On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:08:59 -0600, George Leppla
> wrote:

> On 1/25/2013 4:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> > Yes, you most certainly do in your gated community. The community,
> > including it's sidewalks and roads is private property and any resident
> > has the legal right to question any non-resident who is present on that
> > private property.
>
>
> You seem to have a strange idea that a gated community is "private
> property. It isn't. In most, roads, electricity, gas, water, police and
> fire services are provided by the same public agencies are anywhere
> else. Right-of-way and easements for public use are still in effect.
> Common law does not stop at the gates of a gated community.
>
> REPEAT AFTER ME: Gated Community regulations and rules to not trump
> common law.
>
> REPEAT AFTER ME: Being on private property does not trump common law.
>
> Trevon martin was legally and lawfully in a place where he had a right
> to be. Zimmerman did NOT have the right to follow, stalk, approach,
> confront and demand ID and a reason for being there.
>
> George L

Thank you!

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2013 11:03 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >>
> >> That doesn't matter. He had legitimate reason to be there. Zimmerman
> >> went looking for trouble. What was the kid supposed to do about the man
> >> that kept following him?
> >
> > What was the kid supposed to do about the man who asked "what are you
> > doing here?"? Very simple, his legal options were to 1. respond civilly
> > that he was visiting his father's fiancee so-and-so which would have
> > been the end of things, or ever 2. tell Zimmerman to **** off which is
> > uncivil but still legal. What was not a legal option was to physically
> > assault someone who asked you a question and it was that bad decision
> > that got Trayon killed.
> >
>
> What obligation did Trayvon have to respond civilly

None, but he also has no legal right to respond with a physical assault.

> to some thug who has
> been harassing him and following him?

Following and asking "what are you doing here?" does not constitute
harassment in any US state.

> Why does Zimmerman, armed with a
> gun, get to claim that he was standing his ground when he was the one

Mr. Zimmerman has never claimed he was "standing his ground", the only
talk os "stand your ground" has come from liberal race baiters. Mr.
Zimmerman never presented a weapon until he was being attacked by Mr.
Martin, that is self defense, not "stand your ground".

> who was doing the chasing. Why is Travyon not entitled to stand his ground?

Mr. Martin was never physically attacked. You can not violently "stand
your ground" in response to a verbal question.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2013 5:18 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >> No. As far as I know he lived there. Apparently there had been an
> >> organizational meeting for a neighbourhood watch program in the Twin
> >> Lakes community. Zimmerman was the only volunteer. He carried a gun on
> >> patrol, a violation of Neighborhood Watch policy.
> >
> > A neighborhood watch is not does not have to conform to the policies of
> > any particular organization.
>
> You are right of course, but the official organization is smart enough
> to have a policy not to be armed. That prevents goons like Zimmerman
> from getting himself into a situation that he can't handle, which led to
> a Zimmerman led escalation of violence.

Zimmerman was the victim of Mr. Martin's criminal violence. Mr Zimmerman
didn't escalate anything, he terminated a criminal assault.

>
> >
> > Zimmerman was concerned about a number of recent burglaries in the
> > community. The only mention of race anywhere was when the 911 operator
> > asked about it.
> >
>
> From what I read, Zimmerman had an issue with young men being around
> the complex.

From what you read from who knows what false source. Lookup the police
department and read the official reports to see how you have been misled
by the race baiters.

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 1/25/2013 4:14 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > Get off the couch and read the proposed legislation in it's entirety.
> > Read it several times until you fully understand it.
>
> Once again... Please supply a cite showing exactly where in any proposed
> legislation where the government will come to my house and take away my
> guns.
>
> Simple question, asked many times and you still can't seem to find an
> answer.
>
> George L

I've pointed you to the answer, you are just to stupid and/or prejudiced
to look at it.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:28:51 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 25/01/2013 6:08 PM, George Leppla wrote:
>
> > Trevon martin was legally and lawfully in a place where he had a right
> > to be. Zimmerman did NOT have the right to follow, stalk, approach,
> > confront and demand ID and a reason for being there.
>
>
>
> This is where the "stand your ground" defence boggles me. Martin is
> standing around outside on the phone talking to his girlfriend. Some
> dork comes along and starts following him. He walks away. Zimmerman
> follows him. He confronts the harasser.... stands his ground. That part
> I can appreciate. But Zimmerman... had followed him, got into his
> vehicle and went looking for him. That part of the stand your ground I
> don't get.

Clearly he was a bully who provoked and a victim who didn't remain in
victim mode. Like all bullies who got punched back, now he's claiming
*he* was the victim and what happened wasn't his fault. Boo Hoo.
Poor little him.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:23:15 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> And Zimmerman, not knowing all the residents of all 460 units, could not
> possibly know that Trayvon did not live there.
>
> >
Score!

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Juan Anonly wrote:
>
> On 2013-01-25 22:39:16 +0000, George Leppla said:
>
> > On 1/25/2013 4:14 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> >> Get off the couch and read the proposed legislation in it's entirety.
> >> Read it several times until you fully understand it.
> >
> > Once again... Please supply a cite showing exactly where in any
> > proposed legislation where the government will come to my house and
> > take away my guns.
>
> That's what Fox told him, so that's what he repeats.

It would seem you liberals must be the only ones watching this "Fox" you
are so fixated on. The rest of us read the actual proposed legislation
posted on the government web sites to see what they really contain.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:38:20 -0700, "graham" > wrote:

>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On 25/01/2013 10:58 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> >
> >> > George Leppla wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 1/25/2013 8:02 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> >>>>> Trayvon was the one who was provoked by Zimmerman stalking him.
> >> >>
> >> >>> False. Again, remember that this incident did not occur in a public
> >> >>> place, it was on private property in a gated community where Trayvon
> >> >>> did
> >> >>> not live.
> >> >>
> >> >> Baloney. His father lives there and he was visiting. He had a legal
> >> >> right to be there.
> >> >
> >> > His father did not live there. His father's fiancee apparently lied
> >> > there. Trayvon did not live there and any resident would be well within
> >> > their rights to ask "what are you doing here?" which is all that
> >> > Zimmerman did.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You can parse it any way you want, but the bottom line is that a kid
> >> >> is
> >> >> dead because some wanna-be cop armed himself with a gun and rode
> >> >> around
> >> >> at night playing at being a vigilante looking for trouble.
> >> >
> >> > Bullshit. Zimmerman was heading out to the store when he spotted a
> >> > suspicious person walking on lawns and looking in windows. No wanna-be
> >> > cop, a concerned resident in a private gated community who was well
> >> > within their rights.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Where do you get this stuff ?
> >
> > Police reports? All of this is public information in the police reports
> > that have been released.
>
> So he has NO chance of a fair trial!
>
LOL! Where he's located, he has a HUGE chance of being acquitted.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2013 5:12 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> >
> >> A lot of it thug on thug, which really sucks for your argument about
> >> needing to carry a gun around for protection .... unless you are a thug.
> >> Zimmerman, IMO was a thug. He carried a gun around, perhaps looking
> >> forward to having a chance to defend himself. He ended up getting
> >> himself into a situation that escalated, all his doing, into a situation
> >> where, being a wimp, he had to use his gun.
> >
> > I've not made an argument about needing to carry a gun for protection,
> > my constitution guarantees me that right. The crime statistics even in
> > low crime areas proves the need as well. In a parallel situation,
> > someone I know carried an Epi-pen for some 22 years without needing it,
> > then when they got stung out in a field it saved their life.
>
> He should have carried a gun instead. He could have shot that bee.

An irrational response from an irrational person. I expect you will
never face the reality of why people carry guns until you find yourself
in a situation where you need one and don't have one. I fortunately have
not yet been in a situation where I had to use my gun, but at least
three people I know have so it is not some non-existant threat, and
those three people do not go looking for trouble.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2013 11:58 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:50:03 -0500, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The mass shootings are real tragedies, but I would expect people to be
> >> more concerned about all those single killings that add up.... roughly
> >> 11,500 per year. Sandy Hook was a major multiple murder event.
> >> accounted for less than 0.2% of your national firearms homicides.
> >
> > People like him pass off the individual murders as thug on thug crime.
> > Crimes like the one NB posted never happen.
> >
>
> Yeah. All the murders are thug on thug, but they need to carry a gun
> for self defence. I don't get it .... if all the crime is thug on thug.

You will never get it, you are too blinded by your prejudice to look at
actual facts and statistics.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2013 4:18 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Yeah. All the murders are thug on thug, but they need to carry a gun
> >> for self defence. I don't get it .... if all the crime is thug on thug.
> >
> > They always have an excuse.
> >
>
> Just don't lump me in with the rabid anti gun crowd. My father taught me
> to shoot when I was about 10. I got shotgun for Christmas when I was 15
> and a .303 Lee Enfield when I was 17. I was in the army reserves and
> trained as a weapons tech. I used to hunt small game but have not done
> so for a long time. I have belonged to a handgun club for close to 20
> years and recently transferred to an outdoor range. I have two .22
> rifles, my old shotgun plus a nice double barrel, an SKS and four
> handguns..... all legal. I have a permit to transport them back and
> forth to the range. Now that I I belong to club closer to home and and
> with more options, got shooting about twice a month. I consider
> shooting sports to be valid recreational activities.
>
> I have no major objections to the gun control regulations we have here,
> so long as they are reasonably applied. I don't feel a need to be armed
> for self defence. I don't want people around me carrying guns. Quite
> frankly, the people who do what to be armed and who feel a need to be
> packing heat..... they scare me. There re few things riskier than an
> armed paranoiac.

"I don't want people around me carrying guns" <- Your paranoia.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:45:23 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 25/01/2013 4:18 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Yeah. All the murders are thug on thug, but they need to carry a gun
> >> for self defence. I don't get it .... if all the crime is thug on thug.
> >
> > They always have an excuse.
> >
>
> Just don't lump me in with the rabid anti gun crowd.

Don't worry, there's no chance of me doing that... but this thread has
put you more in line with my way of thinking. I was raised with guns
too, but gun safety was EMPHAISZED to the point that we weren't even
allowed to point our fingers at other people as pretend guns.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> graham wrote:
>>
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 25/01/2013 5:33 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>> >
>> >>> In a more civilized country, that would apply only if Trayvon had
>> >>> attacked him unprovoked on their first encounter. Given the amount of
>> >>> time that Zimmerman spent tailing him, then jumping in his vehicle to
>> >>> catch up, it is clear to most sane people who the aggressor is.
>> >>> Mrtin
>> >>> should have been entitled to stand his ground in the face of someone
>> >>> who
>> >>> was chasing him.
>> >>
>> >> Again, you are entirely misinformed. Mr. Zimmerman followed Mr. Martin
>> >> for something on the order of under 1 minute before the confrontation.
>> >> Mr. Zimmerman never returned to his car until after the confrontation
>> >> and after the police had arrived. Mr. Zimmerman had lost sight of Mr.
>> >> Martin and started to return to his car when Mr. Martin confronted
>> >> him.
>> >> This is all in the police reports that are publicly available.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > I am not even going to bother going back to the audio tape of the 911
>> > call
>> > in which you can hear the sounds from his vehicle. You keep suggesting
>> > that we are misinformed or uniformed, and then you try to pass off crap
>> > like this as relevant information.
>> >
>> I can only deduce that he got his information from the NRA and not a
>> reputable news source.
>
> The information is direct from the official police reports and 911
> recording publicly available on the police department web site. It would
> seem you are getting your misinformation from some race baiting "news
> source".
>
The ONLY facts in this case will come out in the trial, not your favorite
supermarket tabloid!

"Pete C." > wrote something or other

Was there any food involved?

Was any cooking involved?

On 25/01/2013 11:19 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>>> Police reports? All of this is public information in the police reports
>>> that have been released.
>>
>> So he has NO chance of a fair trial!
>
> Not when the charged were only brought under political pressure from the
> race baiters. Remember that the police investigated and found nothing to
> contradict Mr. Zimmerman's story and rightfully chose not to file any
> charges.
>

There doesn't need to be anything to contradict Zimmerman's story. We
went out armed with a gun, then started harassing a young kid and got in
over his head. He made Martin so nervous that he confronted him, then
pulled out his gun when the teen got the better of him.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:

yawn! ;0

On 25/01/2013 11:26 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>> It's strange. Clearly Trayvon was likely threatened because a stranger
>> was following him around. But Zimmerman uses the "stand your ground"
>> law because he was threatend by Trayvon's *unarmed* response to
>> physical threat!
>
> Zimmerman did not use "stand your ground", he used "shoot the *******
> who is physically assaulting me". Only the liberals are fixated on
> "stand your ground" which has no applicability anywhere in the case.


If you walked into a bar and picked a fight with someone, a person who
turned out to be stronger and a better fighter than you, and he is
beating the snot out of you, would you be able to pull out your gun and
shoot him?


>
> Also remember that Mr. Martin chose to confront Mr. Zimmerman. Mr.
> Zimmerman had lost sight of Mr. Martin and had turned around and was
> returning to his car when he was attacked by Mr. Martin. If Mr. Martin
> was truly "threatened" by the stranger following him he would have
> remained hidden, not physically confronted that stranger.


If Zimmerman was so threatened by Martin that he ended up having to
shoot him, maybe he should not have been chasing him. He had called the
cops. They were on the way and he was supposed to meet them.




>
>>
>> And so, as is usually the case in Republican thinking "up" is really
>> "down". "Reverse racism", the "plight of the over-taxed wealthy",
>> "endemic prejudice against Christians", et al.
>
> Wow, that isn't even coherent. You must be smoking some good stuff
> there.

Other than starting the sentence with a conjunction, it does make sense.

On 25/01/2013 11:32 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>>
>> From what I read, Zimmerman had an issue with young men being around
>> the complex.
>
> From what you read from who knows what false source. Lookup the police
> department and read the official reports to see how you have been misled
> by the race baiters.
>

An assault that he caused.

On 25/01/2013 11:34 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:23:15 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> And Zimmerman, not knowing all the residents of all 460 units, could not
>> possibly know that Trayvon did not live there.
>>
>>>
> Score!
>

In an ideal world, an armed goof like Zimmerman would challenge another
armed goof from the complex and they could legally shoot each other.

On 25/01/2013 11:37 PM, Pete C. wrote:

> An irrational response from an irrational person. I expect you will
> never face the reality of why people carry guns until you find yourself
> in a situation where you need one and don't have one. I fortunately have
> not yet been in a situation where I had to use my gun, but at least
> three people I know have so it is not some non-existant threat, and
> those three people do not go looking for trouble.
>


Yeah. I am sure. What happened? Did they hear a noise, grab a gun and go
outside and chase the raccoon away? I am aware of the numbers of
incidents where Americans claimed to have needed a gun to protect
themselves and they are astronomical. I leaves me wondering how the
other half of the country's population is still alive.

On 25/01/2013 11:38 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>

>>>> The mass shootings are real tragedies, but I would expect people to be
>>>> more concerned about all those single killings that add up.... roughly
>>>> 11,500 per year. Sandy Hook was a major multiple murder event.
>>>> accounted for less than 0.2% of your national firearms homicides.
>>>
>>> People like him pass off the individual murders as thug on thug crime.
>>> Crimes like the one NB posted never happen.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. All the murders are thug on thug, but they need to carry a gun
>> for self defence. I don't get it .... if all the crime is thug on thug.
>
> You will never get it, you are too blinded by your prejudice to look at
> actual facts and statistics.
>


Oh? I am the one who has worked in research and who has completed a
thesis project to earn my degree. You have made inferences about
alleged statistics, but you have not shown any. I don't know where you
are getting the data that shows that high rates of violent crime happen
mainly in high population density areas. I looked at the US census
information, and it gives the rates for all the states, and some of the
states without a lot of high density population have murder rates much
higher than average, and some states with high density have below
average rates. You claim that I don't understand the states, but every
time I counter your bullshit claims with stats you ignore them and skip
to something else.

My impression is that you don't even read the stats. Like others have
suggested, you are likely absorbing the misinformation of faux news sources.

On 25/01/2013 11:40 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
>> I have no major objections to the gun control regulations we have here,
>> so long as they are reasonably applied. I don't feel a need to be armed
>> for self defence. I don't want people around me carrying guns. Quite
>> frankly, the people who do what to be armed and who feel a need to be
>> packing heat..... they scare me. There re few things riskier than an
>> armed paranoiac.
>
> "I don't want people around me carrying guns" <- Your paranoia.
>


I prefer to think of it as a heightened state of awareness. There are
too many other paranoid assholes out there who think they need to be
armed with deadly force to protect themselves. Guys who, like Zimmerman,
will go out looking for trouble and then have to resort to the gun
because they can't conduct themselves civilly.

On 25/01/2013 11:48 PM, sf wrote:
>
>>> They always have an excuse.
>>>
>>
>> Just don't lump me in with the rabid anti gun crowd.
>
> Don't worry, there's no chance of me doing that... but this thread has
> put you more in line with my way of thinking. I was raised with guns
> too, but gun safety was EMPHAISZED to the point that we weren't even
> allowed to point our fingers at other people as pretend guns.
>


Yep. Gun safety was heavily stressed. They are deadly weapons and you
have to be careful with them. If you are careless, someone can get
killed. OTOH, we have yahoos who are concerned only with the concept of
might is right.

On 2013-01-26, Dave Smith > wrote:

> Yep. Gun safety was heavily stressed. They are deadly weapons and you
> have to be careful with them. If you are careless, someone can get
> killed. OTOH, we have yahoos who are concerned only with the concept of
> might is right.

Dave, I cannot allow you to fight this battle alone.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Said_Stadium_disaster

Soccer balls don't kill ppl, ppl kill ppl!

Use a soccer ball, go to jail.
Kick a Rosie, I'll pay yer bail! (I jes made that up

Stop Soccer Ball Violence!

Soccer Balls Don't Kill Ppl. Fathers With Pretty Daughters Do!

etc, etc....


HTH
nb

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2013 11:26 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >> It's strange. Clearly Trayvon was likely threatened because a stranger
> >> was following him around. But Zimmerman uses the "stand your ground"
> >> law because he was threatend by Trayvon's *unarmed* response to
> >> physical threat!
> >
> > Zimmerman did not use "stand your ground", he used "shoot the *******
> > who is physically assaulting me". Only the liberals are fixated on
> > "stand your ground" which has no applicability anywhere in the case.
>
> If you walked into a bar and picked a fight with someone, a person who
> turned out to be stronger and a better fighter than you, and he is
> beating the snot out of you, would you be able to pull out your gun and
> shoot him?

Walking up to someone and asking them a question does not constitute
"picking a fight" anywhere. Mr. Martin broke the law and physically
assaulted someone who asked a question he didn't like, and he paid the
price for that crime.

>
> >
> > Also remember that Mr. Martin chose to confront Mr. Zimmerman. Mr.
> > Zimmerman had lost sight of Mr. Martin and had turned around and was
> > returning to his car when he was attacked by Mr. Martin. If Mr. Martin
> > was truly "threatened" by the stranger following him he would have
> > remained hidden, not physically confronted that stranger.
>
> If Zimmerman was so threatened by Martin that he ended up having to
> shoot him, maybe he should not have been chasing him. He had called the
> cops. They were on the way and he was supposed to meet them.

Certainly it would have been better if he had not followed Mr. Martin,
but he had a legal right to do so. The only crime committed that evening
was Mr. Martin deciding that it was appropriate to physically assault
someone who asked "what are you doing here?".

>
> >
> >>
> >> And so, as is usually the case in Republican thinking "up" is really
> >> "down". "Reverse racism", the "plight of the over-taxed wealthy",
> >> "endemic prejudice against Christians", et al.
> >
> > Wow, that isn't even coherent. You must be smoking some good stuff
> > there.
>
> Other than starting the sentence with a conjunction, it does make sense.

No, it's incoherent liberal babble and name calling that has no
relevance to the thread. I'm an independent and an atheist, I don't work
on "feelings" or "faith", only facts, and in the Martin v. Zimmerman
case the facts available from the official police reports show that Mr.
Martin criminally assaulted Mr. Zimmerman.

Pete C. wrote:

> What they are
> trying to do is lay the groundwork with a ban on transfers so that they
> can come and confiscate them when you die, thus depriving your heirs of
> them.

Paranoid much?

On 1/26/2013 10:11 AM, George M. Middius wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
>
>> What they are
>> trying to do is lay the groundwork with a ban on transfers so that they
>> can come and confiscate them when you die, thus depriving your heirs of
>> them.
>
> Paranoid much?
>
>

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

George L

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2013 11:37 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > An irrational response from an irrational person. I expect you will
> > never face the reality of why people carry guns until you find yourself
> > in a situation where you need one and don't have one. I fortunately have
> > not yet been in a situation where I had to use my gun, but at least
> > three people I know have so it is not some non-existant threat, and
> > those three people do not go looking for trouble.
> >
>
> Yeah. I am sure. What happened? Did they hear a noise, grab a gun and go
> outside and chase the raccoon away? I am aware of the numbers of
> incidents where Americans claimed to have needed a gun to protect
> themselves and they are astronomical. I leaves me wondering how the
> other half of the country's population is still alive.

One deterred a clearly mentally ill person who was coming at him
menacingly waving a large rock, another caught and held two would-be
burglars until the police hauled them away, I forget the details on the
third.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2013 11:48 PM, sf wrote:
> >
> >>> They always have an excuse.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Just don't lump me in with the rabid anti gun crowd.
> >
> > Don't worry, there's no chance of me doing that... but this thread has
> > put you more in line with my way of thinking. I was raised with guns
> > too, but gun safety was EMPHAISZED to the point that we weren't even
> > allowed to point our fingers at other people as pretend guns.
> >
>
> Yep. Gun safety was heavily stressed. They are deadly weapons and you
> have to be careful with them. If you are careless, someone can get
> killed. OTOH, we have yahoos who are concerned only with the concept of
> might is right.

Self defense is a basic human right.

On 26/01/2013 11:01 AM, Pete C. wrote:

> Walking up to someone and asking them a question does not constitute
> "picking a fight" anywhere. Mr. Martin broke the law and physically
> assaulted someone who asked a question he didn't like, and he paid the
> price for that crime.

Martin had already walked away from the guy who was making him nervous.
Then Zimmerman followed him.



>> If Zimmerman was so threatened by Martin that he ended up having to
>> shoot him, maybe he should not have been chasing him. He had called the
>> cops. They were on the way and he was supposed to meet them.
>
> Certainly it would have been better if he had not followed Mr. Martin,
> but he had a legal right to do so.

So you say. The result was an altercation in which the wimpy wannabe
macho man had to pull out his gun and shoot. That would have been
avoided if Zimmerman had just waited for the police who where on their way.

> The only crime committed that evening
> was Mr. Martin deciding that it was appropriate to physically assault
> someone who asked "what are you doing here?".

Perhaps in Florida. In more civilized places you can't tail people and
make them nervous and then kill them when they react as one might
except. Zimmerman likely had some idea that a person might react like
that, which is why he carried a gun. Again, in a more civilized society,
you can't legally carry around a loaded handgun, and that is a good
thing because it is a deterrent to wimpy wannabes like Zimmerman who
like to go out and look for trouble.

On 26/01/2013 11:31 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
>> Yeah. I am sure. What happened? Did they hear a noise, grab a gun and go
>> outside and chase the raccoon away? I am aware of the numbers of
>> incidents where Americans claimed to have needed a gun to protect
>> themselves and they are astronomical. I leaves me wondering how the
>> other half of the country's population is still alive.
>
> One deterred a clearly mentally ill person who was coming at him
> menacingly waving a large rock, another caught and held two would-be
> burglars until the police hauled them away, I forget the details on the
> third.
>


No problem on the third one. Just make something up.

On 26/01/2013 11:32 AM, Pete C. wrote:

>>
>> Yep. Gun safety was heavily stressed. They are deadly weapons and you
>> have to be careful with them. If you are careless, someone can get
>> killed. OTOH, we have yahoos who are concerned only with the concept of
>> might is right.
>
> Self defense is a basic human right.
>
But not for Trayor Mrtin eh.

Juan Anonly wrote:

> I'm reminded of the lack of utility of listening to the "other side" of
> a pedophilia argument: Do we really need to hear a pedophile's "point
> of view" to be able to reject it?

Check with Shelley on that point.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:42:18 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 26/01/2013 11:32 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Yep. Gun safety was heavily stressed. They are deadly weapons and you
> >> have to be careful with them. If you are careless, someone can get
> >> killed. OTOH, we have yahoos who are concerned only with the concept of
> >> might is right.
> >
> > Self defense is a basic human right.
> >
> But not for Trayor Mrtin eh.

If you're black, you're always considered to be in the wrong down
there.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.