Trayvon Martin.

'MURRICA! FUCK YEA!

 

The trial will almost certainly have Zimmerman taking the stand in his own defense, not all that common among those charged with murder, because it will expose him up to some tough questions from the prosecutors -- questions about why he left the car when the police said dont leave the car, the possibility of questions about several past incidents of assault and battery of a police officer and former girl friend, questions about his self-proclaimed identification as a community watch captain......

Or, there is the possibility of no trial at all. His lawyers will request a pre-trial hearing to determine if SYG "self-defense" applies and if the judge agrees that it does, then Zimmerman has immunity from prosecution and it ends right there.

Florida allows cameras in the courts so it will be widely viewed, giving added excitement to any masturbators.

 

Florida be an odd state...

Marissa Alexander sentencing postponed: faces 20 years for firing gun while standing her ground

 

Like Bodkin, I'll just wait and see what comes of the trial. I'm not particularly impressed by George Zimmerman's head wounds. I'm still of the opinion that if you kill someone, you know, when you get involved in a confrontation with a person who is left lying there lifeless with loved ones unwittingly waiting to go into mourning, you need to suffer the, oh the inconvenience, of getting your ass carted to jail, making bail and going to trial. There was nothing wrong with the old system.

 

As a State Senator in Illinois, Obama voted against Illinois Senate Senate Bill 2165, a law designed to protect the rights of a gun owner to defend himself with a gun within his own home regardless of local ordinances. The law was introduced based on a case where a man did that, but then faced prosecution for violating a local ordinance. If a criminal breaks into a person's home with an unknown intent, a homeowner should have the right to use a firearm in defense, and if proven a proper use of the firearm should not have to face prosecution on some technicality. There is no way I would support a politician who fails to recognize this fundamental right. I do consider his vote the vote of a gun control extremist. Say what you will, my mind has been made up on Obama's views on gun ownership.

 

Yeah....it is out in the open now.

Obama has been planning to destroy the Second Amendment since he entered politics and if he wins a second term, it will happen.

 

Can I claim a "Stand My Ground" defense against radical right wing rhetoric and have immunity from TFP warnings?

 

Only if you bloody the back of your head in the attempt.

 

The Trayvon Martin case has turned into a proxy on gun owners rights to self-defense using a gun. I argue that many are wrongly using this case to justify an anti-gun, anti-conceal/carry, anti-use of guns for self defense and anti-SYG agenda. I further argue that deceptive arguments and practices have been commonly used in an attempt to create a caricature of the typical gun owner who supports the uses of firearms for self-defense. As Obama stated when he thought he was off mic, "they" bitterly cling to their guns and religion as if we are from another planet. I think the politicization of the Trayvon Martin murder and initial corrupt/incompetent police investigation is sad. My final word, until the trial.

 

For what it's worth, I'm a crazy liberal guy with a long pony tail living out in the middle of nowhere in the Great Deep South, and I own several firearms and will probably be getting a CCW soon. There's a far cry between respecting responsible gun ownership and and thinking people need access to automatic weapons, and it is possible to believe gun ownership should be protected while respecting the fact that people concerned about gun ownership and gun proliferation in the states have valid concerns. There's almost always a balance between individual rights and social safety, because we're all simultaneously individuals and members of society, etc. Not necessarily directed at you, Lindy, but just pointing out or reminding the crowd it's ok and healthy for people to have differing opinions.

ace: just curious, do you not think it might be more problematic to have a lot of handguns in a place like Chicago, comprised largely of high rise and high density residential construction, and somewhere like NC or SC where you might have some room around you to fire a weapon? How would you feel if your neighbor got broken into, he fired off a few rounds to subdue his aggressor, and a spare bullet went through the wall and popped your wife or kid? I haven't read the bill in question, but I can easily see some additional concerns with discharge of firearms in an urban area as opposed to my backyard. I can target shoot all day long and have virtually no chance of hurting anything other than bugs and weeds.

edit: I typed this out earlier today, and held off posting it as I don't post that much these days and it feels a little rusty. Regardless, in light of ace's last post I'll put this down to point out that misleading stereotypes and caricatures can and do exist on all sides of most issues. But to stay on point, I'm with mixed and that bodkin fellow, and perhaps ace himself: I'll wait until I hear more from the trial but this seems to be a situation where Zimmerman created the situation he had to escape from. If you take the responsibility to carry, you've got to be held accountable when you create a shit situation and it backfires on you.

 

My old eyes played good wise tricks and saw "wiping its ass with the Constipation."

thanks redux

 

There are a lot of handguns in Chicago. Even given the restrictions/bans in the local law, some normal law abiding citizens, kept, will keep and will acquire hand guns. I think the difference is that normal law abiding citizens would hesitate to use a hand gun in self-defense and criminals know it.

I would go through the normal cycle of emotions. At the end I would want justice. If the gun was used inappropriately, the gun owner should be held accountable - just like I think Zimmerman should be held accountable for his inappropriate use of a gun.

I would feel the same if you replaced "gun", with anything else, i.e. "car", "boat", "knife", etc. I have no problem with people being held accountable for what they do, and if after a legitimate investigation there was a finding of accident with no intent to harm, there should still be a consequence, perhaps as simple as revoking the right to carry a firearm, or drive, or operate a boat, etc. Again, in the Zimmerman situation if local police made an arrest, did a thorough investigation, concluded self-defense with no premeditation and could support the finding, the case would not have turned into a national issue.

I had a cousin who was a victim of gun violence when she was 15, in the Chicago area in the 80's, she was involved with a person participating in gang activity. People who think gun bans work, I would suggest they spend time with people outside of their normal circle of acquaintances. My family does have some first hand experience with the question you asked.

 

Sorry Ace, there's a somewhat unhealthy psychology at work in the desire to carry a concealed weapon, unless it's job related.

Need for power (fear) or paranoia (fear). Self-defense is the justification.

 

Out of interest, where was this experience you speak of? I live somewhere where there is a gun ban and I'm not clear what doesn't work about it.

Probably OT, I know.

 

Yeaaah... about that.

 

A politically-inspired article. It's also comparing apples with oranges ..

Violent crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Besides which, in what way would more guns improve the situation (especially when linked with 24-hour drinking!)?

 

My point, as it relates to the Trayvon Martin case, is that guns or no guns (civilian legal or not, in the hands of cops or not), you still have first world nations where "civilized" people are beating the shit out of each other over basically nothing. All of these fancy statistics tell me that much, anyway.

You can argue differences all day; all I see are similarities. Park your anti-gun rhetoric at the door, Europe. You're no better than the United States.

...

Ah, yet another relaxed non-driver that doesn't understand that the road of life may involve a flat tire or two.

Don't worry. Someone is always around with a spare when you need it. And car tires never go flat anyway.

 

We have bad people doing bad things, for sure, and of course there is nothing intrinsically better about a European than an American.

I'm not convinced that more gun ownership would help, though. We'd just have bad people doing bad things with guns.

What I do accept is that there are differences between Europe and America and the same arguments won't always apply. In fact, they often won't.

 

I am answering the question, but there is a connection with Zimmerman.

I ride a motorcycle and wear a helmet. Is that unhealthy?
I have homeowners insurance at a level above the minimum requirement. Is that unhealthy?
I wear hiking boots and long pants when I hike in dense brush. Is that unhealthy?
I have a gun, I know how to use it, I have a routine in case of home invasion. Is that unhealthy?

My answers are no to all the above.

What Zimmerman did was unhealthy in my opinion. Zimmerman perceived a threat. Initially took the appropriate steps, but then he went on the hunt. He was told not to pursue Martin to avoid unnecessary risk, but he did it anyway. Some type of confrontation occurred where Zimmerman was armed and could have and should have let it be known that he was armed, perceived his life was at risk and that he was prepared to use his firearm. Zimmerman had a proactive responsibility to control the situation, given that we know he was armed and Martin was not.