[Athens]

Something that seems to be missing from the debate these days is the original police response to all this and the original investigation. Murders happen all the time, what isn't normal is for a police department to fail so badly and to basically look the other way.

I couldn't care less about Zimmerman any more. In my book he is guilty. The real problem is not the murder. Its the law itself and the arrest or lack of that is the real problem.

[OAW]

Now with that being said, as for the Hannity interview I'll comment on a few excerpts ...

HANNITY: A lot of time has passed since this incident with Trayvon. How do you feel about it now that you have had some time to reflect on what has happened?

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: I haven't really had the time to reflect on it. When I was in jail, obviously I was in solitary confinement and I had a lot of time to think and reflect. I just think it's a tragic situation, and I hope it's the most difficult thing I'll ever go through in my life. But --

So right of the the gate, Zimmerman claims he hasn't had the time to "reflect" ... and then immediately contradicts himself.

HANNITY: Why did you feel the need to carry a gun? A lot of people maybe have a weapon inside their home, but you decided to carry yours. Why did you think it was necessary to have a weapon with you? And did you carry it at all times?

ZIMMERMAN: I carried it at all times except for when I went to work.

Notice how Hannity asked him three questions ... but Zimmerman only answered the last one. And in true "soft ball" fashion, Hannity kept it moving and didn't bother to press for an answer for the first two.

HANNITY: Well. Now, on -- it was very interesting, in the 911 call that everybody has heard, you said that all of a sudden you found somebody who looked suspicious, he may be on drugs. That was one of the earlier comments that you made in that 911 call. What made you think he was suspicious, and what made you think that he might be on drugs?

ZIMMERMAN: I felt he was suspicious because it was raining. He was in-between houses, cutting in-between houses, and he was walking very leisurely for the weather. I -- it didn't look like he was a resident that went to check their mail and got caught in the rain and was hurrying back home. He didn't look like a fitness fanatic that would train in the rain. He just seemed like --

I'd be interested to know how Martin was "cutting in-between houses" ... and yet he managed to keep walking down the street towards Zimmerman? If he went "in-between houses" he would have ended up in the back of someone's house! And we'll note how he didn't get a chance to answer about the "drugs" part because this exchange continues with Hannity cutting Zimmerman off and giving him a leading question ....

HANNITY: Weren't there overhangs, though? Was he -- he was walking, he wasn't standing still? And he was walking closer to the house, which is back from the sidewalk?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: Am I understanding that right?

ZIMMERMAN: The overhangs are just in front of the front doors.

Oh so now Martin is walking closer to the house ... not toward Zimmerman? I mean ... which is it? In any event, this is pretty much corroborated by Martin's girlfriend who he was talking to at the time on his cell phone. She indicated that Martin was standing close to a house to shield himself from the rain. And that's when he first mentioned that some crazy dude was following him in a car.

HANNITY: Yes. You said he started from almost the beginning in that 911 call, you said he came towards you, and he seemed to reach for something in his waistband. Did you think that was a gun?

ZIMMERMAN: I thought he was just trying to intimidate me.

HANNITY: To make you think that there is a gun?

ZIMMERMAN: A weapon.

HANNITY: Of some kind?

ZIMMERMAN: Possibly.

Again. We have cell phone records that Martin was talking to his girlfriend at the time. So this means he would have had to be holding the phone with one hand, carrying the Arizona Iced Tea and the bag of Skittles in the other hand, and reaching in his waistband with what exactly?

HANNITY: You said in that tape something's wrong with him, he's checking me out. I don't know what his deal was. So it's almost from the very beginning you felt -- are you saying on that 911 tape that you felt threatened at that moment when you said that to the dispatch?

ZIMMERMAN: No, not particularly.

HANNITY: Then what did you mean, I don't know what his deal is, he's checking me out?

ZIMMERMAN: The way he was coming back. And I was on the phone, but I was certain I could see him saying something to me. And his demeanor, his body language, was confrontational.

Of course Zimmerman didn't feel threatened because per his own words on the 911 tape Martin was just walking down the street. And let's not forget that Zimmerman was the one with the gun. Yet when pressed by Hannity he changes his tune and said that Martin's body language was "confrontational". Another point to note, Zimmerman says that Martin was "coming back". Which ties into this latest story he and his family have told that there were TWO confrontations with Martin supposedly initially approaching Zimmerman in his car. The only problem is that none of this is supported by the 911 tapes. At no point does Zimmerman say in those tapes that Martin walked past him ... only to come back. In fact, he said "Sh*t ... he's running." to the dispatcher. Now let's see how Zimmerman's story is changing on that little tidbit ....

HANNITY: Yeah. You said -- then we get to the issue where you said to -- on the 911 call that he's running. You said that to the dispatch. Is there any chance in retrospect as you look back on that night and what happened, and the nation obviously is paying a lot of attention to this--

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: -- trying to maybe get into the mind-set, because we also have learned that Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time -- that maybe he was afraid of you, didn't know who you were?

ZIMMERMAN: No.

HANNITY: You don't think -- why do you think that he was running then?

ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running, but he was more --

HANNITY: You said he's running.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes. He was like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn't running out of fear.

HANNITY: You could tell the difference?

ZIMMERMAN: He wasn't running.

HANNITY: So he wasn't actually running?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: OK. Because that's what you said to the dispatcher, that you thought he was running.

So Zimmerman tell's the 911 unequivocally "S*t he's running!". Martin's girlfriend who was on the phone call said he took off running. And now Zimmerman tells the Fox News crowd that Martin wasn't actually running ... he was just SKIPPING away. WTF is this .... grade school?

But wait it gets worse ....

HANNITY: Let me ask you this. At that point, we can hear the unbuckling of the seatbelt, hear you opening the car door, and this dispatch asked you at that point, and this became a very key moment that everyone in the media focused on, and the dispatcher asked you, "are you following him?" And you said yes. Explain that.

ZIMMERMAN: I meant that I was going in the same direction as him, to keep an eye on him so that I could tell the police where he was going. I didn't mean that I was actually pursuing him.

And there we have it my good people! Going in the same direction as Martin to keep an eye on him is not ... I repeat ... NOT "following him"!!

HANNITY: How long was it, George, after that, that you saw Trayvon again? Because you said you stopped, that you did not continue pursuing him. When did you next see Trayvon Martin?

ZIMMERMAN: Less than 30 seconds.

HANNITY: OK. Where were you? Where exactly were you at that point, and how far away were you from your car at that moment?

ZIMMERMAN: I'd guess about 100 feet or more.

HANNITY: So you never went further than how far approximately from your car?

ZIMMERMAN: I would estimate it to be approximately 100 feet.

HANNITY: So you never went further than that from the car?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

Zimmerman moves "100 feet away" from his vehicle in "less than 30 seconds" in the "same direction" as Martin to "keep an eye on him" ... but he wasn't "following" or "pursuing" Martin. Yeah ... ok.

And the rest of it is Zimmerman's same old BS story about how Martin who had just started running "skipping" away "less than 30 seconds" earlier ... all of a sudden turned into "Super Thug" and appeared out of nowhere, punched him in the nose for no reason whatsoever, jumped on top of him, and commenced to repeatedly slamming his head against the concrete and punching him in the head "more than a dozen times". Yet the physical evidence only reflects a couple of small scratches on the back of his head, a "broken nose" that was a hairline fracture at best, and no other bruising to his face or head. Blah blah blah. But this is something that I would be remiss to leave out ....

HANNITY: After the shooting did you -- and you saw that he was laying there, and obviously injured, there was a moment when you realized he was shot?

ZIMMERMAN: Like I said, he sat up and he said something to the effect of "you got it" or "you got me". I assumed he meant, OK, you got the gun, I didn't get it. I'm not going to fight anymore. At which point I got out from under him.

Now let's put aside that supposed "You got me!" comment from Martin that sounds like something out of a really bad B-movie. Not only is it corny as hell, but it is highly unlikely that Martin said anything after being shot in the middle of the chest with the bullet instantly piercing his heart and lung. That's quite obviously some utter and complete bullish*t of the highest order. My point here is that Hannity asked Zimmerman about when he realized Martin was shot ... AFTER he "saw that he was laying there". Laying there slumped over on the ground dead. In the same position that the cops found him DEAD within "15 to 30 seconds" of the shooting. Yet Zimmerman claims that AFTER he shot Martin at point blank range in the middle of the chest ... Martin "sat up" ... which he could only do if he as laying on top of Zimmerman ... then spoke ... which again warrants a .... and it was then that Zimmerman "got out from under him"! So when you listen to what this man is essentially claiming here ...

As they were on the ground supposedly wrestling for the gun with Martin laying on top .... he shot upward into Martin's chest ... yet we see no evidence of any of Martin's blood on the front of his clothing! Riiigggghhhtttttt!!!!

But I'll end with this because it really takes the cake ....

HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you regret that you had a gun that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn't be here for this interview if you didn't have that gun?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?

ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God's plan and for me to second guess it or judge it --

No regrets ... cause it was all just part of "God's plan". Woooowwwwwww!!!!!!

OAW

[Athens]

"ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God's plan and for me to second guess it or judge it --"

This is whats wrong with religion....

[OAW]

Judge in George Zimmerman trial refuses to step down - NBCNews.com

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

I'm not sure if I like this. A judge commenting on a case he's presiding over feels inappropriate to me.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm not sure if I like this. A judge commenting on a case he's presiding over feels inappropriate to me.

Well he wasn't commenting publicly or in the media. The "comments" in question were the findings he made in his ruling for Zimmerman's second request for bail. Which he granted. See my 7/19/12 1:23 PM post. Zimmerman tried to get over and got busted ... and now his legal team is whining because the judge didn't buy their BS story. They really didn't have a leg to stand on but they had to try. I don't even think they thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of their motion for the judge to recuse himself being granted. More likely setting the stage for an appeal if Zimmerman gets convicted.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Yeah, I see that. I have no problem with the Judge's comments if they are in the context of his order. Nevermind.

[OAW]

And in other news, it would appear that you can lie through your teeth to the judge in your case ... get busted and reprimanded about what YOU did ... and then whine to an appellate court to get the judge tossed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach today ruled that second-degree murder suspect George Zimmerman should get a new judge.

A three-judge panel of that court concluded that Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. in Sanford went too far when he wrote that Zimmerman is a manipulator and made a veiled threat to hold him in contempt of court in the future.

"Although many of the allegations in Zimmerman's motion [for a new judge], standing alone, do not meet the legal sufficiency test, and while this is admittedly a close call, upon careful review we find that the allegations, taken together, meet the threshold test of legal sufficiency," the appeal court wrote in its opinion.

The appelate panel directed Lester to "enter an order of disqualification which requests the chief circuit judge to appoint a successor judge."

Zimmerman is the 28-year-old Neighborhood Watch volunteer who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old in Sanford Feb. 26, setting off weeks of civil rights rallies by people demanding his arrest.

Six weeks after the shooting, Zimmerman was arrested and charged with second-degree murder by a special prosecutor.

Defense attorney Mark O'Mara had pressed for a new judge, arguing that Zimmerman does not believe he will be treated fairly by Lester because of a July 5 bond ruling.

In that nine-page order, the judge set Zimmerman's bond at $1 million but also accused him of showing "blatant disregard for the judicial system" and "manipulating the system for his own benefit."

The state argued that Lester should stay on the case, that he's not biased, just someone who listened to evidence about Zimmerman and his wife hiding assets then not telling the truth about how much money they had during an April bond hearing.

Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Zimmerman, has since been charged with perjury. She testified at that April 20 hearing that the couple was broke when they had $130,000 that they had been shifting from bank account to bank account, money donated at Zimmerman's request by online supporters.

George Zimmerman testified at that same hearing but was not questioned about the couple's finances. He made no attempt to correct his wife's statements.

If today's ruling stands, the case would likely pass to Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson, another felony trial judge in Sanford.

Appeal court grants George Zimmerman's request for new judge - OrlandoSentinel.com



OAW

[OAW]

DNA tests exclude Martin from gun grip in Zimmerman case - NBCNews.com

Looks like no evidence to back the "Martin went for my gun" story.

OAW

[OldManMac]

Of course there isn't any evidence of that; he killed an innocent teen.

[OAW]

George Zimmerman is in a bloody mess. The killer of Trayvon Martin claims that he was in a life-and-death struggle with the unarmed teenager. But DNA tests are not exactly bearing that out. Yes, they prove the two were in close proximity. One stain on the shirt that Trayvon wore underneath the hoodie was a DNA match to Zimmerman. But these tests raise more questions about (or poke more holes in) Zimmerman’s story.

Despite claims that Trayvon grabbed Zimmerman’s gun, Trayvon’s DNA was not found on the weapon or its holster. Despite claims that Trayvon pummeled Zimmerman in the face and the head, none of Zimmerman’s DNA was found on Trayvon’s hoodie. Not even on the cuffs or the sleeves.

And then there are Zimmerman’s shirt and jacket.

There were 47 stains tested for the presence of blood on Zimmerman’s shirt and jacket. Of the 16 on his shirt, 14 “gave chemical indications for the presence of blood.” All matched Zimmerman’s DNA profile. Of the 31 stains tested on the jacket, 17 “gave chemical indications for the presence of blood.” Nine of the 17 matched Zimmerman’s DNA profile. The remaining eight are nothing short of curious.

“Stain E” on the jacket showed the presence of “at least two individuals.” The major contributor was Zimmerman. The profile of the minor contributor “could not be determined.”

“Stain I” showed the presence of “at least two individuals.” Zimmerman was the major contributor, but Trayvon was “excluded as a possible contributor to the mixed DNA profile.” So, who is this second person?

“Stain N” showed the presence of “at least two individuals.” Zimmerman was the major contributor. The “partial minor DNA profile match” was that of Trayvon.

“Stain U” showed the presence of “at least two individuals.” Trayvon is “a possible contributor” to the DNA mix. But “no determination” could be made about the “possible contribution” of Zimmerman to the DNA profile.

“Stain BB” showed the presence of “at least two individuals.” The major and minor contributors to the DNA profile could not be determined, but Zimmerman is “included as a possible contributor. “No determination” could be made about the possible contribution of Trayvon.

The DNA data from “Stain V” were deemed “insufficient for inclusion purposes.” While the results were “consistent with the presence of a male individual,” no determination could be made on whether that male was Zimmerman or Trayvon.

The DNA data from “Stain Z” and “Stain G” were “not interpretable.” While there was the “presence of a male individual” in “Stain Z,” there was also the “possible presence of non-human DNA.” How odd. Is this the result of contamination?

Of the 47 stains tested for the presence of blood on Zimmerman’s shirt and jacket, Trayvon was a “partial minor DNA profile” in one stain and a “possible contributor” in another. He was “excluded as a possible contributor” in a third. That’s just three stains out of 47.

“Unless Trayvon Martin was wearing gloves and a bonnet, it would normally be expected that there would be some evidence of him on the garment,” said Kendall Coffey, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.

As I mentioned previously, Coffey noted that ambiguities in DNA evidence could undermine Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. But Coffey was cautious in assessing the DNA evidence after I read results to him. “This is nobody’s silver bullet,” he said. “All of these things standing alone are explainable. But when assembled at trial, they can provide meaningful support for the prosecution’s case.”

When Zimmerman takes the stand in his second-degree murder trial next year, he will tell his story of a life-and-death struggle once more. How he was cold-cocked by Trayvon. How his head was repeatedly slammed into the sidewalk. How he stopped Trayvon from using his gun on him. This time Zimmerman will tell his version of events under oath before a jury. And upon cross-examination, he will have to explain why and how there’s precious little DNA evidence to back it all up.

George Zimmerman’s DNA problem | WashingtonPost.com

OAW

[OAW]

Yet another example of why I generally oppose conceal carry laws even though I'm a gun rights supporter ....

A Florida gun collector has pleaded not guilty to a murder charge alleging that he opened fire on a car full of unarmed teenagers, killing one, in an altercation that police say stemmed from loud music.

Michael David Dunn, 45, acted "as any responsible firearms owner would have," his lawyer said of the Friday evening incident at a gas station outside a convenience store in Jacksonville, Fla.

Dunn and his girlfriend were in Jacksonville for his son's wedding when they pulled up in their car next to the teens. Police allege that while the girlfriend was in the store, Dunn told Jordan Russell Davis, 17, and his three friends to turn down their music.

"It was loud," Jacksonville homicide Lt. Rob Schoonover said of the teens' music. "They admitted that. That's not a reason for someone to open fire."
After an exchange of words, Dunn began shooting with a handgun, Schoonover said.

"Nobody else in that vehicle was struck; it was just our victim [Davis], which was lucky because the vehicle was shot eight or nine times," Schoonover said.

Davis was in the back seat and was struck twice, reported The Orlando Sentinel.

Dunn and his girlfriend drove off and spent the night at their hotel, according to Schoonover, but witnesses took down his license plate number. Police arrested him Saturday morning at his home in Satellite Beach, Fla., on one charge of murder and three charges of attempted murder.

"His side of the story is he felt threatened and that is the reason he took action," Schoonover said.

On Monday, Dunn — a gun collector who shot at local gun ranges, according to authorities — pleaded not guilty in Brevard County court, with his attorney describing his actions as self-defense.

"Once all the facts come out, that what really happened is known, it will be very clear that Mr. Dunn acted responsibly and as any responsible firearms owner would have acted under these same circumstances," said his attorney, Robin Lemonidis, reported FirstCoastNews.com, the website for NBC station WTLV in Jacksonville. [/B]

Dunn's 20-year-old daughter, Rebecca, told FirstCoastNews.com, "he just reacted," adding that his family was rallying behind him.

"Everyone in his life loves him and everyone who met him, all of my friends are praying for him," she said.

Dunn, who had been in Brevard County Jail after his arrest, was transferred back to Duval County, where the shooting happened, on Tuesday. His girlfriend won't face any charges.

"When she came out [of the convenience store], she asked him, 'What's going on?'" Schoonover said. "Supposedly his statement was, 'I just fired at these kids.' I don't know if he knew that he struck anyone in the vehicle. The next morning, I guess when they woke up in the hotel and saw on the news that someone was killed, that's when they got in their car and fled."

Davis, the victim, lived with his father in Florida, but was to be buried in Georgia — where he was born — on Saturday, reported jacksonville.com.

Davis' mother, Lucia McBath, who lives outside of Atlanta, asked that her son's death not be thought of as a hate crime.

"We don't know where he was or what kind of dark place he was in at that moment, but something snapped in that man. Something snapped in him, so we are not looking at it as the hate crime because that's not going to honor Jordan," McBath told FirstCoastNews.com.

She said the fact that Dunn drove off after shooting Davis was "unconscionable."

Davis, a high school junior, had just gotten a job at McDonald's, picking up some extra cash after work, his mom said. At Thanksgiving the day before his death, he said he was thankful to God for his family, his mom told FirstCoastNews.com.

"He was just so excited and happy" for everything in his life, she said.

She said the family is starting a foundation in his memory to help at-risk children.

"It didn't matter to Jordan if you needed the help, you needed the support — he was going to give it to you no matter what side of the tracks you came from. So we feel it's really important to honor that in him," she said.

Ron Davis, the victim's father, added: "I was looking forward to as a parent to being there when he got married, being there when he found love. All the things that I'm not going to be able to do is what pains me."

Florida man pleads not guilty to shooting teen to death over loud music | NBCNews.com

I'm curious as to how Mr. Dunn felt "threatened" by some unarmed teens all of whom never exited the vehicle? When he's the one standing outside the vehicle packing heat! Furthermore, a "responsible gun owner" as his attorney insists upon describing him does NOT open fire on a group of teenagers over a verbal argument that HE started!

OAW

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Yet another example of why I generally oppose conceal carry laws even though I'm a gun rights supporter ....
Florida man pleads not guilty to shooting teen to death over loud music | NBCNews.com
I'm curious as to how Mr. Dunn felt "threatened" by some unarmed teens all of whom never exited the vehicle? When he's the one standing outside the vehicle packing heat! Furthermore, a "responsible gun owner" as his attorney insists upon describing him does NOT open fire on a group of teenagers over a verbal argument that HE started!
OAW

It's not a valid example, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[OAW]

So what exactly is not "valid" about what I said?

OAW

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So what exactly is not "valid" about what I said?
OAW

You take one example and extrapolate it out to an entire population, as if anecdote equates to reality. It does not. The vast majority of us who carry regularly are law abiding citizens who don't go off half-cocked (see what I did there?), being extremely careful about how and when we use our weapons. I could just as easily Illustrate a story of a road rage incident, and go off half-cocked about why I don't support peoples' right to drive cars. One has to look at the whole picture, and when one considers that there are millions of Americans who can legally carry, one news incident doesn't define them all. If what you were implying were to happen, there would be carnage of an unprecedented scale, yet the fact is that you are vastly safer today than forty years ago, despite gun ownership (and number of people carrying) literally exploding (see what I did there?) in that same time period.

This is a classic example of the news' influence on some; sensationalize a story, spread it all over the country, and a few will use it as low hanging fruit to buttress their argument, without thinking it through.

[OAW]

@OldManMac ....

I think you are conflating two separate issues here with all due respect. Your first reply was this ....

Originally Posted by OldManMac

It's not a valid example, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I then asked you what was not "valid" about what I posted. To which you responded ...

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You take one example and extrapolate it out to an entire population, as if anecdote equates to reality. It does not. The vast majority of us who carry regularly are law abiding citizens who don't go off half-cocked (see what I did there?), being extremely careful about how and when we use our weapons. I could just as easily Illustrate a story of a road rage incident, and go off half-cocked about why I don't support peoples' right to drive cars. One has to look at the whole picture, and when one considers that there are millions of Americans who can legally carry, one news incident doesn't define them all. If what you were implying were to happen, there would be carnage of an unprecedented scale, yet the fact is that you are vastly safer today than forty years ago, despite gun ownership (and number of people carrying) literally exploding (see what I did there?) in that same time period.
This is a classic example of the news' influence on some; sensationalize a story, spread it all over the country, and a few will use it as low hanging fruit to buttress their argument, without thinking it through.

But here's the deal. I never "extrapolated" anything! And you didn't demonstrate why the example I listed above was not a "valid" example for why I ... OAW .... generally oppose "conceal carry" laws. Surely you know by my posting history that I'm not foolish enough to think that incidents like this are common right? It's almost as if you are saying that such incidents have to be commonplace for that to be a "valid" reason for my opposition. But let's turn that around. The incidents of someone legally carrying a gun b/c of "conceal carry" actually using that firearm to stop a crime are fairly anecdotal as well. Certainly they are "uncommon" with respect to the total number of times people legally carry such weapons without incident right? But I wouldn't then criticize you for citing such incidents as a reason for YOU to support "conceal carry" laws. Understand where I'm coming from?

Like I've said before. I'm a gun rights supporter. Fairly moderate on the issue or even center-right. I just personally disagree with "conceal carry" on one's person because it seems like in general, we are far more likely to see BS like this go down or some drunk fool in a bar shooting up the place than we are someone stopping a crime out in public with a weapon. Even though BOTH of these are rare relatively speaking. Now I'll be the first to acknowledge that I could be wrong on this. The stats could very well show that legally carrying gun owners stopping a crime FAR EXCEED incidents like this. If you have credible information to demonstrate this I'd be happy to look at it and perhaps my position will change on "conceal carry". In the meantime, as I stated here some time ago, this is where I generally stand on the issue of gun control:

Originally Posted by OAW

I suppose I have a pretty moderate position when it comes to gun rights. I think any adult citizen has the right to own a firearm. Unless that right has been rescinded due to certain felony convictions (i.e. gun related crimes) or mental impairment. I disagree with across the board rescinding of a citizen's gun rights due to any felony conviction. For instance, why should someone convicted of embezzlement be restricted from owning a firearm to protect his family once he has done his time? I also don't think firearms need to be registered. It doesn't make much sense to me. A criminal isn't going to register his gun, and the only thing it does for a law-abiding citizen is let the government know what he has. Registering a firearm does absolutely nothing from a public safety standpoint. In my view, the sale of firearms should certainly be regulated ... but that regulation should be centered around A) What types of firearms can be sold to the public, B) Waiting Periods, C) Firearm Training, and D) Determination if the purchaser's gun possession rights have been rescinded. With respect to those categories ...

A. - I don't see any reason why the government can't restrict fully automatic machine guns or rocket launchers or grenades from being sold to the general public. At the same time, I see no reason why handguns, shotguns, and rifles should be restricted.

B. - I don't think it's unreasonable to mandate a waiting period of a few days to a week to purchase a firearm. This can go a long way towards preventing a crime by someone who may be seeking a firearm "in the heat of passion".

C. - I don't think it's unreasonable to have to take a simple training course on firearm safety, operation, and maintenance. I don't think you need to do it for every single purchase however.

D. - I don't think it's unreasonable to mandate a background check at the time of purchase to ensure that the purchaser hasn't had his/her gun possession rights rescinded. For gun store sales or individual sales. If the answer is "No", then the person should be able to purchase the firearm with respect to A, B, and C above.

I don't think citizens should have to maintain some piece of "registration paper" to prove they have the right to own a firearm. If a citizen encounters law enforcement they can certainly check to see if s/he has had his gun rights rescinded. If so, s/he is gets arrested for illegal firearm possession. If not, then keep it moving. I believe a citizen should have a right to keep a firearm in their home, place of business (i.e. the owner of stores, shops, gas stations, bars, etc. ... NOT the general workplace), or their vehicle. I generally disagree with "conceal & carry" (unless you are licensed, professional security). Carrying a firearm when you are out hunting or camping is fine. Inside urban areas ... not so much. Finally, I don't think firearm regulation should be at the state or local level. It's pretty silly to be "registered" in one state but if you move to another state you can be arrested if you fail to re-register. You should be able to have a firearm in your vehicle for a cross country trip and not have to worry about being arrested for crossing state lines with it.

So I'm not some rabid NRA type opposed to any firearm regulation whatsoever, but at the same time I'm not in the "ban all handguns" camp either.

Just sayin' ....

OAW

[OldManMac]

OAW, you say you haven't extrapolated anything, but then you go ahead and extrapolate again.

Like I've said before. I'm a gun rights supporter. Fairly moderate on the issue or even center-right. I just personally disagree with "conceal carry" on one's person because it seems like in general, we are far more likely to see BS like this go down or some drunk fool in a bar shooting up the place than we are someone stopping a crime out in public with a weapon.

There is no such thing as a guarantee in life, and some fool could kill you with a hammer (it happens more often than we'd like to think). In Detroit, which is a half hour away from me on the freeway, there have been numerous incidents reported recently where armed individuals have either prevented armed robberies or carjackings, and where home invaders have been killed or wounded due to people owning, and carrying, weapons.

A gun is just another piece of property that I own, and as a responsible adult I bring with me because I can, and should be able to. I also carry a knife, which I use frequently in a responsible manner. It too is easily capable of killing or severely wounding someone, yet no one attacks my character because I carry one. It's long past time to stop the character assassinations, by those who don't trust themselves with these tools, and as such project their insecurities on the rest of us (and I realize that you're not in that group). Criminals typically go after what they view as an easy target, and having a gun at home isn't going to help me keep my car, or my life.

[subego]

When I have to kill someone, a hammer is actually my weapon of choice.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

When I have to kill someone, a hammer is actually my weapon of choice.

If you're that mad, then they sure as hell deserve it. Might as well get the most tactile enjoyment from it.

[OAW]

A very tragic update to a similar case I mentioned here. As I mentioned before ...

Originally Posted by OAW

Here we have a man doing life for shooting a guy that had pulled a knife on his teenage son, refused to leave his property even after the man fired a warning shot, and rushed the man reaching for the knife in his pocket. All with eyewitness testimony from a neighbor corroborating his story. Seems like "Stand Your Ground" should have applied. Moreover the "Castle Doctrine" should have applied. But not so much in this case and interestingly enough, not a peep out of the NRA which is typically all over cases like this.

And now the latest is this ....

John McNeil had been home in Wilson for less than two days after his release from a Georgia prison when he set about the sad task of burying his wife.

In death, as in the last years of her life, Anita McNeil had waited for her husband of 22 years, her high school sweetheart, the father of their two sons. Her family and friends believe she tried to wait until he was free, but she died of cancer Feb. 2, 10 days before his release.

She was buried 12 days later, on Valentine's Day, with her husband at her graveside.

In their last phone conversation, he told her how much he loved her, and they discussed his plan to plead guilty to manslaughter so he could get home to her before she died.

"I told her how much she meant to me and that I needed her because I feed off her strength and energy," McNeil said in an interview last week.

McNeil, 46, had claimed self-defense in a fatal shooting at his home in Georgia in 2005 but was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. He pleaded guilty last week to the lesser charge of manslaughter and was sentenced to time served and 13 years of probation.

Advocates say Georgia's "stand your ground" law — which allows people to use deadly force if their lives are in danger — should have blocked charges against McNeil.

As her husband fought his conviction, Anita McNeil was fighting breast cancer that spread to her bones. They had last seen each other in September and had last spoken several weeks before she died. Although he knew his wife was sick, McNeil said he had no idea that would be their last conversation.

While in prison, McNeil missed the funeral of his mother, who died in July 2012. He didn't want to be absent for his wife's funeral as well.

And she supported the decision to plead guilty — do what you have to get home, his wife said, because we need you here. After she died, McNeil stuck by the plea because his wife had asked him to do so, regardless of what happened to her.

"I needed to get here for our two sons," he said. "That was one of the requests she made — get home to our sons, they need you."

Their sons, John II and La'Ron, are now grown men, 28 and 26 years old. McNeil, calm and soft-spoken through most of interview, became emotional talking about them.

"I can't even explain or express the feelings and emotions that went through my body" when he saw them again early Wednesday morning, he said. "No matter how old your sons get, you have a responsibility for them. When I saw them, I could only hug them and we cried."

McNeil's case prompted calls from the NAACP and other groups for "stand your ground" laws to apply to all citizens, regardless of race. McNeil is black, and the man he shot was white.

NC Man Pleads Guilty, Returns Home to Bury Wife | ABCNews.com

Not only did this man lose his wife and his mother while doing time over a BS conviction when even Stevie Wonder could see it was a classic case of self-defense .... but now in order to get out of jail he had to plead guilty to manslaughter thereby putting a permanent stain on his record.

OAW

[finboy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Criminals typically go after what they view as an easy target, and having a gun at home isn't going to help me keep my car, or my life.

I had a student a few years ago ask me why I carried a knife (that day I had a folding one in a belt sheath on my hip, normally it's in my pocket). I responded "to cut things" and the class thought that was funny. I found out later that he was Kenyan, and that carrying a knife was illegal in the town where he grew up. In fact, he was telling me that just having machetes gives some gangs power over groups of people there.

I keep a knife to cut seat belts, just in case. But this student saw it as a symbol of terror. If it's not guns, it's machetes. If not machetes, then pocket knives. Then icepicks. Then big gangs of thugs roaming the street using physical power and numbers alone. The right to defend oneself isn't something that I have to ask permission about.

Police have a thankless job, but they are historians. They document what happened, they don't protect anyone.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Police have a thankless job, but they are historians. They document what happened, they don't protect anyone.

Custodians, more like. Mop up the mess after the fact.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If you're that mad, then they sure as hell deserve it. Might as well get the most tactile enjoyment from it.

[Athens]

I think it really depends where too. I mean if I see some one breaking into a house and call the cops they are usually there within minutes and arrest the guy while the crime is in progress. Same for fights in the streets or following a drunk driver. The very quick crimes like robbing a store they tend not to have a chance to get there while in progress but are still quick enough to capture the suspect after the fact. Just depends where you live and the coverage you have. In 2007 my roommate 711 got robbed and the first cops where on scene in a minute of the call, with half a dozen arriving over the next few minutes. They had the suspect in about 10 minutes of the robbery.

Just depends on each situation. Some times its mop up, some times its preventative. Some times its in progress.

[OAW]

I can't say I saw this one coming ....

George Zimmerman's attorneys stunned court observers Tuesday when they waived their client's right to a "Stand Your Ground" hearing slated for April that might have led to a dismissal of the charges in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin a year ago.

However, the defense lawyers didn't say whether they would waive the immunity hearing outright. They left open the possibility for that hearing to be rolled into Zimmerman's second degree murder trial. Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain in his Florida subdivision, shot and killed the teen, who was visiting a house in the area.

The move allows the defense more time to prepare for the trial this summer, but also raises the stakes.

Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law entitles a person to use deadly force if he believes his life is threatened, and absolves them of an obligation to retreat from a confrontation, even if retreat is possible.

In recent weeks, the Zimmerman defense has suffered several legal setbacks. Judge Debra Nelson has ruled in favor of the state that Zimmerman's bail conditions should not be loosened, and that Trayvon Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump was not required to sit for a deposition about his interactions with the state's most important witness, a young woman who was the last known person to speak with Trayvon Martin before his death on February 26 2012.

It was the defense's legal maneuvering which put Judge Nelson on the bench in this murder trial. Last summer Zimmerman's team successfully argued that the previous judge, Kenneth Lester, was unfit to preside over the trial after a caustic bail ruling where he blasted Zimmerman for misleading the court about his financial situation.

Zimmerman contends that he shot and killed the 17-year-old Martin after the teen confronted him as he walked to his father's girlfriend's house. Were Judge Nelson to have accepted his account under Stand Your Ground, all criminal proceedings would have immediately stopped, and Zimmerman would have walked free.

But another unfavorable ruling by Nelson could have been interpreted by jurors as a sign of guilt. Waiving the hearing could also prevent the prosecution from picking apart Zimmerman's testimony.

Zimmerman Stuns Court, Waives Right in Trayvon Martin Case - ABC News

OAW

[BLAZE_MkIV]

What hiding as much information from the jury as possible? How is that unexpected.

[The Final Dakar]

Does this mean that anyone who claims he was justified under "Stand Your Ground" just got shat on?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

If it's not a slam dunk then you may want to wait till the trial.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

If it's not a slam dunk then you may want to wait till the trial.

Pragmatically, yes.

Honestly I think this is the key:

However, the defense lawyers didn't say whether they would waive the immunity hearing outright. They left open the possibility for that hearing to be rolled into Zimmerman's second degree murder trial. Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain in his Florida subdivision, shot and killed the teen, who was visiting a house in the area.

To me it sounds like they think mixing the two might enhance reasonable doubt. But I don't know crap about lawyerin'.

[mduell]

The star "witness", the girlfriend, is looking marginal:

SANFORD — Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, the state's most important witness in the George Zimmerman murder case, was caught in a lie, it was revealed Tuesday.

It was not the first piece of misinformation tied to her, but it was the most damaging to date and left prosecutors in a very awkward position.

They had to publicly acknowledge that their star witness had lied under oath and had to answer questions about what they intend to do about it.

The woman had told prosecutors she was in the hospital on the day of Trayvon's funeral.

"In fact, she lied," defense attorney Don West said.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Does this mean that anyone who claims he was justified under "Stand Your Ground" just got shat on?

It means they want to delay that hearing until the trial.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The star "witness", the girlfriend, is looking marginal:

Yeah from what I read she seems unreliable and will likely make or break the case (the latter)

Originally Posted by mduell 

It means they want to delay that hearing until the trial.

I'm curious as to why, assuming this is strategic.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't get why she would have lied about that. Pathological liar?

[Shaddim]

Maybe she was banging someone else?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm curious as to why, assuming this is strategic.

I think they just need time to prep. IIRC the state prosecutor is trying to move the case along pretty quick, because their case isn't getting any better. Also it denies the prosecutor the chance to see their cards with time to counter before trial if they lose at the hearing.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't get why she would have lied about that. Pathological liar?

Likes the attention is my guess.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Maybe she was banging someone else?

Zimmerman?

Originally Posted by mduell 

I think they just need time to prep. IIRC the state prosecutor is trying to move the case along pretty quick, because their case isn't getting any better. Also it denies the prosecutor the chance to see their cards with time to counter before trial if they lose at the hearing.

Mmm.. that makes sense I guess. Unrelated, but I was thinking the other day about how we have the right to a "speedy" trial, yet in practice it appears to be the last thing anyone wants.

[The Final Dakar]

George Zimmerman's Brother, Robert Zimmerman Jr., Stirs Firestorm With Racially Charged Comparison



Hahaha, ****ing priceless.
The idiocy that is

[Snow-i]

5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns | Cracked.com

Worth a read, and does an excellent job of staying neutral.

[lpkmckenna]

Yes, the words this pictures says are "the Zimmermans don't like black people."

Seriously, since the very first time that Zimmerman's father opened his mouth to the press, nothing but anti-black racism has spilled out from these people.

[The Final Dakar]

I don't recall what his father said.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns | Cracked.com

Worth a read, and does an excellent job of staying neutral.

My favorite quote:

"This is what people who aren't from America, or who grew up somewhere like Portland or whatever, don't get: America's love of guns in most cases has nothing to do with actually using them.

It's all about what they symbolize. And what they symbolize is God, and cocks."

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

My favorite quote:

"This is what people who aren't from America, or who grew up somewhere like Portland or whatever, don't get: America's love of guns in most cases has nothing to do with actually using them.

It's all about what they symbolize. And what they symbolize is God, and cocks."

Cracked has some awesome writers.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

My favorite quote:

"This is what people who aren't from America, or who grew up somewhere like Portland or whatever, don't get: America's love of guns in most cases has nothing to do with actually using them.

It's all about what they symbolize. And what they symbolize is God, and cocks."

Once again, political satire doing funny in spite of facts. What is going on in reality is increasing gun ownership among women with a full 15% of women now owning a gun.

[subego]

So, you're saying women aren't into God or cocks?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, you're saying women aren't into God or cocks?

Women have never been encompassed in the machismo argument against gun ownership, no.

[subego]

I don't think it was meant as an argument against gun ownership.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't think it was meant as an argument against gun ownership.

Really? You don't think the quip was ridiculing gun ownership in America by marginalizing it as nothing more than archaic sentiment and machismo?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Really? You don't think the quip was ridiculing gun ownership in America by marginalizing it as nothing more than archaic sentiment and machismo?

By no means exclusively.

It's Cracked. They're going to ridicule everyone along the way. They ridiculed foreigners and people from Portland in the same breath.

The key point they're making, which I think is spot on, is the way Americans support guns has nothing to do with owning guns. It's an attitude. They also correctly point out non-Americans have trouble understanding this.

Guns don't represent God to me, so I won't comment on that, except to say they do represent America to me (in a good way), and a lot of people put God in their America, so I can see where it's coming from.

I feel I can much more authoritatively comment on cocks. Guns are for imposing your will on the world, just like your cock. Just like your cock, that can be a good and bad thing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

By no means exclusively.

It's Cracked. They're going to ridicule everyone along the way. They ridiculed foreigners and people from Portland in the same breath.

By saying they don't understand gods and cocks?

The key point they're making, which I think is spot on, is the way Americans support guns has nothing to do with owning guns. It's an attitude. They also correctly point out non-Americans have trouble understanding this.

I disagree. I think the attitude is -- I have what I need to defend myself and my stuff and I will take care of me, not depend on you. It's important to marginalize this attitude because it carries with it an irrefutable aspect of history nerf-worlders cannot accept and it begins with a fundamental mistrust and distaste for centralized authority. The problem therefore must be the archaic sentiment and machismo of those advocating and practicing gun ownership in America. i.e. you can try to wrap this up into a giant dildo with a picture of Jesus on it in an attempt to make it look ridiculous and bizarre, but it doesn't begin to address the complexity or overarching truth behind the attitude of those who advocate and practice gun ownership, particularly in the US.

Guns don't represent God to me, so I won't comment on that, except to say they do represent America to me (in a good way), and a lot of people put God in their America, so I can see where it's coming from.

I feel I can much more authoritatively comment on cocks. Guns are for imposing your will on the world, just like your cock. Just like your cock, that can be a good and bad thing.

I think the connection to God comes through the foxhole conversions of warfare which has a long and storied history in the US as well as the notion that by defending a God-fearing country, you are doing God's work. The importance of the gun to a marine for example, is expressed in an oath they swear to God. Belief in God and Cause has an integral part in readying armed forces for causing and coping with death and destruction. The relationship of guns to "cocks" is only because we've put the obligation of gun use overwhelmingly upon those who have them.

[Snow-i]

ebuddy,

I'm not sure if you've read my thread in the lounge about my recent purchase, but FWIW when I went to make my purchase, one of my closest girlfriends (not that type of girlfriend) came with me and purchased a handgun to go with the house she just bought. She lives alone in this house and took a very high interest in being able to defend herself and her home. She was initially shy about walking into the store and asking for advice as the shop is very much a hunter's shop (you wouldn't expect see many women go in there). The shop owner (same guy who helped me through the process) was more than helpful and was glad to see two youngn's (i'm 26, she's 22) taking an interest. While we were there, I noticed that roughly 40% of the people coming in were women looking to buy a home-defense handgun before it became illegal.

It's quite probable that come summertime neither of our purchases would be legal under Maryland law, as O'malley's legislation would have banned both sales outright.