• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

executive order 3/16/2012

And that is something that no one is disputing. You're tilting at windmills. That specific link, though, not just Fox News, but the actual content, was needlessly provocative. Like I said, that'd be like linking Al Sharpton as proof that there isn't a consensus, then getting upset when someone called me out on it. It suggests an agenda beyond what you're claiming.
 
You can speculate my intentions all you want Nova_C! But its just speculation on your part.

It wasn't meant for anything other than showing that the media is bias. You might go back through and read some of the other posts that are claiming what the media is reporting as fact. I was showing it wasn't fact at all. Nobody knows all the details about the events that happened that night!
 
Well okay then.

Incidentally, based on the facts that aren't disputed, what do you think the police should have done?
 
At this time, I don't know what they could of done differently, unless I get all the facts, police reports, first responder reports etc. Then wait for the Justice and States dept. investigations into any wrong doing. I don't think it was racially motivated, jmho not based on media reports, just my opinion.

He should be innocent until proven guilty. Howver, in my personal opinion. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of at least man slaughter. I am guilty of forming an opinion without all the facts.
 
Well, and this is where the interesting part of all this lies, really.

All the protests, all the rhetoric, all of the controversy could have been avoided by one simple thing: An arrest. Zimmerman admitted to homicide and was promptly released. This is the part that people have trouble with.

Rich was ....sort of right, in that this boils down to the Stand Your Ground law (I still say this has nothing to do with Castle doctrine, but whatevs). According to this application of the law, the police will release anyone who admits to killing another person, so long as they say they did it in self defense. They won't even release people who have done nothing at all, let alone kill another person. That is what has so many people so riled up. Accusing these people of not giving Zimmerman a fair chance, of convicting him in the court of public opinion ignores a vital and undeniable fact about this case.

Trayvon Martin was not given the benefit of the doubt, by either Zimmerman or the police. It is assumed that he is a thug guilty of assault until someone proves him innocent.

Basically, if you get into a fight or some kind of altercation, in order to get fair treatment under the law, you better win that fight.
 
Hmmm... I have killed people before. In real life, not in a video game. It was me or them. I know what it is like having to stand your ground and survive. Many people, in this thread even, have never had to be in that position, nor would I ever wish that on anyone.

So, I can see the side of the coin that Zimmerman claims that he is on more clearly than the side that Martin was supposedly on.

There are always two sides of the coin, and in this case, neither side is very clear. It is like someone picked up a penny that has been rubbed down to the point that all you know, it is a penny, but not which side you are seeing. But, then you have this friend (the media) coming in and insisting that you are looking at the only side that can be seen and is clear, when neither is that way.

You can yell and scream and whine and cry all you want that what you perceive to be the heads side of the coin is the heads side, but there will always be someone else who see's the tails side of the coin facing up.

That, I think is what beautifullywild77 was getting at when she posted that Fox News report. Two sides yelling that one side of the coin is different than what the other side claims it to be.

I hope my analogy doesn't cause too many headaches.

My personal thoughts on this whole debacle is that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. If in the future there is evidence that shows he attacked Martin, then I hope justice is served. But, it was stated by local and state authorities that nothing could be done, because the evidence did not support arresting and charging him with anything.

Personally if someone attacks me or my family, I hope that I can shoot to kill and not have to worry about serving jail time, because I do defend me and mine with every possible tool at my disposal up to and including whichever gun I may have near me.
 
Thank you Outcast that is what I am trying to say and show.

Personally if someone attacks me or my family, I hope that I can shoot to kill and not have to worry about serving jail time, because I do defend me and mine with every possible tool at my disposal up to and including whichever gun I may have near me.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%
 
Outcast said:
Personally if someone attacks me or my family, I hope that I can shoot to kill and not have to worry about serving jail time, because I do defend me and mine with every possible tool at my disposal up to and including whichever gun I may have near me.
Click to expand...

Which is EXACTLY why the Castle Doctrine law was passed in Florida and other states. Because it is nonsensical for a citizen when put in the position of having to defend themselves from an attacker to have to weigh the relative merits of what action to take based on either being possibly killed by that attacker, or possibly ruined financially through lawsuits and/or possibly put in jail, through their just being at the wrong place at the wrong time and taking conclusive measures to end that attack. The LAW should be on the side of the innocent parties and NOT promote a save working environment for criminal elements by forcing citizens into that kind of jeopardy.

Will such a law be abused and sometimes wrongly applied? Does anyone know of any law that has not been?
 
Rich Z said:
Which is EXACTLY why the Castle Doctrine law was passed in Florida and other states. Because it is nonsensical for a citizen when put in the position of having to defend themselves from an attacker to have to weigh the relative merits of what action to take based on either being possibly killed by that attacker, or possibly ruined financially through lawsuits and/or possibly put in jail, through their just being at the wrong place at the wrong time and taking conclusive measures to end that attack. The LAW should be on the side of the innocent parties and NOT promote a save working environment for criminal elements by forcing citizens into that kind of jeopardy.

Will such a law be abused and sometimes wrongly applied? Does anyone know of any law that has not been?
Click to expand...

We have something like the Castle Doctrine here in NM. But I have been warned by other veterans, and haven't really looked it up, that if I were to take someones life without trying to run away first, or subdue them in any other way, then it would look bad on me, and I would be charged more readily than someone who does not have military training... Which I think is dumb, I just know how to kill people without causing too much damage, and be more humane about it.. Especially more humane than they would have been if that is what they are trying to do to my family/myself.
 
wow.. I didn't know that Outcast. I will just have to make sure its me that picks up the gun instead of Mark. Lucky, he taught me to be a good shot!
 
Yeah, I have a buddy that taught his wife to shoot and said if anyone every breaks in to tell the cops that she thought her life was in danger. He would be arrested, she would not.
 
Well, Mark taught me how to handle a pistol when we got together. He would leave on TDYs. Before he went inactive reserves he would leave for the weekends to Holloman and left me here. He never wanted to leave me unarmed. But my side of the bed is closer to the door anyways so it is easier for me to get up get to the closet and get what I need and now I have another reason. That is crazy that a veteran would be more likely to be arrested because of their training for protecting his own home and family. There are crazy people here in NM. Criminals without conscience. ( I am sure they are all over)
 
Outcast said:
We have something like the Castle Doctrine here in NM. But I have been warned by other veterans, and haven't really looked it up, that if I were to take someones life without trying to run away first, or subdue them in any other way, then it would look bad on me, and I would be charged more readily than someone who does not have military training... Which I think is dumb, I just know how to kill people without causing too much damage, and be more humane about it.. Especially more humane than they would have been if that is what they are trying to do to my family/myself.
Click to expand...

I don't know why military training would make a difference but
I just think the "Stand your Ground" law was ""abused" in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top