RonD1120 62 #26 March 21, 2012 Are we seeing an example of the product of public education? I'm messing with you now. Let me explain. I heard on the radio that the shooter had a facial injury. I posed a thought, maybe the kid struck him and he responded with his weapon. Using the word "maybe" indicates a reasonable question. It is not a statement of fact. I understand that in today's society the actual use of words can be misleading. However, my technical expertise in posting graphics is limited.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #27 March 21, 2012 That 2nd Amendment can be pretty pricey. Does Barney Fife follow this kid if he doesn't have a gun in his pocket? Would he go looking for a confrontation without the gun? Probably not. But that is the price you pay as a society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #28 March 21, 2012 QuoteThat 2nd Amendment can be pretty pricey. Freedom is like that, and compared to the cheaper alternative, well worth the cost in the long run. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #29 March 21, 2012 My original reply was focused on the terminal act of drama not on the entire scene development.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #30 March 21, 2012 It really sounds like he was following the kid - as he was told to NOT do by 911, then challenged the kid...then the kid started kicking Barney's ass...suddenly in fear for his life...he shot him like a coward! This case is not about the 2nd amendment nor is it about the castle doctrine extension. This is about murder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,447 #31 March 21, 2012 Unfortunately, it's also about the community's perception of the incident -- the fact that they no-billed the buy is fairly appalling. Frankly, I'm glad that the shooter didn't have a throw-down gun on him. The legal result might have been very different. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #32 March 21, 2012 Quote***QuoteQuoteThat 2nd Amendment can be pretty pricey. Freedom is like that, and compared to the cheaper alternative, well worth the cost in the long run. In the state of Florida, providing there are no witnesses, you can shoot and KILL someone who is even unarmed? Dead men tell no tales. What part am I missing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #33 March 21, 2012 Excellent point. From all accounts, this was an honest kid with no issues or problems. Stupid waste of life. It's getting beyond crazy here. Al Sharpton is coming tonight. If it wasn't about race, it most certainly will be. That too is sad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #34 March 21, 2012 QuoteThis case is not about the 2nd amendment This is a prime case showing the price society pays for the 2nd Amendment. Some will say it is worth it, some will say it isn't, but that is exactly what it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #35 March 21, 2012 Quote In the state of Florida, providing there are no witnesses, you can shoot and KILL someone who is even unarmed? Dead men tell no tales. What part am I missing? The part where, uh.... I'll get back to you on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #36 March 21, 2012 QuoteQuote***QuoteQuoteThat 2nd Amendment can be pretty pricey. Freedom is like that, and compared to the cheaper alternative, well worth the cost in the long run. In the state of Florida, providing there are no witnesses, you can shoot and KILL someone who is even unarmed? Dead men tell no tales. What part am I missing? If it goes to try, from what I understand, the litmus test is whether or not a reasonable person would have reasonable belief that you (the shooter) were in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or harm. Obviously a dead person can't contradict what you said, but if you're twice as big (literally) as the kid you shoot, I'm not sure how many reasonable people will say you felt threatened and in fear of your life, especially after chasing them down with a gun.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #37 March 21, 2012 There can be many spins and opinions on this topic in these or many more forums. For me, sure I hate the 17 year old teenager was killed. What transpired? Anything and everything is merely speculative at this time. I'm going to wait until the facts come out before putting my spin on it, if then. I really don't give a good goddamn. One thing though, if you want to talk about the general populations reaction to this incident, think back to the reaction when OJ's verdict was published. I'm still PO'd about that. That black male killed them 2 white people just as sure as your born, everybody knows it. But it's not going to change a thing, now or ever. That's the nature of History.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 March 21, 2012 QuoteReminds me of what they tell you in CCW class, if you are going to shoot someone, make damn sure you kill them, then there is no one to dispute your facts. Bullcrap. Give me the name of your CCW instructor so I can verify that with him.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 March 21, 2012 QuoteQuote That was the kid's mistake, he was not carrying. Then instead of hitting Zimmerman in the face, the kid could have just shot him, and Florida law would have protected him instead of protecting Zimmerman. Would have made no difference. Florida law is for whites not blacks. No doubt there are some on this forum who also would have called him a 'coon' and happily shot him. Hi Kevin.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #40 March 21, 2012 QuoteThis is a prime case showing the price society pays for the 2nd Amendment. Some will say it is worth it, some will say it isn't, but that is exactly what it is. The price of gun freedoms is that some people will be accidentally or wrongly shot. The price of free speech is that some people will publish hateful things. The price of freedom of assembly is that some people will hold offensive public protests. The price of freedom of religion is that some people will be offended by public religious symbols. Freedom isn't free. If you want cheap, we could eliminate all those things and save some lives. But would it really? And would the price savings be worth it? Would the loss of lives from NOT having those things be even worse? t Would you prefer safety at the expense of freedom? Just think what a perfect world it could be. Nobody walking around with guns. Those darned neo-nazis not publishing racist tracts. Those gross "occupy" protestors not shitting in the streets. Those darned religious folks not praying and erecting crosses all over the place. Yeah, that would be sweet... Or would it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #41 March 21, 2012 Quote It really sounds like he was following the kid - as he was told to NOT do by 911, then challenged the kid...then the kid started kicking Barney's ass...suddenly in fear for his life...he shot him like a coward! This case is not about the 2nd amendment nor is it about the castle doctrine extension. This is about murder. If the kid assaulted the man for simply following him, then that was itself an unprovoked, illegal and unjustified response. And if that assault was serious enough, then the shooting could indeed still be legally justified self defense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #42 March 21, 2012 >If the kid assaulted the man for simply following him, then that was itself an >unprovoked, illegal and unjustified response. If the kid assaulted the man after the man threatened him with a gun, then that was a justified response. Which is where the problems with this law come from. Both people are justified in killing each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,447 #43 March 21, 2012 QuoteIf it goes to try, from what I understand, the litmus test is whether or not a reasonable person would have reasonable belief that you (the shooter) were in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or harm.And that litmus paper is very context-sensitive. White person "assaulted by" black person? Black person "assaulted by" white person? "whose" neighborhood is it? That all depends on the jury of "peers," and on whoever does the arresting. It goes both ways, too. Often, since white people generally have more social power most places, black people are judged as guiltier than they might really be. White people are used to that, and OK with it. In cities with large minority populations, those populations enlist the press and activists to try to even it up. Of course, being human, they go too far in the other direction, too. Everyone wants to protect their kids and their friends. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 March 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteThis is a prime case showing the price society pays for the 2nd Amendment. Some will say it is worth it, some will say it isn't, but that is exactly what it is. The price of gun freedoms is that some people will be accidentally or wrongly shot. The price of free speech is that some people will publish hateful things. The price of freedom of assembly is that some people will hold offensive public protests. The price of freedom of religion is that some people will be offended by public religious symbols. Freedom isn't free. It may end up that this person basically murdered the boy but could escape punishment due to lack of evidence. That is a price of a system where innocence is presumed. That price, like the death itself, is harsh to those who pay it, but the alternative isn't attractive to the whole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #45 March 21, 2012 Quote If the kid assaulted the man for simply following him, then that was itself an unprovoked, illegal and unjustified response. And if that assault was serious enough, then the shooting could indeed still be legally justified self defense. Maybe unjustified, but hardly unprovoked. Maybe he was calling the kid "fucking coon" up close, as he can be heard doing on the 911 tape when he is following him. Maybe he was pushing the kid and the kid pushed back. Then the shooting would still be an unjustified response. This is another nutter with a gun, a cop wanna-be. I don't think that you would find a lot of real cops mishandling the situation like this guy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #46 March 21, 2012 Where do white people fit into this particular incident? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #47 March 21, 2012 I have yet to hear a clear enough tape of that call to know what word he said after he said 'fucking'. Sanford Officials Response to FAQ's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #48 March 21, 2012 I can tell, it is patently obvious. Not sure why you are linking to that page -- just filling in why the police took the (in)action they did? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,447 #49 March 22, 2012 The jury who no-billed George Zimmerman very likely has some white people on it. But much of my post was not specifically about this incident -- people give more of a pass to those whom they can identify with, than those they can't. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #50 March 22, 2012 As much as I agree he should clearly be sitting on a murder charge, I would be quite enraged had the police not clearly followed the law. Based on the evidence at hand at the time, they did what they were lawfully required to do. The police passed it on to the state attorney. That's where it goes to request a grand jury convene and hear the case. Just like it's going through the motions now. It's my understanding the only thing the feds are here to investigate is whether or not a hate crime occurred. Tomorrow should be very interesting around here.... Odd how this is becoming a white/black racial issue. Apparently the security guard is hispanic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
