George Zimmerman Trial

[waynefrcan]

And she said that none of the before the attack BS concerned the jury. IT was just who started the fight, who was on top and who was screaming for help. Just As I thought and posted here. I can't remember another trial that the verdict was so easy to obtain correctly.

Jury member revealed and going to write a book involving how the members came to their decision.

I am not suprised, but I would have waited longer, after all these events calmed down, till removing anonymity.

 

[capewind]

Charles, I was just getting at the fact that my concerns over the 300,000,000 guns in the US and all your gun related deaths are falling on deaf ears at this forum.

A difference of opinion does not mean a topic is falling on deaf ears, but there is an issue with those who want to handicap others because of placing blame in the wrong place.

I am very disappointed in some of you that expessed the fact that the ghetto thugs can kill each other.

Why? If folks want to act a certain way, why should we feel sorry for their choices? I will save my pity for the victims.

Which reminds me I think the Mods should remove those posts. This is a world wide forum, and such comments should be best kept private. Or maybe it's time to just delete this topic.

Why? We often go off topic. We have heard examples of violence all over the world in this forum. Why should opinions be kept private? Are we all supposed to stick our heads in the sand? Take a dont ask, dont tell position? The nice thing about forums is you can choose to read or not read, post or not post. If you feel the topic is over for you, you are free to skip over it, and let those who are still interested, continue. Personally, I think there is a lot more to this case, then the events of one tragic night.

 

[crsublette]

Charles, I was just getting at the fact that my concerns over the 300,000,000 guns in the US and all your gun related deaths are falling on deaf ears at this forum.

Yep, I understand it is what you are attempting to portray by suggesting all gun related deaths are equal, regardless of the how nor why, which I find to be quite absurd just as much as suggesting other folk "want innocent ghetto children taking bullets", all in the attempt to make it tougher for law abiding citizens to defend them self against the gangs and criminals out here.

1) Increasing gun restrictions to the extent of making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend them self against gangs and criminals does gives these gangs and criminals the upperhand. The southern bordertowns are the worst since there are disgraced Mexican military personal being introduced to the gangs and the American gangs helping them as well to get firearms into America. The entire goal of the "fast and furious" gun sting by the Justice Department was to solve this problem, but this program turned into a scandal due to there was a severe lack of oversight that allowed the firearms to be lost and resulting in arming these gangs with even more resources.

2) There are firearm restrictions in America that are terribly enforced. There are programs for private sellers to easily do the FBI background check, even at gun shows and between individuals, but it is not always done. Enforcement of existing laws and enforcement of restrictions has always been the problem here in America since the politicians and authorities love to create laws and restrictions that they never have the backbone to enforce. Since law abiding citizens are the ones who are much more likely to respect the law and follow the rules, then it is these individuals, not the shady dealers nor gangs, that have their firearms restricted.

These reasons, also including our porous borders, is why extensive gun restrictions will never work here. Sure, these restrictions will remove the firearms from law abiding citizens or make it very difficult for them to protect themself, and this would reduce the deaths that result from folk being careless with firearms, but it definitely will not remove the firearms from the gangs and criminals since they are allowed to have too many other avenues to obtain their firearms that is unique here in America.

 

[capewind]

Yep, I understand it is what you are attempting to portray by suggesting all gun related deaths are equal, regardless of the how nor why, which I find to be quite absurd just as much as suggesting other folk want "innocent ghetto children taking bullets", all in the attempt to make it tougher for law abiding citizens to defend them self against the gangs and criminals out here.

These reasons, also including our porous borders, is why extensive gun restrictions will never work here. Sure, these restrictions will remove the firearms from law abiding citizens or make it very difficult for them to protect themself, and this would reduce the deaths that result from folk being careless with firearms, but it definitely will not remove the firearms from the gangs and criminals since they are allowed to have too many other avenues to obtain their firearms that is unique here in America.

The problem is NOTHING is done about existing laws. In a nut shell, a tragedy happens, and then there is a public out rage (such as this case), but nothing was done to PREVENT it. Our gov't doesnt WANT to fix the problems either. While I do NOT believe this case was about race, our President and media have done as much as they could to try to make it so.

The following image really is on target with the gun ownership debates. We all see car related "accidents" on a regular basis, but where is the public out rage of how danagerous cars are?

Within 3-20 minutes of my house .... Car "accidents' are a daily occurance here (our roads are not designed for the tourist load we receive), but these are the most recent that affect us personally or others we know ...

Two days ago, while fleeing from the police, crossing town lines, a tourist struck a 62 year old man who was simply walking down the road, and then a car operated by a young mother with children in the car, causing injuries, Where is the public out rage?

Last week an innocent man died who I knew from my childhood ... What did he do? He was driving down the road on July 4th, when another truck grazed his truck head on, sent him into on coming traffic, where he killed the driver of that rental car, and injurying six others in his van, and FLED THE SCENE. Police are still looking for this person.

3 months ago, my daughter was driving her car across a quiet intersection, where she had the right of way, when she was Tboned by a drunk driver, who stopped long enough to see that she was hurt, say "oh shit" and fled the scene (arrested in the next town a short time later) ...

While our population has MORE black and hispanic folks, with a very high percentile of low income (the majority survive on minimum wage, and seasonal jobs, we have very few year round jobs, and little that pays over $10 hr), our papers show more cases of home invasions and car thefts by WHITE men, in their 20s-40s ... We also have a "regular occurance" of armed robberies, and armed home invasions by people of all ethnic backgrounds.

MY POINT is adding stronger gun laws change NOTHING, Anything can be used as a weapon to cause death or injury. I believe it was earlier in this conversation, something was said about lack of guns in the UK resulted in lower crime in that regard, but was only replaced by knives? Speaking of knives, many people use them to commit suicide, so do we ban them too? Yes, it was a reach to make a suide comment, but is it really that much of a reach???

Again, anything can be used as a weapon. Maybe it is because I am a woman? a mom? dont weigh much? who knows, but I am VERY in tune to my surroundings AT ALL TIMES. I am far from "paranoid" but being AWARE is the first step towards self defense. I can look around every room in my home, garage and yard, and identify nontraditional items that could be used as a weapon. Now, if I am only looking for items to defend myself with, what items could someone else target to use as a weapon to cause HARM? Should we all start making lists of items that should become illegal, since there is the potential to use them ILLEGALLY???

The root case of the problem is what needs to be addressed. It isnt the inanimate objects.

 

[pecan]

Fishy your post just made me realize why you guys are the wrong crowd to talk about gun control issues etc. Because guns = outdoors, and outdoors includes pond lovers. And that's why you also believe in the ghetto crowd shooting each other. Most of you live in rural areas. I do still think you don't want innocent ghetto children dying in the gun battles and drivebys. Unless you think they will grow up to become violent themselves?

I will have to find a forum like a church group to talk about your gun problems....not! I don't have the time.

Crime levels in countries who have banned guns are just as high as our, they just beat each other to death with baseball bats and beer bottles. I think it is more humane to shoot each other

Seriously though I find it horrible there are so many deaths in low income areas of non-free states. I find it horrible that the news, al sharpton, pur POTUS mention nothing of this, but when a "white-hispanic" kills someone in self defense it is all anyone can talk about. Multiple kids die every day in Chicago (real kids, not 17 yo men) even though Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in this nation. Did you know more people die in Chicago every day than Ashcanistan? Yes it is more dangerous to travel to Chicago then go off to war.

The probelm is people in those areas are not taking responsiblity for their actions and their situations, all while the politicians pass more and more laws that help to keep them in the situation they are in. Why is it the forest service tells us not to feed wild animals because if we do they will become dependant and forget how to feed themselves. But it is perfectly ok to teach generation after generation of Americans to become dependant on the government????

I was thinking about the illeterate girlfriend in this trial this morning. And how the media was quick to defend her lack of education and illeteracy by saying she is a poor black girl so you can't blame her.

Imagine what the poor blacks from 200 years ago would have to say about that? When many risked their lives to learn how to read! It was something that wasn't allowed, but mothers taught their children anyway, many taught themselves knowing they could be beaten or killed if anyone found out.

Then I thought about the people who live in those crime ridden areas and don't leave because "they don't have the means" Thank God our ancestors did not feel this way or the entire western half of the US would have no poplualtion.

Our ancestors gave up everything, to cross oceans, cross the planes, and cross the rockies to find a better life.

We sure have come a long way haven't we???

Making excuses only ensures they will never succeed in life

 

[crsublette]

I love that image. It describes exactly how the gun "haters" are trying to debate this subject.


Alcohol and cars are the inaminate products that are the instruments involved in drunk driving. Prohibition, or significantly controlling the supply of alcohol, has only given strength to the mafia and moonshiners to create a blackmarket. Controlling or reducing alcohol and car allowances to sober folk does not reduce drunk driving since sober folk that decide to drink, are properly educated and looked after by friends and bartenders, and do not go out making a decision to drive aftering heavily drinking. The decisions made by folk who heavily drink then choose to drive the car are the ones that kill folk.

There are restrictions on legaly owning and using bazookas, grenade launchers, and uzis by non-law enforcement citizens, but this has definitely not prevented gangs, criminals, and shady dealers from selling these weapons. The decisions made by criminals, shady dealers, and gangs are the ones who are allowing the prevalence of uzis, bazookas, and grenade launchers. Increasing weapon restrictions will not matter as long as the criminals, shady dealers, and gangs are still able to easily obtain these weapons, for the reasons I have explained above due to lack of enforcement, and severe gang problems, aided by Mexico's rebels and cartels, coupled with a porous border.

 

[crsublette]

Did you know more people die in Chicago every day than Ashcanistan?

Sounds like the name of a new country formed as the result of the fight against second hand smoking. :chair: :cheerful: :claphands:

 

[CdnJCR]

Do you have any facts that support your repeated contention that a high number of illegal guns enter the USA from Mexico. I really think you have the flow going the wrong way Mexico as does Canada has issues with guns originating from the USA.

( Mexicans have a constitutional right to own firearms, but legal purchase from the single Mexican gun shop in Mexico City, controlled by the Army, is extremely difficult. "According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, in the past five years 94,000 weapons have been recovered from Mexican drug cartels, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States )

 

[crsublette]

No more facts than you have to dispute it. Well, except for talking with the cattle ranchers near the border towns and these cattle ranchers are armed to the hilt every time they have to check on their cattle, which a portion of their cattle end up shot to death by the drug running, immigrant running, and gun running coyotes entering the States. My livelihood is agriculture and I know many good fellas from those areas. They travel quite far to buy their cattle.

Yep, and due to the lack of enforcement of existing laws and restrictions in America, your statistic does not suprise me.

 

[HTH]

CdnJCR
That just proves the point that when you try to control guns, booze, or drugs it creates a profit opportunity for crooks. The cartels have enough money to get the guns no matter how far they have to go to get them. Taking guns away from law abiding people will not put a dent in that.

 

[HTH]

I agree with Charles. We already have enough unenforced and selectively enforced laws. Adding more just hurts the common man rather then the criminal. Or it makes a criminal out of the common man.

 

[capewind]

I love that image. It describes exactly how the gun "haters" are trying to debate this subject.

It does, but it really can be extended to so many topics. Whenever something goes wrong, it is so easy to point and say this or that, but where are the actions that prevent things from happening in the first place.

Some say GZ caused this for getting out of his car. Really? Sure, he was told to stay in his car, AND THEN asked if he could still see TM... Maybe if crime in the neighborhood hadnt been an issue, GZ wouldnt have been out on watch ...

Maybe if TM hadnt been suspended from school, he would not have been in the neighborhood that night in the first place. Maybe if TM hadnt confronted GZ, he would still be alive too. We are susposed to give HIS witnesses credit too, right?

Racial crime right? GZ used the term PUNK.

TM, per Rachael (I think that was her name) repeated that TM told her that he was going to confront the "cracker"... On the interview I saw of her last night, she even took the time to define the terms NIGGA and NIGGER, taking the time to spell each word to minimize confusion between the two words. She could have defined NIGGA better (it has a broader meaning than just the word "man" and can be extended to a term of endearment), but she isnt exactly the brightest kid out there (regardless of race).

Per letter of LAW, manslaughter charges (and certainly not Murder 2) does NOT address a chain of events, but the singular/actual event, for a self defense claim.

MAYBE having a gun on hand made GZ a bit braver, but GZ had the right to do his part to keep his neighborhood safe. The gun didnt pull its own trigger, nor does a car stop and think, hey, I am going to kill someone today.

I also appreciated juror B37 coming forward to be interviewed. As soon as the trial was over, and the jurors went to decide GZ's fate, they did a count of who was where on their thoughts. IMMEDIATELY, 3 juror's were at NOT GUILTY, 2 were at manslaughter, and one was for Murder 2 ... after reviewing EVERYTHING, including the LETTER OF LAW, and not OPINIONS, they ALL ended up at NOT GUILTY, and GZ was justified in claiming self defense. B37 was even asked about her thoughts on GZ getting his gun back, and she AGREED, stating something along of the lines of having been through this experience, he was likely to be the most careful person on the planet with his gun in the future.

 

[CdnJCR]

CdnJCR
That just proves the point that when you try to control guns, booze, or drugs it creates a profit opportunity for crooks. The cartels have enough money to get the guns no matter how far they have to go to get them. Taking guns away from law abiding people will not put a dent in that.

I have no problem with law abiding people having guns for hunting, protection whatever but some control, back ground checks etc. also would be a good idea that's all. I would assume buying a gun at a Texas gun show is fairly easy for the good, the bad and the undocumented cross border shoppers.

 

[pecan]

Do you have any facts that support your repeated contention that a high number of illegal guns enter the USA from Mexico. I really think you have the flow going the wrong way Mexico as does Canada has issues with guns originating from the USA.

( Mexicans have a constitutional right to own firearms, but legal purchase from the single Mexican gun shop in Mexico City, controlled by the Army, is extremely difficult. "According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, in the past five years 94,000 weapons have been recovered from Mexican drug cartels, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States )

The statistics reported by the BATF that stated 70% of firearms used in crimes in Mexico came from the US is misleading at best.

The real story is, the Mexican government puts requests in to the US government to confirm whether firearms orginated here.

The Mexican government only requests that information on firearms with US serial numbers. The actual statistics are that 70% of firearms with US serial numbers used in crimes in Mexico orginated from the United States. Problem is the amount of firearms with US serial numbers is a tiny fraction of the total firearms in Mexico used in crimes.

I will also add that of those 70% of firearms with US serial numbers that were used in crimes in Mexico, probably 50% were supplied and sanctioned by our federal government via Fast and Furious (thanks Eric Holder) to help push their gun control agenda.

Moral of the story is the goverment will give you half truths and break the law in order to get their agendas through.

 

[pecan]

I have no problem with law abiding people having guns for hunting, protection whatever but some control, back ground checks etc. also would be a good idea that's all. I would assume buying a gun at a Texas gun show is fairly easy for the good, the bad and the undocumented cross border shoppers.

The important thing to note is our founding fathers did not write the 2nd amendement, Right to Keep and Bear Arms so we could hunt or protect ourselves. They wrote it to ensure an armed society would prevent a future tyranical government.

They had just dealt with a tyranical government and fought for their freedom. They knew an armed society would keep the federal government in check.

This is why we have the Right to Bear Arms and this is why we have the right to be armed as well as any military.

This is not about hunting or personal protection.

Funny how it is the tyranical governments who try to take away our firearms... Self preservation i guess.