abiding citizens giving them the right to protect themselves from predatory attack......it's not a gun law.

 

But, why not make it a gun issue........."Never Waiste A Good Crises"...BHO.

[RubberBullets 65]

[RubberBullets 65]

LoL.. sorry pet peeve, but I get the general idea. This Fla issue is already stirring up the anti's and unfortunately this bodes bad for the gun community. Things like stand your ground laws look horrible when applied to this case. Unfortunately this Zimmerman jerk looks guilty the second he gets out of his car and gave chase (ESPECIALLY against the dispatchers instructions) 2nd misstep is him not being charged with anything. The details seem a bit too sketchy not to and let the court and a jury of his peers decide if he was justified in doing so.

[deadeye74 5]

I have an ugly uncomfortable feeling about this whole situation. With the national concealed carry bill being looked at in the senate, this issue is going to become one of the rally cries of the anti's as to why there should be no CCW, yadda yadda yadda...

 

I always try to stay positive with 2A rights. Things never move forward in any situation unless someone has hope. It pisses me off to no end when someone who is a legal gun owner does something stupid to make the rest of us look like idiots!

[bulpup 98]

Gun rights are always at risk of bad pr by the latest jack a**. That is the one thing that can't be changed by a law - the inherent jack assines of a jack a**.

 

But "stand your ground" is a good law for national debate as long as those that enacted the law can get the point across on why SYG is better than "run away.". The point of the law is not to put every self defense act at risk, to not have to worry if your fear can be turned over in a court room to look like a criminal act.

[BarkNBite 15]

Don't really want to discuss Z here...not my intentions of this post, but to discuss the SYGL as it relates to it's purpose and the protesters of it.

 

In retrospect.....how is this man ever going to get a fair trial with this circus atmosphere, media blitz and POTUS giving his opinion....the entire situation has gotten out of hand with everyone scurrying for there own gain.........just Pittyful.....IMO.

[RubberBullets 65]

Don't really want to discuss Z here...not my intentions of this post, but to discuss the SYGL as it relates to it's purpose and the protesters of it.

 

In retrospect.....how is this man ever going to get a fair trial with this circus atmosphere, media blitz and POTUS giving his opinion....the entire situation has gotten out of hand with everyone scurrying for there own gain.........just Pittyful.....IMO.

 

But the reason why this has gone to such a level of recognition is because the details of the case indicate there is probable cause to be indicted. If the details of the case werent so fishy and the cops charged the guy there would be outrage but nowhere near as much coverage because the guy would have to prove his innocence to the justice system and not just kill a kid an unarmed kid and the cops state they would not charge him days after the incident.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

I have an ugly uncomfortable feeling about this whole situation. With the national concealed carry bill being looked at in the senate, this issue is going to become one of the rally cries of the anti's as to why there should be no CCW, yadda yadda yadda...

 

I always try to stay positive with 2A rights. Things never move forward in any situation unless someone has hope. It pisses me off to no end when someone who is a legal gun owner does something stupid to make the rest of us look like idiots!

 

The thing is no matter what or when, they would be able to dig up a few cases around the country, however let not forget the stories that support our 2A rights, they far out weigh the negatives, only problem is, we will hear about all the negatives, probably at a ratio of 1 in 100 if not 1 in 1000 positive ones.

 

It's the groups fighting for our rights that need to help get the positive ones out, only problem the mainstream media wont support that. After all the general public that isn't as knowledgeable about what we hold dear to us only see the negatives. If you were a person not following this it's no wonder some people make the choices they do. Hard to make an informed decision about something when your missing 99% of the facts.

[mipafox 438]

SYG has nothing to do with it. He was on his back being beaten to death when he fired the shot. You can't retreat in complete safety when you are on your back being killed, so SYG does not apply to the situation.

 

He was attacked unprovoked and defended his life under regular old every day rules. Now, apply all those federal hatecrime laws to the media lynch mob and special interest groups trying to get the innocent man assassinated and putting bounties on his head.

 

[BarkNBite 15]

That's the point..............no one has the truth as to what happened yet most are quick to determine his innocense or guilt......I'm stunned really.

All everyone knows here is what the media bias tell you..........and your judging a man's innocense or guilt based on that solely......Terrible.

 

Justice will prevail...........the media should report the facts and the POTUS.....should keep his opinion to himself.....didn't he learn from that fiasco in Mass....

 

SYGL............is a legal statute, a implement that allows one to use whatever necessary to protect life and limb.....not a Firearm Issue....IMO.

[mipafox 438]

Justice will prevail.....

 

No it won't. If he is absolved under state law, the feds are going after him for a hate crime killing. They said so. They will prevail, not justice.

[Vlad G 345]

Nothing I heard so far makes me think he will be absolved under state law. From everything I've heard so far the guy was an idiot and should go to jail for murder and probably will.

[mipafox 438]

SYGL............is a legal statute, a implement that allows one to use whatever necessary to protect life and limb.....not a Firearm Issue....IMO.

 

SYG is not "a implement that allows one to use whatever necessary to protect life and limb."

 

You are allowed to use "whatever necessary to protect life and limb" without SYG.

 

It removes duty to retreat before using deadly force under limited situations, but it does not change the situations where you are authorized to use deadly force in the first place. Similarly not applicable to the situation at hand, it puts the burden of proof that you are in fear for your life or serious bodily harm on the prosecution if you are in your home, residence, or vehicle under very limited situations. It does not even expand the number of situations where you could use deadly force in your home, residence, or vehicle either.

 

With or without SYG, you must be reasonably in fear for your life, serious bodily injury, etc. to use deadly force. SYG does not change that in the slightest.

 

[mipafox 438]

Nothing I heard so far makes me think he will be absolved under state law. From everything I've heard so far the guy was an idiot and should go to jail for murder and probably will.

 

I doubt the guy is hanging his hope on the opinion of somebody from NJ.

[RubberBullets 65]

That's the point..............no one has the truth as to what happened yet most are quick to determine his innocense or guilt......I'm stunned really.

 

First and foremost.. *innocence

 

Second, you can derive a lot of factual basis given the commonality of statements by all of the media outlets, INCLUDING audio tapes from the 911 calls which are not based on opinion of the media. Nothing brought forth in the facts and opinions of this case shed any light of his innocence.

 

The police department in Fla has given no inkling of evidence to the public to prove that Z's actions were justified. In fact by him disobeying the dispatchers instructions to stay put and his comments that followed would prove his intent to look for vigilante justice.

 

He should be charged.. and if he can prove that he is innocent, he can argue that to the jury.

 

 

If this were portrayed as a successful ccw story we'd all be happy and then outraged when the pd charged him because they had reason to believe his life was not in danger. The differences are the witness accounts and 911 tapes released early enough to cast doubt on this guys intent.

[BarkNBite 15]

I see .......guilty untill proven innocent......? Really....

[JimmyAGR 54]

I see .......guilty untill proven innocent......? Really....

 

yeah I thought the same thing... WTF?

[mipafox 438]

The police department in Fla has given no inkling of evidence to the public to prove that Z's actions were justified. In fact by him disobeying the dispatchers instructions to stay put

 

Means nothing. He was trying to keep an eye on the guy so the cops could arrest him. Personally, I wouldn't give much attention to a dispatcher's instructions. They are not present and they don't have my interests in mind. Unless, of course, they were trying to tell me how to prepare for police about to arrive, or otherwise to coordinate activity, then it would make sense to listen.

 

and his comments that followed would prove his intent to look for vigilante justice.

 

What comments are those?

 

He told the police the guy was leaving. Then he said wait, he is coming back. Then he got attacked and started screaming. The cops have a witness - the teen was on top of him beating the shit out of him while Z was screaming for help - according to his testimony, according to the witness, and according his the 911 call and one of the several other 911 calls. He fired while on his back on the ground getting the shit beat out of him. When the cops showed up he was bleeding from the face and the back of the head.

 

Here is what I think. I think that you guys in Jersey think it's OK to carry a gun. But if you need to deal with somebody, you have to run away and throw your gun onto a roof! I think you guys think that if you have a gun then you are not allowed to tell somebody to stop grabbing your wife's a**, pull them away from your car when they are trying to break the window, or chase them when they run off with your gun case.

 

Carrying a gun does NOT limit your normal legal behavior. Including use of non-deadly force, such as giving chase and an a**-whooping as necessary for detainment if your property is stolen. And THEN using deadly force if suddenly found to be in fear for your life, provided you didn't break any serious laws to get into the situation. Of course, that doesn't apply to this situation at all. But I am really getting the feeling that a lot of people around here haven't thought about that. It would be very wise, of course, to limit conflict as much as possible when carrying, not only because of legal ramifications but because the chances of somebody getting seriously injured or killed might be higher.

 

He did not approach the kid to use the gun. He did not engage in consensual combat. It is OK to follow somebody in a gated community while you wait for the police, and if that person attacks you unprovoked, and you are afraid of dying, it is OK to use deadly force.

 

Let me ask you this. Do you think the teen was in fear for his life when he ran at the guy and attacked him? Do you think the teen should have retreated or was it OK for HIM to attack what he though was an unarmed person? Do you think, being on top of Z, and beating his head against the ground, and telling him he was going to die tonight, the teen was justified in using deadly force?

 

If Z was dead, would the teen be justified?

[PeteF 1,044]

First and foremost.. *innocence

 

Second, you can derive a lot of factual basis given the commonality of statements by all of the media outlets, INCLUDING audio tapes from the 911 calls which are not based on opinion of the media. Nothing brought forth in the facts and opinions of this case shed any light of his innocence.

 

The police department in Fla has given no inkling of evidence to the public to prove that Z's actions were justified. In fact by him disobeying the dispatchers instructions to stay put and his comments that followed would prove his intent to look for vigilante justice.

 

He should be charged.. and if he can prove that he is innocent, he can argue that to the jury.

 

 

If this were portrayed as a successful ccw story we'd all be happy and then outraged when the pd charged him because they had reason to believe his life was not in danger. The differences are the witness accounts and 911 tapes released early enough to cast doubt on this guys intent.

 

 

Have you listened to any of the tapes? Have you listened to what the kids girlfriend said?

 

Here try this timeline:

 

Kid goes out to get his skittles

On the way back he stops under another apartments porch to "get out of the rain" From Girlfriends statement

Zimmerman (in car) sees kid not from the complex who looks shady and calls non emergency 911. From 911 Call

Has discussion with 911 operator.

While talking to operator kid is looking in all directions (maybe hes lost who knows) then start to walk at Zimmerman. From 911 Call

Kid starts running from Zimmerman who has done nothing other than call 911 so far.

Zimmerman gets out of car and start to follow kid. From 911 Call

"911 asks are you following him?" After Zimmerman says yes. 911 says "You don't have to do that" From 911 Call

Anyone who takes 911's statement as an order to not follow him needs to reevaluate their understanding of the English language. At most that is a suggestion.

 

Zimmerman loses sight of Kid. From 911 Call

 

Next part is from human nature may not be correct but usually the person initiating contact speaks first

Kid finds Zimmerman and "Asks why are you following me?" to which Zimmerman responds "Who are you?" The sequence is from Girlfriends call

Notice kid does not say "Why are you pointing a gun at me?" which would indicate gun is holstered.

 

"There are two men fighting outside someone is calling for help" from neighbor 911 call

 

"I heard gunshots" from neighbor 911 call

 

Police show up and see dead kid. and ZImmerman bleeding from nose and back of head, with grass stains on back of his shirt. Which the police say is consistent with Zimmerman's story of being punched in the face and then having his head banged on the ground.

 

So another assumption from human nature. Do you call for help if you are get your a** handed to you or do you call for help if you are beating the pulp out of someone? Guy getting beat is the one that calls for help.

By the injuries to ZImmerman, he is the one calling for help.

 

So being on his back getting his head beat into the ground Zimmerman fears for his life pulls and fires his gun.

 

So the kid didn't have a knife or gun. So what. People get beaten to death by fists every day.

 

Sounds like a clear case of self defense to me.

 

 

So let racist lynch mob continue.

 

Can you say Tawana Brawley?

Can you say Duke Lacrosse Team?

[RubberBullets 65]

So this guy gives chase to a person he suspected of not belonging in the community...interrogating them, not necessarily having his gun drawn, but opens themselves up for a scuffle regardless of whoever started it. This kid ran away... in a development...so either this guy chased him down and stopped him or was stopped from his retreat. If the guy calls the cops and gives the description of kid and stays in his vehicle, non of the events to follow would have occurred.

 

Sure those looking for a good race outrage is to be expected. Taking away the cries of Al Sharpton this case still smells foul. This person, this kid... even if he was white, asian, had a criminal record or not, did not need to be shot. .

 

Flip the scripts...

Youre minding your own business.. guy walks up to you that you dont know with intent on making contact with you (perceived body language).

Being intimidated by that individual you choose to retreat...

man gives chase...

you are fearful the man chasing you would do you harm. When removed of options you feel you are in danger from someone pursuing you.

 

The minute or so from the time Z said who are you and witness accounts means that one of these persons initiated a fight, a kid being chased or a man giving chase. Either way he had no duty to act as a civilian to pursue and interrogate a suspicious person. He put himself in the position to have to defend himself, not the other way around.

 

 

 

Irregardless, if they are not going to release all the facts of the case, then let the Feds go in there and review the series of events. I am a firm believer that this guy could have called the police and not put himself in that situation. SYG is meet force with force. I can walk away from getting a good a** beating.. If he didnt have a weapon there's no reason to consider deadly force in self defense.

[mipafox 438]

Flip the scripts...

Youre minding your own business.. guy walks up to you that you dont know with intent on making contact with you (perceived body language).

Being intimidated by that individual you choose to retreat...

man gives chase...

you are fearful the man chasing you would do you harm. When removed of options you feel you are in danger from someone pursuing you.

 

He wasn't chased. He was being followed. Then he left, and decided to come back to attack Z. He didn't flee, he approached and attacked.

 

Do you feel justified going to find someone to use deadly force on them because they followed you on the sidewalk shortly before? Z followed, but he did not chase, and the teen approached and initiated the encounter and the attack.

 

Could this be incorrect? Yes. But all evidence is pointing exactly towards that. Except for media talking heads saying "He was on his way home from buying candy when somebody ran up and shot him because he looked suspicious."

[bulpup 98]

Every time I read this timeline, and try to think on both sides of what is happening, it sounds like too people standing their ground and only one had a gun.

 

One guy sees a suspicious person and follows, one guy sees a suspicious person and asks if he is being followed.

 

Both are party to a confrontation that can both be justified under the law. If Martin hadn't been shot he may well have had a case for standing his own ground. There is nothing that says Zimmerman didn't start that fistfight either. Everyone assumes Martin did. Yea, Z got his face beat up, but then again Martin could very well have felt threatened, been in a fight because some guy following him made him feel threatened, scared the crap out of him and he started winning the fight.

 

Gun wins.

 

Secondly, doesn't seem odd that you can CCW, join the neighborhood watch and be a self appointed armed guard? I am sure some see nothing wrong with that, but to many people it is the definition of vigilante.

 

[bulpup 98]

 

 

He wasn't chased. He was being followed. Then he left, and decided to come back to attack Z. He didn't flee, he approached and attacked.

 

 

He approached and a fight started. Zimmerman alleges he was attacked. Why it started is not as clear based on the testimony.

 

 

[PeteF 1,044]

He approached and a fight started. Zimmerman alleges he was attacked. Why it started is not as clear based on the testimony.

 

Actually it looks like Zimmerman was approached and a fight ensued. I say this because of what was said on the girlfriends phone call.

 

Next part is from human nature may not be correct but usually the person initiating contact speaks first

Kid finds Zimmerman and "Asks why are you following me?" to which Zimmerman responds "Who are you?" The sequence is from Girlfriends call

 

And since this was released by Martin's lawyer I'm pretty sure that it was "doctored".

 

Secondly, doesn't seem odd that you can CCW, join the neighborhood watch and be a self appointed armed guard? I am sure some see nothing wrong with that, but to many people it is the definition of vigilante.

 

Gun had nothing to do with the story UNTIL Zimmerman was in fear of his life. If just looking out for your neighbors by looking for something suspicious (ie neighborhood watch) is vigilantism.

I find it pretty funny that the NYPD is pushing vigilantism with its "if it doesn't seem right give the PD a call" anti-terrorism campaign.

[BarkNBite 15]

Geeezzzz..............guys, this post was suppossed to be about the SYGL in Fla.....................not Z or T or what transpired that we don't know about....or the one's that witnessed the fight supposedly seeing T on top of Z getting punched...

 

We just don't know.........but how does this Statute become implicated when there's only one witness talking and the other deceased...?

 

No security cams anywhere.........?

[PeteF 1,044]

Geeezzzz..............guys, this post was suppossed to be about the SYGL in Fla.....................not Z or T or what transpired that we don't know about....or the one's that witnessed the fight supposedly seeing T on top of Z getting punched...

 

We just don't know.........but how does this Statute become implicated when there's only one witness talking and the other deceased...?

 

No security cams anywhere.........?

 

This really has nothing to do with SYG. Its just a spin the anti media is putting on it, and all the politicians are trying to distance themselves.

 

If someone on top of you banging your head on the ground and you pick up a rock and clock him in the head killing him, how different does the reporting play out?

[RubberBullets 65]

Actually it looks like Zimmerman was approached and a fight ensued. I say this because of what was said on the girlfriends phone call.

 

 

 

And since this was released by Martin's lawyer I'm pretty sure that it was "doctored".

 

 

 

Gun had nothing to do with the story UNTIL Zimmerman was in fear of his life. If just looking out for your neighbors by looking for something suspicious (ie neighborhood watch) is vigilantism.

I find it pretty funny that the NYPD is pushing vigilantism with its "if it doesn't seem right give the PD a call" anti-terrorism campaign.

 

He called 911. He felt that police presence was necessary so let the police do their job. That should be the extent of his involvement if he felt there was a dangerous element. Again, if he would have stayed in his vehicle and did not attempt to engage the kid this all would not have happened. He only feared for his life because he put himself in that situation. If a guy gets bit by a shark will you blame the shark or the guy swimming in chum infested waters?

 

 

And im sorry bark but you cited this topic in your first sentence being the culprit for SYG being attacked. The obvious subject matter as the conversation continues.

[KpdPipes 388]

Geeezzzz..............guys, this post was suppossed to be about the SYGL in Fla.....................not Z or T or what transpired that we don't know about....or the one's that witnessed the fight supposedly seeing T on top of Z getting punched...

 

We just don't know.........but how does this Statute become implicated when there's only one witness talking and the other deceased...?

 

No security cams anywhere.........?

there are a number of witnesses, not just Zimmerman..that said, the Statute became implicated when the Media Decided to use that as the "Reasoning" for the "Tragedy"..they ASSumed that the Police didnt make an arrest because of the SYG law..and of course all of the A"ctivists" have picked up on that, saying that the PD has done no investigation at all. And JUST to now make matters even worse, the Black panthers have offered a $10K "Reward" for Zimmerman's "Capture". Talk about never letting a Crisis go to WASTE. If someone down there doesnt step up and start acting like an adult, there is going to be more bodies.

[PeteF 1,044]

Again, if he would have stayed in his vehicle and did not attempt to engage the kid this all would not have happened.

 

Where is there any evidence that he engaged the kid? He was WATCHING the kid and following him to keep him in SIGHT. So when the police showed up up he would be able to say "Look there is the guy I called you about".

 

Yeah if he had run up and anyway physically assaulted Martin, then I'd agree he made his bed so lay in it.

 

But he didn't, he watched a person in a public area.

 

This is why I believe that after questioning him not once, not twice, but three times the police let him go.

[BarkNBite 15]

The SYGL in itself in my opinion will survive this racial maylay........now a bounty on a man's head........seems that organization feels they can do whatever they want to.......like stand in front of Polling Booths on election day and harass and intimidate voters.....but that's OK..........this administration IMO has done everything it can to create a divisive society and continues along on it's plotted course...sorry, sorry state of affairs......hope it's not true.

 

 

Witness Speaks....

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...cked-Zimmerman