Check out some similar questions!

cdad · Jul 14, 2013, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Empowering and encouraging a gun owner to shoot because he feels in danger. You open the door for subjective thinking, without accounting for the part thinking and action of the shooter plays in the situation.

You cannot put yourself in a dangerous position, and then say you were defending yourself. If you cannot follow proper procedure or have one in place, it a lousy law.

That is not true at all and has been shown in debate before. The door swings both ways on self defense. Im thinking that part your not happy with is someone owning guns and having a right to carry them.

Wondergirl · Jul 14, 2013, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

why not ?

Guess I'll go strolling on 16th Street in Lawndale (Chicago) after dark tonight to see how it has changed since I student taught there in 1967. I'll be packing my husband's Mauser.. Hope I don't have any problems.

cdad · Jul 14, 2013, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Guess I'll go strolling on 16th Street in Lawndale (Chicago) after dark tonight to see how it has changed since I student taught there in 1967. I'll be packing my husband's Mauser..Hope I don't have any problems.

Good luck with that. Being as how is Chicago and not a gun friendly city then the police aren't going to let you walk around like that.

Wondergirl · Jul 14, 2013, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by cdad

Good luck with that. Being as how is Chicago and not a gun friendly city then the police arent going to let you walk around like that.

No one will see my Mauser. It's for self defense.

talaniman · Jul 14, 2013, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by cdad

That is not true at all and has been shown in debate before. The door swings both ways on self defense. Im thinking that part your not happy with is someone owning guns and having a right to carry them.

Despite the right to bear arm, some are not as responsible as others, and tragedy results from a lack of good judgment. Unfortunately the standard for an idiot and a good citizen to own a gun are the same.

tomder55 · Jul 14, 2013, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Guess I'll go strolling on 16th Street in Lawndale (Chicago) after dark tonight to see how it has changed since I student taught there in 1967. I'll be packing my husband's Mauser..Hope I don't have any problems.

Even if Zimmerman did follow Martin, should that mean he loses the right to defend himself when faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm?

tomder55 · Jul 14, 2013, 05:11 PM

By the way ;in all likelihood ,Zimmerman is immune from civil action.

Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVI Crimes Section 776.012 Use of force in defense of person. - Florida Attorney Resources - Florida Laws

Wondergirl · Jul 14, 2013, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Even if Zimmerman did follow Martin, should that mean he loses the right to defend himself when faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm?

He left his vehicle and followed him only because he had a gun. No, gun, no follow. He would have waited for the police to show up.

earl237 · Jul 14, 2013, 05:14 PM

I agree with the verdict, but Zimmerman will never be free when it comes to public opinion and the media, I just hope he can regain a normal life in the near future.

tomder55 · Jul 14, 2013, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

He left his vehicle and followed him only because he had a gun. No, gun, no follow. He would have waited for the police to show up.

That is a presumption not relevant to the jury deliberation. He has a legal right to act stupidly . Here in NY they expect people to be sheeple and take a pounding until the police arrive to shovel up the remains . In Fla. The law was quite clear. He was allowed to leave his car and not get sucker punched and pummeled .

Wondergirl · Jul 14, 2013, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

He was allowed to leave his car and not get sucker punched and pummeled .

In this case, he was specifically told to stay in his vehicle.

earl237 · Jul 14, 2013, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

that is a presumption not relevant to the jury deliberation. He has a legal right to act stupidly . Here in NY they expect people to be sheeple and take a pounding until the police arrive to shovel up the remains . In Fla. the law was quite clear. He was allowed to leave his car and not get sucker punched and pummeled .

Canada is like NY too, people often get charged just for pointing a gun or firing warning shots at intruders in their own home.

excon · Jul 14, 2013, 05:50 PM

Hello again, tom:

He was allowed to leave his car and not get sucker punched and pummeled .

And, you know that HOW? Oh, that's right. Zimmerman said so, and you believe it hook line and sinker...

But, in the real world, we don't know WHO punched and pummeled WHO?

Excon

cdad · Jul 14, 2013, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

In this case, he was specifically told to stay in his vehicle.

You are aware that dispatchers are not police officers right? For the most part they are just people like an ambulance driver would be. They don't actually have authority.

Wondergirl · Jul 14, 2013, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by cdad

You are aware that dispatchers are not police officers right? For the most part they are just people like an ambulance driver would be. They dont actually have authority.

Yes,I know that. But dispatchers are not just some bums off the street. It was a reasonable order considering who and what Zimmerman was supposed to be, his purpose for being in that place, and what he might encounter if he left his vehicle. He, gun in hand, decided to play detective and vigilante.

cdad · Jul 14, 2013, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Yes,I know that. But dispatchers are not just some bums off the street. It was a reasonable order considering who and what Zimmerman was supposed to be, his purpose for being in that place, and what he might encounter if he left his vehicle. He, gun in hand, decided to play detective and vigilante.

You sure know how to make things up. Are you sure you don't work for the media?

You say reasonable "order". They have no authority to "order" anything. All they can do is make suggestions. Also its not likely that he had "gun in hand" when he left the car. That would suggest that it was out and ready to fire. If that were the case then there wouldn't have been any fighting.

Wondergirl · Jul 14, 2013, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by cdad

You say reasonable "order". They have no authority to "order" anything. All they can do is make suggestions. Also its not likely that he had "gun in hand" when he left the car. That would suggest that it was out and ready to fire. If that were the case then there wouldnt have been any fighting.

Okay, his gun was in his pocket. I'm sure it was handy. He ignored the dispatcher's "suggestion" and decided to play detective/policeman all on his own.

Is that better?

cdad · Jul 14, 2013, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Okay, his gun was in his pocket. I'm sure it was handy. He ignored the dispatcher's "suggestion" and decided to play detective/policeman all on his own.

Is that better?

Works for me. It puts it in a light that is much easier to see. And more then likely closer to the truth then we will ever know.

tomder55 · Jul 15, 2013, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:
And, you know that HOW?? Oh, that's right. Zimmerman said so, and you believe it hook line and sinker...

But, in the real world, we don't know WHO punched and pummeled WHO?

excon

Just going by the evidence. I did not hear the prosecution dispute the basic facts . They hung their case on some inconsistencies in Zimmerman's interviews with Hannity . A very weak case that would NOT have gone to trial without outside political pressure.

paraclete · Jul 15, 2013, 03:40 AM

Well this is a first a white man can defend himself against a black man, sort of changes the status quo, eh?