tvc184

I see no point in registering firearms. It serves no purpose.

  So the state can regulate what vehicles are driving on their roads so that they can pay for those roads. Roads are expensive and everyone gets to pay his fair share. It has nothing to do with deterring crime which is your claim for gun registration.    What is expensive of me owning a gun that the government has to pay for? To my knowledge the government gives me nothing to enhance my gun ownership but they do enhance the way I travel in my car but providing roadways.    The gun vs. vehicle argument is a smoke screen. 

  ......... and is basing it on made up evidence.    If Martin was a thug or a choir boy is of no consequence which is why I never got involved in those discussions on any forum. What happened a the scene is what matters, not if he had a potential college scholarship, was a good kid or had issues with the cops. Strangely however, the people that bring that up like people in this forum saying that an idiot Zimmerman was, think it means something about him. Apparently with Martin his past is of no consequence but with Zimmerman is does.    I could care less about either and it has no bearing on the physical evidence. 

....... and as a couple of jurors that "wanted" to convict him (their words) said, that is the same conclusion that they came to. 

  You are trying to make an argument based on facts that do not matter. Like I gave earlier, if I held a knife to your throat and said that I was going to kill you, does it really matter if I had that intent or just wanted to play a cruel joke?    From your prospective, you would reasonable be in fear and the use of force or deadly force would be justified. It doesn't matter what my intent was any more than it matters what a guy on trial for murder had his brother think. I doubt that his brother is in the medical professional and his claims about his brother are meaningless unless he was actually on the scene to witness what took place.    In other words, what does it matter what his brother's story matched any more than Big Girl saying that Zimmerman had no reasonable fear? You can read thousands of opinions online from both sides of this or any other issue that are nothing but drivel. It matters no more that his brother thinks than it matters what I think.   I do think this however, if I am with my back to the ground and my head is being slammed into the concrete, I am probably not going to have the chance to call "Time Out!" and go seek a neurosurgeon's opinion if I am really in danger or does it just seem like that. I think any person that is on the ground and getting his head hit is in fear of at the very least, losing consciousness and that alone justifies deadly force. 

  I have no issue with background checks.    I really don't care if they arm teachers or not but I think it should be some form of an option. TX law now allows a school district to name a certain number of teachers per campus as "marshals" that can carry but without being known. It is up to the district if they want to use that option. To do so, the teacher has to go through an 80 hour course.    Looking at what happened in some or all of the mass school shootings, a teacher with a gun could have stopped it early and not by going after the shooter like a cop but my merely staying in place and waiting for the shooter to come in range. For example at VA Tech, the shooter forced his way into classrooms where the people inside had no escape. They heard the shots fired and heard him coming but had no option other than to sit and wait to die. Had an armed person been inside of those rooms, the shooter simply could have been shot through the door or wait until he takes his first step inside. I think in a couple of the rooms the instructors tried to barricade the door and stop him but with little success but one teacher did manage to keep; him out. Had one of the first rooms had an armed teacher, instead of 32 deaths and 17 people wounded by the gunman, we might have had another 20 people live and many not wounded. 

  About 25 years ago I might have had double that many but when I got divorced, I wanted to eat more than I wanted guns.    Why do I "need" that many? I don't. I don't need four televisions in my home and I don't need about two dozen flashlights and I don't need two sets of golf clubs and I don't need about 15 fishing rods.    But I want them.    I routinely carry four different handguns on me (sometimes more than one at a time) for various reasons, usually depending on clothing or situation. I have three different rifles that I deer hunt with. I have two shotguns, an AK47, an SKS and an AR15. The AK and SKS are for fun and the AR is for duty/self defense. I have (I think) three different .22 rifles that are just fun and cheaper to shoot..... when I can find ammo for them. I have a few others that I just have for grins but wouldn't mind selling some of them if I could get what they are worthy.    Even if I was committing crimes with them, what could you do with them being registered? The bullets rounds or shell cases might stay at the crime scenes. The serial numbers do not. We don't pick up such evidence at crime scenes and determine what the serial number of the firearm is. We "might" be able to tell the brand that the round or shell cases came out of but without having the gun in hand, even that doesn't amount to anything. 

  What will me registering my 15 or so firearms do to deter crime, even if I was committing crimes with them?

  Injuries have nothing to do with a claim of self defense. There is no legal requirement for there to be any injuries. There only has to be a "reasonable belief".    If a person is getting his head cracked against the concrete and thinks that he is "about to be' injured seriously, he has the lawful right of the use of deadly force for self defense. Let's make up a scenario where Martin was cornered by Zimmerman and Zimmerman held a knife to Martin's throat. Martin by any means stops the attack even up to killing Zimmerman. When it is all over, Martin has no injuries. Did he not have the right to self defense with a knife to his neck? The obvious answer is that yes he would have the lawful right of deadly force in self defense. He had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death. It does not matter if there are any injuries at all.   Also, the use of force or deadly force in self defense does not require a fear of death as is repeated over and over in the media and on forums. It only requires a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury which in TX a broken bone can usually be sufficient by law. So if you think a guy is about to break your arm, you can justify deadly force in self defense.

  Not if he came back. The stand your ground laws have nothing to do with who threw the first blow or various other questions/excuses that people can come up with. SYG laws say that if you otherwise have the lawful right (as determined by the laws of that state) of self defense, you do not have to turn your back on your attacker. TX even required running away until fairly recently but even that had a way to get out of that requirement.    SYG simply takes the question of required running out of it. It does not change the part of the law that says self defense or SYG do not apply if you caused or took part in the conflict in the first place. You can go start a fight either physically or by taunting and then let the other guy hit you and claim self defense. Well, you can claim it but the law says that it is not self defense at that point.    To make it the most plain and simple, let's take a fight in junior high school. I must have seen a couple of dozen of them when usually boys were mad for some reason or another. They would square off with each other and sometimes would even meet somewhere like by the bike rack. Neither can successfully claim SYG as they were both willing participants in the fight no matter who started it or threw the first punch. To read opinions on the internet, they commit no crime because they both had self defense and both had SYG. That is ridiculous and does not comply with law. If two guys get into a fight in a bar and one dies, it will likely be ruled as murder in court unless one was a completely unwilling participant and tried to disengage from the conflict.    "Could" Martin have had a legal claim of self defense and in doing so, also claim SYG? The legal answer is yes however there is nothing in this case to support that. There is audio evidence and the girl's testimony that it did not happen that way. The 911 recording is particularly damning for the claims that Martin was a non-participant and was merely going about his business and was cornered by Zimmerman. 

  Agree 100%.   Gun laws have nothing to do with violence. Thanks for making the point so plain. 

  It is not theory that he got away. You have the sworn testimony of his girlfriend and the 911 recording which is pretty definitive.    No one knows who hit who first but first is not even the issue and changes nothing.    And no, under stand your ground there is no right to stand your ground because another struck the first blow under FL or even TX law. Your understanding of the law is apparently based on blogs or trying to make a convenient argument on a phrase repeated in the media....... even if it is not valid.    I find it particularly interesting that you one more than one occasion invoked God as the punishment yet if you believe in the Bible, it is not for you just who is going to "get his" from God. What if Z is completely guilty and has asked God for forgiveness? Does God then say that it won't happen because Big Girl has ordered retribution?   Talk about mocking God........... 

  Wow, you got me there. A crime once every four or five years is surely a pattern of something.................. 

  Okay, with similar cities, Chicago appears to have a much larger problem with gangs. Why is that? 

First off, I didn't make the statement that only God knows. However since you made the accusation, I have probably posted more than 100 comments on this topic in this forum and a few others. Mostly it was about the outright stupid comments made against Zimmerman many of which were perpetrated by corrupt national news media companies (like claims of racial slurs on audio, no injuries to Z after they falsified photos and video, etc.) that later admitted their guilt. The comments were claimed to be "fact" but were mere specultation. Many of those same speculations continue to be presented today as fact like Zimmerman profiled Martin or he attacked Martin. While those are potentials, they are far from fact and just wishful thinking by people wishing for Zimmerman to be guilty. There is simply no evidence to back up any of it. My comments were almost all as a very experienced police officer looking at the facts as they were released to the public. I never claimed that Z was innocent. My point over and over was based on my experience and the limited information that was public. There was no evidence relased to the public that proved that self defense did not exist. I routinely ended my comments with statements that the police or prosection might have evidence that was not public that would show X's guilt but until or if such evidence was released, there was nothing that I could see that overturned a claim of self defense. After the trial became public, all of my statements were shown to be true as there simply was no evidence to do away with a self defense claim. The point being however is that many times I said that Z might be guilty but there was nothing to prove it or in my opinion, even get a valid indictment. That is why it was never brought in front of a grand jury as that special prosecutor knew there would be no trial if she did. In TX there has to be a grand jury indictment for a felony trial but FL always it to be the opinion of a single prosecutor. So I will say again as I have said in the past, Z might be guilty but there is nothing that shows it. I have said that many times in the past making your claim that I never entertained that possibilty that he was guilty is false. I entertained it many times but the prosecutor never found evidence to back up her wishes.

They should be given meds to make them discourteous?

If only God knows, you and others sure have been vocal about Zimmerman. Looking at this statement about who knows what really happened, I am glad to see that you have finally and publicly acknowledged that Zimmerman might be completely innocent.

  While it is true that no direct witnesses came forward, if you actually look at the evidence and in particular the 911 audio, you can come to about a 97% realization that Zimmerman's story was correct. The jury had that same problem when a couple of them (in their own words) wanted to convict him when the trial started but then the evidence was submitted. 

  The only Little League is used in the title. I think that it is often used as a generic term and not the actual Little League Baseball Inc. The article calls it TC Youth Baseball League.    I can't tell how many times I have heard people say their kid is playing little league football or little league basketball. It is like, "Hand me a Kleenex". 

  And if Martin didn't go to the store it wouldn't have happened. We can play that game all day because while Martin had the right to go to the store, Z had the right to be in the neighborhood get out of his truck and call the police.    The better question however and looking at the actual case, why did Martin return to Z after he fled and had "gotten away"? 

And the fact that any medical problems in prison (from any cause) are required to be treated ....... at taxpayer's expense. It is probably very cost effective to spend 15 cents for prevention rather than $3,000 or a lot more to treat an STD. While I really have very little regard for most felons, I do have regard for my wallet.

Shiela Jackson Lee must be a serial killer....

Zimmerman is an idiot. If being an idiot makes a person a murderer then there are a few murderers on this forum. The problem with that rationale is trying to equate guilt or innocence based on a person's demeanor, intelligence, beliefs, etc. Fortunately the law is based on provable facts and not wishful thinking based speculation, race, hatred, hoping your sides "wins", etc.

Yes, those also. You know, the kind of weapons that Joe Biden suggests we shoot to scare off attackers.

The whole claimed case against Z was a scam. The only real fact in the case that even made it anything more that a fairly clear cut local case of self defense was that the two people that were involved were of different races and one of those was white.