Years ago in NY state ,before the lawsuit problems a doctor would stop to help when seeing a automobile accident. When the lawsuits started those doctors would get sued though at the accient they didn't have the luxury of medical history ,hospital facilities etc. So the doctors stopped helping. Finally the state passed laws protecting the doctors.

But no such laws protect gun owners so some are deciding to use their guns to protect themselves and family but no one else.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Two thoughts:

One, none of us were there, and we haven't read the police report. My gut is telling me that some big fact(s) is(are) missing, and that's why George Zimmerman was not charged that night.

Two, ever been in a real bloody, knock down fight? I have, and it gets messy and confusing pretty fast. So, who knows.

That's what our criminal justice system is for.

On the other hand, this stinks of the DNC/Obama shell game. What's up next week, one armed LSD flashback prone, former hippies in tights in Central Park to keep our respective eyes off the abysmal economy, care of the White House?

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Zimmerman created this situation by continuing to follow this boy when he should have backed off and let the police do thier job. I don't believe Zimmerman is a racist. He is just a macho wanna-be cop that was a itching to use his gun.I have know several people like him in my life and unfortunately many of them were in law enforcement. At least Florida denied Zimmermans attempts to join the force.

As a trained paralegal, the key here is the "gated community." Is there a real restricted space Martin was trespassing in??? If Zimmer had shot on the open streets he would be toast. Oh yes, Martin had a can of liquid. 1 pound or so of water in a container... that can be dangerous... and throwing the skittles into someone's face and get you an opening to spring on them... but the media is a bunch of twits.

Yes, this has become political. He should not have been charged but then Obama would not have had a chance at re election. Riots? So...

If the shooting were on open streets, Zimmer would be toast. Martin could claim the "stand your ground right." BUT if Zimmer is a legal patrol in a gated community where Martin is trespassing, then Zimmer gets the benefit of the doubt ... As said, Uncle Sam should butt out, but won't. "Hate crime." Civil rights violation. Wrongful death. Zimmer should have waited for the cops... He may come to wish for that old cliche' "save the last bullet FOR YOURSELF!"... Luck to us all....

quote:

I am not an advocate of concealed carry as a blanket right, yes certain people should have it but not everyone as in the case of zimmerman, if he didn't have the gun he probably wouldn't have had the courage to get up close and personal with that kid, without the gun they may have ended up with a couple of bruises and hopefully be alittle smarter, have a gun you got problems mainly because you feel braver and put yourself in an up close and personal situation which could lead to a fight, the kid could have disarmed him and used it on him.

raamw,
In Florida, we have to meet certain criteria to get a ccw permit. It's not a "blanket right". It sounds in your post that you are advocating tighter gun control. Please elaborate.

Zimmerman "got involved" to protect his neighborhood. He was aparently a Crime Watcher.

Around here the Official Crime Watchers are instructed not to get involved..

SO IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO END UP LIKE ZIMMERMAN...

DO NOT GET PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN ANY THING THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE YOU OR YOUR LOVED ONES.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Zimmerman "got involved" to protect his neighborhood. He was aparently a Crime Watcher.

Around here the Official Crime Watchers are instructed not to get involved..

SO IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO END UP LIKE ZIMMERMAN...

DO NOT GET PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN ANY THING THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE YOU OR YOUR LOVED ONES.

This is where he's in hot water.

In 1998 I was in a bank and saw clews that a robbery was going to unfold. I have two rules never in a bar or bank have your back to the door. I took cover behind a counter and drew my 1911 and putting my cell phone on the floor next to me ready to press speed dial 911. I wasn't worried about the tellers they were behind bullet proof glass and there was only one other person in the bank besides the robber.

I could have double tapped the robber when he turn pointing his Beretta 92 in my direction, but not leveling the gun as to shoot me or the other woman. He never knew I was there.

As soon as he made it to the door I called 911, ran for the door to identified the vehicle, but there were no plates on it. I went back in the bank and the teller that was robbed never set the silent alarm off. The other tellers didn't even know there was a robbery.

When the local police arrive I told them my story and that I had drawn my gun. I was asked to stay until the FBI could interview me. I was there for 2 hours. After the interview on agent said if I were you I would have capped the SOB on the spot. I told him your not me and don't have a badge to stand behind.

Between 1998 and 2005 I was in a store and a gas station also during a robbery. Every time I took cover and had my gun ready if need be, allowing the robbery to unfold. In all incidents I could have capped the robbers and they would have never known what happen.

My shop moved in 2006 to a safer high rent district , in 2007 I retired. The only time a gun is not within reach is when I'am in the shower.

Sorry to sort of hijacking the post.

But with out the training I received at my own expense, and shooting weekly. I would not have been in the proper mentally prepared state to observe and handle the situations I've been in.

I nboth of your circumstances you did the right thing since no one was hurt, money can be replaced, life can't. Most robbers use firearms to control a situation not really intending to use it, highly probable that confronting one could easily escalate it to a shoot out with uncertain results. Could you have legally shot them by all means since he had the ability to cause death or serious bodily injury to someone else.
A funny story, a very large drug dealer in Chicago got robbed one day after coming back from a drug deal when he took a shower, they broke threw a window and grabbed his money case while he was cleaning up his act so to speak, zip loc?

I would have probably shot the robbers in the back if I were there, but I'll not fault a man for not getting involved.

Be careful what you say
To justify the use of deadly force the person must present am imminent danger, running away doesn't qualify'unless he is shooting as he is running
It is like a person who is threatening with a knife, if he is 75 feet away is he a threat?
How about a person who has thrown a knife at you and missed, he is now unarmed and poses no threat.
Police are highly trained on what solidifies a legal use of Deadly force and are able to articulate the reason, in most cases your better off to keep your mouth shut until you speak with an attorney, words are like bullets once they leave the mouth/barrel you can't bring em back, and must deal with the consequences.
With the advent of the internet and these incredible search engines careless words can be used to establish your frame of mind, so be careful as to what you put out there.

quote:

Police are highly trained on what solidifies a legal use of Deadly force and are able to articulate the reason, in most cases your better off to keep your mouth shut until you speak with an attorney, words are like bullets once they leave the mouth/barrel you can't bring em back, and must deal with the consequences.

And any thing you post on the net could also be used against you.

quote:

Originally posted by raamw:
Be careful what you say
To justify the use of deadly force the person must present am imminent danger, running away doesn't qualify'unless he is shooting as he is running
It is like a person who is threatening with a knife, if he is 75 feet away is he a threat?
How about a person who has thrown a knife at you and missed, he is now unarmed and poses no threat.
Police are highly trained on what solidifies a legal use of Deadly force and are able to articulate the reason, in most cases your better off to keep your mouth shut until you speak with an attorney, words are like bullets once they leave the mouth/barrel you can't bring em back, and must deal with the consequences.
With the advent of the internet and these incredible search engines careless words can be used to establish your frame of mind, so be careful as to what you put out there.

There are even exceptions to this. If he is running towards a weapon or cover, he may still be a threat.

465H&H

clean shooting.

raawm, that maybe the law in ill. But that ain't the law in TEXAS. We have the Castle law here. I don't backup on my property at all! Also if you see a felony being committed the use of Deadly force is within the law. We don't have to f'ing run away and wait for the coroner to pick up the bodies left by a piece of shit. You do what you want in your state and we'll follow our laws here!

In the case you end up shooting someone on your property, the law would lean your way on the surface since you have a reason for being there, the other person my not. In law the basic law states you can not enter someone else's property, however there are exception, what if it becomes a life death situation to enter someones house, a couple of ideas they hear some child screaming for help but the doors are locked, can you lawfully enter the house, what if you are hunting and you accidentally shoot yourself and you need to get medical help and you go to the nearest house and no one is home....and there is no other house in sight?
Confrontations on neutral ground changes everything especially when both people have a reason for being there, I have interviewed quite a few people who witnessed an incident and these people have totally different recall on what they saw , imagine if 2 out of three people misidentify who was the aggressor on neutral ground?
I am not saying don't look the other way but be prepared to deal with the consequences since many juries have convicted Innocent people based on the available evidence or testimonies.
Even if I had the same laws that you profess to have in Texas I don't believe I could take a life for anything less than protecting another life whether mine or someone else

TV news said finally the Zimmerman lawyer is going to be able to see all the evidence the prosecutor has .

quote:

Originally posted by raamw:
You can't say it was a good shooting, dead people can't defend themselves
What if I am armed, I confront an unarmed person, I become confrontational and at some point the other person believes he is in danger and to protect himself he punches, or pushes me to get away not knowing that I have a gun, I after being pushed or punched pulls out my gun and shoot him,,,,,, can I claim he attacked me is that a good shooting....I think not, remember this dead person could be your wife or kid running into some person with a big macho ego

Are you making a point unrelated to this shooting or do you believe this is close to what happened? If so, can you cite the source of that evidence?

quote:

Originally posted by raamw:
Be careful what you say
To justify the use of deadly force the person must present am imminent danger, running away doesn't qualify'unless he is shooting as he is running
It is like a person who is threatening with a knife, if he is 75 feet away is he a threat?
How about a person who has thrown a knife at you and missed, he is now unarmed and poses no threat.
Police are highly trained on what solidifies a legal use of Deadly force and are able to articulate the reason, in most cases your better off to keep your mouth shut until you speak with an attorney, words are like bullets once they leave the mouth/barrel you can't bring em back, and must deal with the consequences.
With the advent of the internet and these incredible search engines careless words can be used to establish your frame of mind, so be careful as to what you put out there.

I think that's the TV definition, and maybe the Illinois definition. It is not uniform among all jurisdictions. For example, in Texas you can use deadly force to protect property after dark. Likewise, a local man was just aquitted for shooting a burglar in the back after he ran from his home. It wasn't jury nullification; the state just failed to recognise the applicable protection that the law granted the shooter.

Just came out martin had THC in is blood so he had been smoking pot some time before he was shot.

Here is John Lott's analysis:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...-us-and-media-didnt/

Here's my two cents-

The media has milked the "Zimmerman is evil" angle for all it can, and the cow has now dried up. So now let's start pushing what a punk Martin was, and see how much ad space we can sell from that.

Can anyone point out the differences in these two published news images, for example?

Oh, and don't forget this one-


Why didn't anyone choose to run this photo a month ago, eh?

And here is the latest one from ABC:


I am all for freedom of the press, but what is going here is IMHO borderline criminal if there are any injuries and deaths associated with the verdict, whenever that happens.

Still, none of Zimmermans actions were illegal.
Once Treyvon attacked Zimmerman, in Police Jargon, he was paid for.

The shooting was legal, and justified.

Again the fact that Zimmerman was not arrested on the night of the shooting speaks volumes.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Still, none of Zimmermans actions were illegal.
Once Treyvon attacked Zimmerman, in Police Jargon, he was paid for.

The shooting was legal, and justified.

Again the fact that Zimmerman was not arrested on the night of the shooting speaks volumes.

That is what I also read out of this.

465H&H

Actually, if the gorillas riot, they are not innocent and should be dealt with harshley!

quote:

Originally posted by mdvjrp93:
I really don't see him getting a fair trial. They have already convicted him in the court of public opinion. Unlike OJ if he is found not guilty there will be riots and more innocent people will be hurt.

Of course he will, since that is the procedure for cases that the prosecution has the burden of proof.

quote:

Originally posted by mete:
TV news said finally the Zimmerman lawyer is going to be able to see all the evidence the prosecutor has .

The law is fairly clear on a burglary, an intruder of this sort is fair game, however many a drunk person has attempted to enter the wrong house some have if the door is unlocked. What I m saying is be dam sure of what your doing since you will have to live by your decisions, use of deadly force should be a last resort in any jurisdiction, there was an old saying having the right to do something doesn't necessary mean it is right to do it.
In legal proceedings unlike TV, there are no surprises, each side must present all evidence and testimony to each other prior to court, other wise springing new evidence would be grounds for a mistrial. What you are seeing is some of this evidence, the media has already have the shooter convicted before this stuff came out, let the court system do its thing and allow an un contaminated jury look through the evidence and hear the testimony and cross examination to see the merits

quote:

Originally posted by Mark:
Oh, and don't forget this one-


Why didn't anyone choose to run this photo a month ago, eh?

Police departments and Prosecuting attorneys who have evidence of this nature will not release this info to the public unless they believe releasing this info will aid in their investigation, it's proper place is in the court of law after it has bee accepted by the judge as creditable. What apparently happened when the disclosure was followed the attorneys for zimmerman either released this info or left it or sent it to the press to bolster their case. The judge will eventually put an end to this misconduct and threaten anyone who does with contempt of court

raawm, you really need to touch up on TEXAS law!. It ain't Ill! If you see a felony being committed , as far as I know deadly force is permitted. Doesn't have to be on your property. I.E someone being 'attacked/killed' in public, deadly force is allowed. If you are attacked and in fear for your life or others, it is allowed. This ain't Ill.

Luvtoreload If you really beleave that you live in a diffrent country than I do. We do not have a justice system it is a legal system. Where you can get away with murder if you can afford the right lawyers (OJ).

quote:

Originally posted by kingd:
raawm, you really need to touch up on TEXAS law!. It ain't Ill! If you see a felony being committed , as far as I know deadly force is permitted. Doesn't have to be on your property. I.E someone being 'attacked/killed' in public, deadly force is allowed. If you are attacked and in fear for your life or others, it is allowed. This ain't Ill.

The law is fairly clear about the use of force, to protect serious bodiliy injury to yourself or someonels.

In chicago and I m certain in other jurisdictions how about you hear people shouting and a gun shot. You are armed and decide I have to help, what you see is a person with a gun hovering over another person who appears to be shot, you see that the the guy is still pointing a gun at the person, fearing that he may shoot the person again or turn the gun on you you you pump many rounds into the felonious person, what if this was an undercover cop, or another lone ranger who was confronted by the robber??? see what I mean, just be certain of what your going to do, know the ins and outs of the law and be prepared to live with the results both mentally and financially.

As I said just because you have the right to do it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
Unless your a legal expert how can you determine what is a felony?, it may very well be but what if it is not, as I said earlier in texas would you get indicted for murder or stupidity??? what if you are in the Texas wide open spaces and you decide to play with your gun, you accidentally shoot yourself, you attempt to get to the hospital but you start getting light headed from loss of blood, fearing the chance of going unconscious and slowly bleeding to death you go to the nearest ranch house, you stumble up to the door and find no one is home, you decide I gotta get in to make the 911 call so you start breaking in and along comes the lone ranger Zimmerman who pumps several rounds into your felonious butt,
Did you deserve it, should the lone ranger get an award for defending someone else s property???

The goes raamw again, telling us all how stupid we are.

Raamw, what are you doing on a reloading site, shouldn't you be over there on Sara Brady's sight?

Raamw you sound like a lawyer. Chicago I have no ideal what chicago laws are and I hope that I'll never be there. With people like Romin and Odummer running the place why would anyone want to visit let alone live there.

Raamw is correct in regard to the responsibility to insure that whatever you do that it is absolutely "right". You will be judged for the outcome of your actions, even if you "reasonably believed it was the right thing, and turned out it wasn't.

Of course, if one encounters what appears to be a felony murder in progress, guy/gal shooting another guy/gal in front of you, you have to make a decision, either may be a cop or law abiding citizen or either may be a murdering son of a turd ball druggie pedophile....

What to do? Challenge from cover? Cover with your weapon and demand the actors to cease? Shoot both and let God sort it out? DO you have any responsibility if you cannot determine with a reasonable level of accuracy who the unlawful actor is?

I do not know what the right answer is, but we better make the right decision.

In MO, the law allows the use of (lethal) force to protect onself or other innocent party from unlawful force. The big question remains, who is the inocent?

Obviously, if the victim is a little girl w/pony tails and the agressor is a mean looking perv type guy, you probably have little to worry about. But if both are well-dressed men in suits and ties, uh oh.

No one response will fit all situations.

Ditto on Chicago or any major city,and many minor ones, as well as several entire states. If I cannot carry, I won't go. Screwwww 'em.

Best;

Plain clothes cops are problematical anyway---they seem to write there own rules. An officer of the law should have an exposed badge an uniform if he is making arrests? stops. Investigations are different but let the uniform do the stops.

SSR

The whole plain clothes cop argument is just one big red herring.

Can anyone show me a documented incident where a CCW holder shot a plain clothes cop while he was making an arrest???

I know that cops are always shooting their plain cloth buddies, but show me where a CCW holder has done so.

quote:

The whole plain clothes cop argument is just one big red herring.

As are all of the anti firearm/freedom arguments

Blood in the streets have never been true.

Lets go back to coyote wacker's posts.

IF he had shot the bad guys, HE would have had to pay HIS OWN MONEY to lawers, to represent him. In Texas he would most likely not have been charged, but you NEVER KNOW. In other jurisdictions, and this can vary in any State from City to City, he might have even been charged with Murder and have to spend a BUNCH of money to try and clear him, and might not have been successful.

Before you pull legally carried concealed handgun, to protect some one you do not know, you might consider the fact that you are doing so on your "Dollar".

And the unknown people you might be going to protect will NOT, IN ANY WAY come to your financial aid, and may even testify against you saying your EXTREME ACTIONS
were not necessary...

Think about it, they had the same rights to spend their money, and time, to get their concealed carry permits, and carry a handgun, to protect themselves...

Remember,NO GOOD DEED, GOES UNPUNISHED...

And the saying goes: GOD helps those that protect THEMSELVES.

Not, GOD helps those that protect OTHERS...