[news.yahoo.com]

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Where the idiot will receive a warm welcome. And eventually in hell later on.

Take a life ? I defence of your own, OK. Don't like it. To get people to turn the music down ? Good grief.

"Tell you what, pal, you just pulled a gun on the wrong [expletive], OK?" one of the partygoers is heard telling Rodriguez on the home video.

Seconds later the partygoer warns, "When I go in that house and I come back, don't think I won't be equal to you, baby."

Rodriguez, who told police he suspected the men were drunk, tells the 911 operator that he's scared and will defend himself, if needed.

"I don't want to do this, and it all started over them playing their music real loud … it's about to get out of hand, Sir. Please help me. "

Seconds later, he says, "I'm standing my ground here, now these people are going to try and kill me."

The video is dark when Danaher and two other men apparently lunged toward him, laughing loudly. Rodriguez fired his gun, killing Danaher and injuring two others.

In lobbying jurors for a lenient sentence, defense attorney Bill Stradley blamed the tragedy on his client's misunderstanding of the state's "stand your ground" law. Something he predicts will happen with other Texas gun owners in the future.

"And they will find themselves, like Raul Rodriguez, charged with murder," said Stradley, according to the Houston Chronicle.

"Raul believed he had a right to be where he was. But he had two seconds to make that call, to pull that trigger."

THANK GOD for the Martin case going national - else there'd be people all over the country saying, "I'm standing my ground here..." then start shooting...

Quote
Manlove
...it seems pretty clear that carrying a loaded weapon is tantamount to saying that I am okay with shooting someone to death if I feel threatened, or in some instances, just so inclined.

You're wrong. Or confused. Or willing to allow some homicidal maniac to play loud music that I don't like rape and kill your wife and daughter in front of you and say, "I just can't use potentially deadly force to stop this."

I am a proponent of strong gun laws; don't see why people should need semi-automatic weapons, and think there is abuse in concealed carry laws. But that does not mean that every person who carries a weapon is some deranged maniac waiting to kill someone. That's just plain NUTS!

Yep, it's nuts alright.

"And as to premeditation tied to carrying a weapon, that stretch is ridiculous. Self protection with a gun does not imply some grand desire to kill people. When threatened, simply showing a gun, or firing it astray can and is a common method for people to avoid injury to their own person or family."

Yep, nothing like waving a gun around to show someone you mean business.
Father of six. They are going to be on welfare for a long time, payed for by the tax payers.
He didn't seem like anything but a normal American, with a gun and a nervous disposition.
I can keep repeating myself, but you get my point.

It seems to me that the key issue has to be...

Did the shooter have an opportunity to deescalate the situation, and if so, did he take that opportunity?

Police and prosecutors say George Zimmerman missed at least two opportunities to do just that, something that greatly weakens his self-defense argument.

Lemon Drop has it. Using a gun to defend yourself is one thing.

Walking INTO an argument waving a gun around is premeditated murder if you use it.

Hell. I was taught that pointing a gun at another human being is tantamout to attempted murder. Even if the gun is unloaded.

"Stand your ground' does not mean the ground moves with you. I much prefer the 'castle doctrine'. Your castle doesn't move.

You are not right on this at all cbelt - in THIS CASE, the guy tried to carry a ground standing bubble with him next door. Can't do that.

But in general, according to these laws, anywhere you stand (as long as you are there legally) is yours to defend - with lethal force. As long as you are first threatened.

These laws need to be repealed - NOW!!

Florida's "Stand your Ground" law is NOT permission to shoot people anytime you like. The criteria for use of deadly force are very specific.
The problem for prosecutors is that the only witness is often the shooter, a person with not much interest is claiming anything other than "imminent threat against their life."


Significant inconsistencies in his various stories to police and lack of credibility are serious problems for George Zimmerman's defense, but it remains to be seen if a judge or jury will accept that his life was in imminent danger when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

Quote
Manlove
Quote

... don't see why people should need semi-automatic weapons

Well I use a semi-auto simply to do away with loading and cocking constantly. Both are difficult to do with one hand. So a revolver means I have to deal with it every six shots where as a semi will give me double that (though cocking a semi handgun is still a PITA).

I like assault weapons for the same reason - banana clips of 30 rounds just makes things easier for me. The weapon is also easier to handle.

I don't rapid fire - I'm too cheap to spend on the ammo.

So for me - a semi is a simple case of ergonomics.

---

You can tell a lot about a woman by her hands...
- For example, if they are wrapped around your throat she's probably slightly upset.

My first question is: Would the verdict be the same if the shoot wasn't Hispanic and the victim was?

---

San Antonio, TX (in the old city)

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
-- Edmund Burke
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Quote
Rolando
My first question is: Would the verdict be the same if the shoot wasn't Hispanic and the victim was?

Didn't pick up on that at all . . . very good point.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
Lemon Drop


Significant inconsistencies in his various stories to police and lack of credibility are serious problems for George Zimmerman's defense, but it remains to be seen if a judge or jury will accept that his life was in imminent danger when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

I think you will find that the law is not simply "his life was in imminent danger" but that "he believed that his life was in imminent danger when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin". It's a very significant distinction that makes this bad law so dangerous.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

hal-- I'm in general agreement with you. It's all so fuzzily subjective.

The laws were initially created to 'cover' people who were being attacked with deadly force and responded accordingly. What has happened is that a number of people have used the fuzzy nature of the law to commit legal murder.

Legal clarification is badly needed.

I would like to be able to legally defend myself and my family if we are attacked with lethal force. Of course if that happens, AND I happen to have a weapon, I won't give a damn about some poorly written law. I'll try to survive and keep my family alive. The attacker can take his or her own chances.

This scenario is unlikely.. the guns are all locked in the safe with trigger locks, ammo locked separately, keys in a separate area, etc.. My grandfather's cavalry saber, on the other hand, is closer. As are kitchen knives, baseball bats, pieces of furniture, cast iron skillets, angry Chihuahuas, etc...

Quote
Spock

Quote
Lemon Drop


Significant inconsistencies in his various stories to police and lack of credibility are serious problems for George Zimmerman's defense, but it remains to be seen if a judge or jury will accept that his life was in imminent danger when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

I think you will find that the law is not simply "his life was in imminent danger" but that "he believed that his life was in imminent danger when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin". It's a very significant distinction that makes this bad law so dangerous.

It's "he believes his life was in danger" AND the police and possibly a judge and jury have to believe that too.

Quote
Black

Quote
Rolando
My first question is: Would the verdict be the same if the shoot wasn't Hispanic and the victim was?

Didn't pick up on that at all . . . very good point.

I noticed this as well and wondered would we be hearing about this if both parties had not been white.

And thanks Ombligo for a clear and succinct case for semi-automatics. @#$%&, if you're going to allow guns, might as well make them ergonomical to use! The bit you quoted btw, was a quote from someone else, not me, but I appreciate your candor!

"I would like to be able to legally defend myself and my family if we are attacked with lethal force. Of course if that happens, AND I happen to have a weapon, I won't give a damn about some poorly written law. I'll try to survive and keep my family alive. The attacker can take his or her own chances."-cbelt3
I agree completely, with the exception that in a world where guns weren't so readily available it would be about kitchen knives and baseball bats and small angry dogs (I think cats might be more effective weapons) as you mention.

Castle doctrine has been settled law since the 19th century, right? You can shoot an intruder in your home. And away from home, you can defend yourself or your family from imminent threat of danger. But that danger has to be real enough to convince authorities that you had no other options.

The "stand your ground" laws are simply unnecessary. They make it harder for police and prosecutors to investigate homicides. And anytime a person dies, that deserves a thorough investigation and the person responsible needs to be accountable. I think you only have to imagine yourself as the family member of someone who is killed; you'd want and deserve to understand what happened, and you'd want an unjust killing investigated. It's interesting that more people want to imagine themselves as the threatened shooter. What if you or your loved one are on the other side of that gun as part of some misunderstanding?

Supporters of "stand your ground" in Florida could not provide one single example of a person who legitimately used self defense in a shooting, but was prosecuted for murder. That's because it's been legal for a very long time to defend yourself in that way.

Like the "fast and furious" aka "vast and spurious" investigation, it's just another example of how NRA influence over lawmakers leads to irrational, unnecessary laws and political witch hunts.

So, Zimmerman was wandering the streets of his neighbourhood carrying a loaded weapon when Martin walked up and after a brief altercation (which we will never know the exact truth of), the boy was killed.
This is not murder in the first degree.

This man walked across to his neighbours carrying a loaded weapon and after a brief altercation (which has been taped) a woman was killed.
This is murder in the first degree.

He wasn't aiming to shoot anyone specifically ie. he did not premeditate the demise of a particular person. He sounds scared and extremely unsure of himself (as opposed to Zimmerman who it might be argued, was acting in the manner of a vigilante). And he is the father of 6. He had nothing to gain, except perhaps less sleepy children in the morning.

Some of you in a previous post thought that I was trying to maintain an untenable position.
Ooookay! You keep your guns. Guns are good. Look, see, guns make people happy.

Quote
Manlove
Some of you in a previous post thought that I was trying to maintain an untenable position.
Ooookay! You keep your guns. Guns are good. Look, see, guns make people happy.

Your position WAS untenable. You were insisting that 2nd degree murder is the same as 1st degree murder and when people pointed out that you were indeed wrong, you accuse them of being gun loving lunatics.

For heaven's sake, can we all act like that thread never happened? It was the stupidest thread so far this year.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Okay, lets let the other thread go, but I'm not sure why one was 1st and the other 2nd.
Obviously the laws are different in each state (sometimes) but if a completely impartial observer was given the facts (as far as we have them) I would think they'd find the Zimmerman murder to be more heinous (if that makes sense?).
Arguably, Zimmerman was walking the streets looking for trouble and he found (created) it.
This other guy was nervous and scared (at least he really sounds that way) and felt he needed some protection when he mustered up the courage to confront his neighbours about the noise. (I still think he's a moron btw)

So if you allow what I've just said, Zimmerman was guilty of intentional murder i.e. his intention in carrying a loaded gun was to use it, and Rodriguez is just a fool.
Funny, but when i say I am confused I get abuse, but then other people say that the law needs clarifying and that it is fuzzy and that's fine!

There is a major difference.
Zimmerman was involved in altercation.

Rodriguez barged onto somebody else's private property and shot a man with his hands up....

The major difference is that we only have Zimmerman's side of the situation.
Beyond that, not so different except I think, Zimmerman had more malicious intent.

Quote
Manlove
The major difference is that we only have Zimmerman's side of the situation..

Sure, if you disregard the physical evidence that an altercation has taken place.


Are you serious?...

Quote
max

Quote
Manlove
The major difference is that we only have Zimmerman's side of the situation..

Sure, if you disregard the physical evidence that an altercation has taken place.


Are you serious?...

Relatively.

You are talking about the cuts and bruises on Zimmerman's head? So what. What does that prove?
Absolutely nothing. Other than that an altercation has taken place? It says nothing as to who started it and why.
Here's the scenario-
Black kid walking down what looks to be a path between apartment blocks. He looks up and sees a man standing in the dark, 10 yards away, watching him intently.
The kid has nothing to hide so asks the man what he wants. The man is nervous and also slightly excited by the fact that he has a loaded gun on his person and maybe this is his chance to use it. So the man asks the kid what he's doing. The kid who has just been to get some candy and sees no need to have to justify himself to this man in the dark, responds somewhat curtly. And from there the altercation ensues, during which because he turned out to be older and weaker, Zimmerman found himself being beaten. Unable to take the hiding, physically and emotionally, he pulls his gun and kills the kid.

Can you say that isn't what happened?
Other scenarios are possible of course, but we only have Z's word. And a dead kid.

I don't see why this is a lesser crime than that committed by Rodriguez.
If you know and can explain it clearly, would you mind writing to your lawmakers and telling them to sort this crap out?

Quote
Manlove

Quote
max

Quote
Manlove
The major difference is that we only have Zimmerman's side of the situation..

Sure, if you disregard the physical evidence that an altercation has taken place.


Are you serious?...

Relatively.

You are talking about the cuts and bruises on Zimmerman's head? So what. What does that prove?
Absolutely nothing. Other than that an altercation has taken place?

Bingo, that is one difference.
You can try to spin it any way you want, I stick to the facts....

No sir, you don't. You don't know the facts.
You speculate that what Zimmerman says is true, that he suffered the cuts and bruises in the course of defending himself from Martyn. That he pulled the gun out and shot Martyn because he saw/felt Martyn going for the gun.
None of this is fact. It's hearsay.
I'm not trying to spin anything. I just posted an extremely possible scenario, which you cannot disprove. Your 'facts' are not quite as solid as you seem to think they are. In fact, I would say that your 'facts' are the physical manifestations of your prejudices.
Spin it any way you want.

Quote
Manlove
No sir, you don't. You don't know the facts.

False.
I only listed publicly listed facts.
Speculation was all on your part...

Quote
Manlove
You speculate that what Zimmerman says is true, that he suffered the cuts and bruises ...

Actually the cuts and bruises are a fact. Both the police and hospital reports attest to that.
You, yourself, as a matter of fact admitted that he was involved in altercation.

Quote
Manlove
...in the course of defending himself from Martyn. That he pulled the gun out and shot Martyn because he saw/felt Martyn going for the gun.

That was YOUR speculation, I said nothing of the sort.
You are the one that laid on

Quote
Manlove
None of this is fact. It's hearsay.

That may be, but it was you that pulled it, not me.
Your strawman.

Quote
Manlove
I'm not trying to spin anything. I just posted an extremely possible scenario, which you cannot disprove.

Of course I did not try to disprove your scenario, I do not play with straw.

Go back to my post.
I described the major situational differences between the two incidences.
Those are factual differences.
I did not indulge into playing with your straw constructs.
No matter how you spin your scenarios, the facts in place make Zimmerman scenario irrelevant to the Rodriguez case, the subject of the OP.
I know, I know, it makes it inconvenient for your spin, but those are the facts....

Okay, before I go into details, what do you think I so desperately want to prove or more to the point, what are you so desperately trying to defend?
You keep saying that I am spinning webs of deceit, which is what spin is, yet all I am suggesting is that if the degree of murder comes down to the intention of the perpetrator then Zimmermans intentions seem from an objective standpoint, given the 'facts' of both cases, to be more malicious and intentional. Rodriguez comes across as a blubbering fool, but Zimmerman seems altogether less pleasant.
My opinion? Of course, but hardly a novel one.

So-
"Actually the cuts and bruises are a fact. Both the police and hospital reports attest to that."

But you don't know where they came from. There has been no proven 'fact' about that. You don't know how prolonged or intense the 'altercation' was.
You have no idea. I don't even think you know what the word means-
Definition of ALTERCATION
: a noisy heated angry dispute; also : noisy controversy

So they argued? I'm not suggesting that Zimmerman came out of nowhere and without any conversation just blew Martyn away from behind and faked his cuts and bruises.


" Manlove
...in the course of defending himself from Martyn. That he pulled the gun out and shot Martyn because he saw/felt Martyn going for the gun.

That was YOUR speculation, I said nothing of the sort.
You are the one that laid on"

[www.reuters.com]

My speculation?!? Zimmerman says, 'fact', that "He saw it. I felt like he saw it." at the 40 second mark. So basically, you can walk away quietly because as I said before, you are wrong and demonstrably a liar.

Want more?

max, are you serious?

Quote
max
There is a major difference.
Zimmerman was involved in altercation.

Rodriguez barged onto somebody else's private property and shot a man with his hands up....

Rodriguez was on the drive I believe. Hardly "barging onto somebody else's private property" shooting people with their hands up. Actually, after watching the video,
[www.youtube.com]
it seems that he is actually on the street. (You don't have to listen to any of the commentary, although they have a point.)
And are you suggesting that there was no altercation in this case, which seems to be your only point?
Reread what altercation means.

So your point about you only using 'facts' has been disproved twice, in very quick succession. I will extrapolate from this that you have no understanding of what a 'fact' is, and that anything you say henceforth shall be assumed to be factless and ultimately futile.

Quote
Manlove
Okay, before I go into details, what do you think I so desperately want to prove or more to the point, what are you so desperately trying to defend?

For some reason you trying to equate Zimmerman to Rodriguez situation.
Besides both being Hispanic, they are not analogous at all...

Quote
Manlove
You keep saying that I am spinning webs of deceit, ..

That is YOUR strawman, again.
YOU said it, I did not.
Learn not to read into my post any more than EXACTLY what I do post.
Learn not to project your own biases and into anything I have to say.

Quote
Manlove
Zimmermans intentions seem from an objective standpoint, given the 'facts' of both cases, to be more malicious and intentional. Rodriguez comes across as a blubbering fool, but Zimmerman seems altogether less pleasant.
My opinion? Of course, but hardly a novel one.

The entire paragraph, again is totally irrelevant, it is your opinion. Not a fact.
Try to concentrate on the subject and limitations of this discussion.
On the facts.
Not your opinions.
Not your suppositions.
Not your strawmen.
Not who is more or less pleasant. That is truly totally irrelevant.

Quote
Manlove
So-
"Actually the cuts and bruises are a fact. Both the police and hospital reports attest to that."

But you don't know where they came from.

Of course not, that is why I do not bring it up.
You do, because you trying to justify some bias of yours.
And it is irrelevant to the point that an altercation has taken place. Period.

BUT they do prove an altercation has occurred and that is a fact.
You admitted that yourself.

Quote
Manlove
I'm not suggesting that Zimmerman came out of nowhere and without any conversation just blew Martyn away from behind and faked his cuts and bruises.

Bingo, again....

Quote
Manlove
...in the course of defending himself from Martyn. That he pulled the gun out and shot Martyn because he saw/felt Martyn going for the gun.
[www.reuters.com]
My speculation?!? Zimmerman says, 'fact', that "He saw it. I felt like he saw it." at the 40 second mark.

So this time you posted somebody else claim, speculation, one that may be proven or disproven in the future, BUT IS NOT PROVEN AT THIS TIME., and you think this makes more of fact than you stated the same as YOUR own opinion?
Do you understand the difference?
It is still not a fact....

Quote
Manlove
So basically, you can walk away quietly because as I said before, you are wrong and demonstrably a liar.

Do you understand that you just got your arse whipped and I had the floor swept with it?...

Quote
Manlove
Want more?

How old are you?
There seems to be a lack of understanding on your part of very basic concepts of logical, much less critical thinking. Comprehending the difference between your beliefs and reality, logic and wishful thinking....

I just deleted a long point by point, but realised that you are too far gone to listen to anyone's opinion but your own. How old am I? Old enough to know when someone else should move along.

"You can try to spin it any way you want, I stick to the facts...." when they suit.

I leave you with Churchill- "A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject."
-- Winston Churchill

Quote
Manlove
I just deleted a long point by point, but realised that you are too far gone to listen to anyone's opinion....

You got it half right, by the definition the argument was based on facts. not opinions.
Not yours, not mine
Maybe you finaliy got the point.

Quote
Manlove
"You can try to spin it any way you want, I stick to the facts...." when they suit.
Maybe you di not get the point.
You are always welcome to bring up facts as well,
your opinions do not count.
neither your biases,
nor do your straw constructs.

Quote
Manlove
I leave you with Churchill- "A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject."
-- Winston Churchill

and yes, how apt, YOU are the one changing the subject:

Quote
Manlove
I just deleted a long point by point,...

I have an open mind, all you have to do is to convince me of your point of view with facts and logic,
not opinions, biases and suppositions.
A novel concept...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2012 12:02PM by max.

Points and logic cannot change the mind of a man whose opinions are not formed by points and logic.
You have a set idea it seems. Whatever I say, even pointing out that you are factually incorrect above, has no sway with you.

-max
There is a major difference.
Zimmerman was involved in altercation.

Rodriguez barged onto somebody else's private property and shot a man with his hands up....


Rodriguez was on the drive I believe. Hardly "barging onto somebody else's private property" shooting people with their hands up. Actually, after watching the video,
[www.youtube.com]
it seems that he is actually on the street.
-
You make factually incorrect statements and then carefully ignore them when pointed out to you.
I made what I state very clearly, is an hypothesis, (an if, then) and your inability to distinguish between the two, makes me the liar!

Stupid man.

Quote
hal
You are not right on this at all cbelt - in THIS CASE, the guy tried to carry a ground standing bubble with him next door. Can't do that.

But in general, according to these laws, anywhere you stand (as long as you are there legally) is yours to defend - with lethal force. As long as you are first threatened.

These laws need to be repealed - NOW!!

Absolutely!

There can be no doubt whatsoever that the presence of these insane laws is leading to deaths in situations where death would not have ensued under earlier law. How long before more deranged people decide it's their turn to see if they can get away with it.

Did I hear someone say Ted Nugent?