tvc184

  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.

  Hmmm....let's see.. Zimmerman calls 911 to report a suspicious person.... and you come up with the decision that Zimmerman thought that Martin was up to no good?   No kidding. I thought Zimmerman called 911 to report excellent and completely legal behavior. 

  Again, those are statements created on the spot for posting. The only statements that I saw the jurors say was that some wanted to convict him but could not as the evidence was not there. They even went into the trial and jury deliberation but agreed that there was no case.    And yes, there was plenty of evidence of innocence although none is required. 

  It is extremely convenient that you completely ignore any of the actual gathered evidence to draw your conclusion. Of course that is your right of free thought but making up things seems to take away most of the credibility. 

  It is a shame that he wasn't able to tell the police or state prosecutors all of this evidence that led him to the conclusion it was murder because after months of investigation, no one else could prove it. 

  The Second Amendment comes to mind.    It is also a foot in the door of banning. Hey, we banned this one, what next?   The use of the media version of an assault weapon in murder is almost non-existent but the anti-gunners are really after them. The question should be why and I think that I have already answered it as being merely a first step. Why be so concerned about a weapon that is owned in the millions yet is almost never used in a murder?    It is political only and has no bearing on crime or deaths. 

    What does one guy's opinion got to do with self defense? Even if he "profiled" Martin, why does that change any facts in the case? Profiling is drawing a conclusion based on a set of facts. The police are taught profiling which also called suspicious conduct. It is nothing more. Profiling based on race while it may be wrong, has no bearing on a civilian looking at something. There is no law on what we can think. Many states have civil prohibitions against police racial profiling that say a detention cannot be based on race alone however race can be a factor.    Let's say that Zimmerman thought that Martin was suspicious based on race. So what? He called 911 to report that suspicion to the police. What are we now to do as 911 operators, ask what a guy is thinking when he calls the police department?   It all comes down to to who attacked who and what evidence there was. It doesn't matter what was in Zimmerman's mind or what some guy thinks. There was overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman was attacked or at the very least was in a serious situation that might cause him serious injury (there us no requirement to fear death as  is often reported in the media). There was no such evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, much less the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If a guy that I hate comes at me and tries to kill or seriously injure me, I do not lose my right of self defense because I do not like him for whatever reason and that includes race? The answer is an easy "no".     You, frank and everyone else has the right to an opinion. Frank's does not change the case no matter when he may or may not have sided with Zimmerman.   I think ol' Frank who is irrelevant on anything, wants his 15 seconds of fame. 

  Who is he and what does it matter? 

  The same number. 

Vet meds are just like that for humans in that many of them are prescription only and not over the counter. Many animal meds are also the same as people meds. 

  You hit the nail on the head. The people have multiple usually violent convictions but instead of locking them up, we want to hug them and try and sweet talk them into not committing crimes.    The gun laws are already there. They should be in jail and not out killing other people but you need to ask the politicians and prosecutors on why they are still out when they have committed a violent crime. That is why we sometimes refer our cases to the federal system when they will accept one in order to get a mandatory sentence in actual prison. 

  Yes, I am familiar with how fast they can fired and it is slower than a handgun. I have an AK, an SKS, an 2 AR15's, a few other rifles and I am not sure how many handguns but for sure I have four that I regularly carry. Full auto might be faster but it is extremely inaccurate. I have yet to see any spree killing with a full auto used. It is true that rifles are made for warfare but that is because most warfare isn't at 20 feet which coincidentally is where most shootings including spree killings take place.   The rifles have the huge advantage of range. We have yet to have a rampage or spree killing at 200 yards. They are up close and personal like the head shots at Sandy Hook where a small .22 pistol would likely have done the same damage.     All of which is why I made my post and you apparently ignored it in order to say how fast a AK can fire. 

  Completely repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all gun or be prepared to respond to it once it happens. Even the confiscation won't stop it as it doesn't take many guns to get through for it to happen.    Just recently a kid with a knife stabbed several people. One of the biggest terror attacks on a school was at Beslan when fire bombs killed more than 160 mostly children. Until we ban gasoline and any other assorted every day items, we cannot stop someone from mass killings. In fact the deadly school killing in the USA was not a shooting but a bombing and not in recent history but way back in 1927 in Bath, Michigan.    You cannot stop a person dedicated at carnage. 

  I am not trying to be silly but that is a popular misconception repeated time and time again.    Rifles like an AK or AR have a huge advantage over handguns and that is range. Someone that is good with an AR can kill you at a quarter of a mile and that is with open sights. Their fault lies in them being very large as compared to handguns, weigh a good bit more and the ammo/magazines are generally huge and they are more difficult to reload. It is almost impossible to conceal such a weapon.    Almost all of the shootings with these so called "assault" rifles are at extremely close range of a few feet away, not up to hundreds of feet. In early 1991 I was giving a talk to the Lions Club or Optimist or one of the other service organizations. During my short talk I was questioned about "assault" rifles and shooting the San Ysidro McDonald's shooting (21 murdered) was brought up. I told them that the rifle in that situation was not a better weapon and someone in the future was going to wreak more havoc with a handgun. You could carry 100 rounds or more in handgun magazines in a single front pocket of some jeans. It was only a matter of time and a good person can reload in slightly over a second. The media created fear of rifles in mass shootings was for the most part unfounded in my opinion. They are certainly deadly but at a few feet, unnecessary and many times a hindrance to the shooter.    A few weeks later we had the Luby's shooting in Killeen. He shot 43 people and killed 23 in what was at the time the most deadly spree killing in US history while only armed with 9mm pistols. I kind of wanted to go back to the service club and say, "I told you so".    That was later trumped by the VA Tech shootings when 32 people were killed.... again with handguns only and one of them was the tiny .22 round which is more thought of as a tiny and low power practice round and maybe squirrel hunting, an animal which weighs generally less than a pound.    Those were the two most deadly shootings in US history without the need for the dreaded assault rifle as the shooters were not killing people 100-400 yards away. But wait, we move on to Sandy Hook that was the second most people killed  26 people (replacing Luby's) at the school with a rifle but all at almost point blank range. That means a handgun would have been just as deadly if not more so with the usually shorter reloading time.    Until we start having mass murders at 100 yards or more, the idea of rifles being the more serious culprit seem to be misplaced seeing that 2 of the 3 deadliest shootings have been with handguns and the 3rd could have just as well been so.    That fact is that very few people are ever killed with AK or AR style rifles in an average year in the USA. From the federal government CDC stats, of the 11,000 or so firearm homicides a year, the average of the years since the Clinton assault weapon ban expired in 2004 is 48 murders per year from "assault weapons". That means that if you took away these dreaded and scary looking weapons, it would have no bearing on 99.6% of firearms murders. And even that is assuming that the less than 0.4% that did happen with an assault weapon, they shooter simply could not have opted for a less scary weapon to commit the same crime.    Simply repeating the mantra that assault weapons are the problem simply is not true and the statistics including those from the federal government back that up.    But they sure are scary looking..............