Stand Your Ground Law

[cta06105]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

"You keep using the word "pulverize." Where is this description coming from? What is the source of this alternative narrative?"

The only alternative narrative in play is that which is being pushed by Sharpton, et. al...

You know, the one with Trayvon's pictures that are years out of date to make him look like a middle-schooler...

Not to mention the fact that he DID beat the hell out of Zimmerman...Broken nose...Cut head...Grass stains on his back indicating he'd been knocked down/tackled...

Face it...unless Zimmerman pulled the gun or otherwise menaced the kid, he took a few shots that were uncalled for before he dropped the hammer.

 

[periopdoc]

Another fictionalized account that is equally valid (if we go back in time before the police stated that they have a eye witness) and still supports my contention that the police acted appropriately.

Zimmerman is disconnected from 911. He finds Martin and murders him in cold blood. He realizes that in order to get out of this he needs to claim self defense. He beats the snot out of himself and when the police arrive he claims that he was jumped while returning to his car and became fearful for his life at which point he shot Martin. Lacking eye witnesses or any evidence to the contrary, the police have no probable cause to believe that his actions were illegal and are restricted from placing him under arrest under Florida Statute 776.032.

776.032  Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in (self-defense, home protection or defense of others) is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force . . . . As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

So they follow proper procedure. Interrogate him briefly as allowed under the law, then let him go. They complete their case and present their findings to the grand jury for the second round of determination of whether Zimmerman acted within the law.

In this account Zimmerman is guilty as hell, but until the police have probable cause to believe him to be guilty, they are constrained from arresting him.

Due to the pressures put on by external groups for extra-judicial remedy, the city council does the only thing it can think of to quell the rising rage and has a vote of no confidence in the new chief who subsequently steps down (temporarily) to assuage the masses who are howling for a lynching of Zimmerman and a DOJ investigation of the department.

My contention remains. Whether Zimmerman is guilty of murder, manslaughter, or simply acted in legitimate self defense, the police department acted appropriately and allowed due process to occur. Due process is exactly what the masses are protesting against (knowingly or not).

The only scenario in which due process was averted and the police acted inappropriately is one in which they had probable cause to arrest and did not. I have yet to see any evidence that they did have probable cause.

If you are siding with the media and the masses you are siding against due process of law and are calling for extra-judicial remedy.

- pod

 

[merlebo02]

I find it funny that everyone says Zimmerman was in the wrong for getting out of his vehicle!!! I applaud the guy for taking the initiative to identify a possible criminal and stop future break-ins. If trayvon had been a rational citizen, they could have both sat and waited on the cops together (maybe told a joke or 2) to clear things up, and if trayvon had done no wrong he could have went on his way… But no, Trayvon had to be a little smart ass thug and punch the guy, which apparently was a bad idea (note to self, do not go around punching people, esp someone with a gun).


WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!

 

[jwk]

Another fictionalized account that is equally valid (if we go back in time before the police stated that they have a eye witness) and still supports my contention that the police acted appropriately.

Zimmerman is disconnected from 911. He finds Martin and murders him in cold blood. He realizes that in order to get out of this he needs to claim self defense. He beats the snot out of himself and when the police arrive he claims that he was jumped while returning to his car and became fearful for his life at which point he shot Martin. Lacking eye witnesses or any evidence to the contrary, the police have no probable cause to believe that his actions were illegal and are restricted from placing him under arrest under Florida Statute 776.032.



So they follow proper procedure. Interrogate him briefly as allowed under the law, then let him go. They complete their case and present their findings to the grand jury for the second round of determination of whether Zimmerman acted within the law.

In this account Zimmerman is guilty as hell, but until the police have probable cause to believe him to be guilty, they are constrained from arresting him.

Due to the pressures put on by external groups for extra-judicial remedy, the city council does the only thing it can think of to quell the rising rage and has a vote of no confidence in the new chief who subsequently steps down (temporarily) to assuage the masses who are howling for a lynching of Zimmerman and a DOJ investigation of the department.

My contention remains. Whether Zimmerman is guilty of murder, manslaughter, or simply acted in legitimate self defense, the police department acted appropriately and allowed due process to occur. Due process is exactly what the masses are protesting against (knowingly or not).

The only scenario in which due process was averted and the police acted inappropriately is one in which they had probable cause to arrest and did not. I have yet to see any evidence that they did have probable cause.

If you are siding with the media and the masses you are siding against due process of law and are calling for extra-judicial remedy.

- pod

I love it when someone actually understands the rule of law.

 

[periopdoc]

What does this have to do with gun control?

One of the sticky wickets of the use of firearms in a true self defense scenario is the fact that police have frequently overstepped their bounds in arresting and interrogating the subject and confiscating the weapon (sometimes refusing to return it even after the shooter is exonerated by the courts). In this situation the police department actually followed the letter of the law in their conduct (at least as far as we can tell at this point), and they are being persecuted for it.

What do you think the average cop is going to do in a post Zimmerman/ Martin world? Even if he knows that an individual acted in clear self defense, is he likely to risk a DOJ investigation, protests, potential vote of no confidence etc by not placing the shooter under arrest?

We can argue that perhaps any shooter (even one who acted in self defense within the realm of the law) should be placed under arrest, interrogated, and screened for intoxication, but that is not how our laws currently read and we are pushing the police to not follow statutory law. Their job is hard enough.

- pod

 

[periopdoc]

What if Martin actually was in the process of casing a house for burglary? What if Zimmerman was correct in his assumptions and interrupted a crime in progress? What if, just this once, Zimmerman actually had his man?

Even the paranoid are occasionally right.

- pod

 

[pgg]

I find it funny that everyone says Zimmerman was in the wrong for getting out of his vehicle!!!

It was the wrong (stupid) thing to do.

It was not wrong (illegal) for him to do it.


Even if someone had been spotted clearly, obviously casing MY house - I'd be satisfied (delighted) if a neighborhood watch guy called the police. I wouldn't expect him to personally intervene and put himself in danger to protect my stuff. If he wants to observe from a safe position until the police arrive, OK. But I have insurance, an alarm, good locks, security cameras.

Likewise, if I witnessed a suspicious guy casing a house, or even a non-violent crime in progress, there's no way in hell I'd do anything more than call the police, maybe take pictures or video. Because

1) If I'm unarmed, that's stupid. I could get hurt. No one wins here, not even the trauma surgeon and anesthesiologist who take care of my pulverized corpse-to-be, because I have Tricare.

2) If I'm armed (as always, except when on federal property), that's stupid. I could STILL get hurt, or the other guy could escalate things to the point where I'm forced to shoot him. No one wins here either, especially the aforementioned surgeon et al, because the guy with all the holes in him probably doesn't even have insurance.


THINGS are not worth any of this hassle.

 

[baller71457]

It was the wrong (stupid) thing to do.

It was not wrong (illegal) for him to do it.


Even if someone had been spotted clearly, obviously casing MY house - I'd be satisfied (delighted) if a neighborhood watch guy called the police. I wouldn't expect him to personally intervene and put himself in danger to protect my stuff. If he wants to observe from a safe position until the police arrive, OK. But I have insurance, an alarm, good locks, security cameras.

Likewise, if I witnessed a suspicious guy casing a house, or even a non-violent crime in progress, there's no way in hell I'd do anything more than call the police, maybe take pictures or video. Because

1) If I'm unarmed, that's stupid. I could get hurt. No one wins here, not even the trauma surgeon and anesthesiologist who take care of my pulverized corpse-to-be, because I have Tricare.

2) If I'm armed (as always, except when on federal property), that's stupid. I could STILL get hurt, or the other guy could escalate things to the point where I'm forced to shoot him. No one wins here either, especially the aforementioned surgeon et al, because the guy with all the holes in him probably doesn't even have insurance.


THINGS are not worth any of this hassle.

I like your style.

 

[loveoforganic]

Periop - I'm asking out of genuine naivety. I'm unaware of the actual police protocol for this, and I'm sure it varies by department and state, but under what circumstances is it not expected for the shooter in a self defense shooting to be taken to the station? Even in very clear situations of self defense, with videotaped evidence (e.g. http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53502), the shooter is still brought in. Maybe it would be reasonable if the shooting was on the place of residence? But frankly, if I shoot someone in self defense, I EXPECT to be brought in, pretty much regardless of the degree of ambiguity in the situation surrounding the shooting. I also expect I would be keeping my mouth shut while there... but that's neither here nor there

 

[BLADEMDA]

It was the wrong (stupid) thing to do.

It was not wrong (illegal) for him to do it.


Even if someone had been spotted clearly, obviously casing MY house - I'd be satisfied (delighted) if a neighborhood watch guy called the police. I wouldn't expect him to personally intervene and put himself in danger to protect my stuff. If he wants to observe from a safe position until the police arrive, OK. But I have insurance, an alarm, good locks, security cameras.

Likewise, if I witnessed a suspicious guy casing a house, or even a non-violent crime in progress, there's no way in hell I'd do anything more than call the police, maybe take pictures or video. Because

1) If I'm unarmed, that's stupid. I could get hurt. No one wins here, not even the trauma surgeon and anesthesiologist who take care of my pulverized corpse-to-be, because I have Tricare.

2) If I'm armed (as always, except when on federal property), that's stupid. I could STILL get hurt, or the other guy could escalate things to the point where I'm forced to shoot him. No one wins here either, especially the aforementioned surgeon et al, because the guy with all the holes in him probably doesn't even have insurance.


THINGS are not worth any of this hassle.

Just ring my doorbell or call my phone. I'll take care of the rest until the police show up.😉
I'm in Florida and you can pretty much do anything here to protect your Castle.

PGG, if you are in the area I'll let you borrow one of my ARs or Carbines.

 

[jwk]

Periop - I'm asking out of genuine naivety. I'm unaware of the actual police protocol for this, and I'm sure it varies by department and state, but under what circumstances is it not expected for the shooter in a self defense shooting to be taken to the station? Even in very clear situations of self defense, with videotaped evidence (e.g. http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53502), the shooter is still brought in. Maybe it would be reasonable if the shooting was on the place of residence? But frankly, if I shoot someone in self defense, I EXPECT to be brought in, pretty much regardless of the degree of ambiguity in the situation surrounding the shooting. I also expect I would be keeping my mouth shut while there... but that's neither here nor there

You need to clear up your phraseology. There's a difference bewteen being "taken to the station" for questioning, and being arrested. You can't be arrested and charged with a crime if no crime has been committed. You give your story to the police (or you can remain silent), they talk to witnesses (in this case apparently the only witness) and decide if there is enough probable cause for an arrest. In this case, there simply was not. Just because someone has been shot does not mean a crime has been committed. Sounds like the police were actually doing their job. Since the police haven't charged him, it now falls to the district attorney to decide if enough evidence exists to seek an indictment and bring the question to a grand jury. This is how the process is supposed to work - what Al, Jesse, and Screwy Louie want are totally irrelevant.

 

[pgg]

Periop - I'm asking out of genuine naivety. I'm unaware of the actual police protocol for this, and I'm sure it varies by department and state, but under what circumstances is it not expected for the shooter in a self defense shooting to be taken to the station? Even in very clear situations of self defense, with videotaped evidence (e.g. http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53502), the shooter is still brought in. Maybe it would be reasonable if the shooting was on the place of residence? But frankly, if I shoot someone in self defense, I EXPECT to be brought in, pretty much regardless of the degree of ambiguity in the situation surrounding the shooting. I also expect I would be keeping my mouth shut while there... but that's neither here nor there

You are right

Every self defense course I've ever taken has always emphasized that even in a perfectly justified, witnessed, videotaped shooting, you should expect to be detained and for the gun to disappear into an evidence locker forever.

But that's OK, because you're only shooting someone because your only other choice is to die, get grievously injured, or watch another person die or get grievously injured.

Some states lethal force is legal to protect property or stop a felony, but I wouldn't go that route.

You tell the police you were in fear for your life (because you were), you point out any witnesses or evidence, then decline further comment and call your attorney (whose phone # you have before you even get your very first carry permit). And don't take it personally when the police handcuff you for their protection, or haul you away.

 

[sleepallday]

What does this have to do with gun control?

One of the sticky wickets of the use of firearms in a true self defense scenario is the fact that police have frequently overstepped their bounds in arresting and interrogating the subject and confiscating the weapon (sometimes refusing to return it even after the shooter is exonerated by the courts). In this situation the police department actually followed the letter of the law in their conduct (at least as far as we can tell at this point), and they are being persecuted for it.

What do you think the average cop is going to do in a post Zimmerman/ Martin world? Even if he knows that an individual acted in clear self defense, is he likely to risk a DOJ investigation, protests, potential vote of no confidence etc by not placing the shooter under arrest?

We can argue that perhaps any shooter (even one who acted in self defense within the realm of the law) should be placed under arrest, interrogated, and screened for intoxication, but that is not how our laws currently read and we are pushing the police to not follow statutory law. Their job is hard enough.

- pod

If this isn't a case for gun control, I don't know what is. Why is it that we feel that every schmo on the street has the right. From what I hear, this guy has had a few run ins with the police. He was known to be a little to overzealous with his neighborhood watch. Personally, I feel that unless you have a spotless record and pass a some sort of psycho-analytical test, you should not be able to own a gun. I don't know the statistics but I'm willing to bet that more accidents and crimes are committed with legally owned guns than actual justice.

 

[jwk]

If this isn't a case for gun control, I don't know what is. Why is it that we feel that every schmo on the street has the right. From what I hear, this guy has had a few run ins with the police. He was known to be a little to overzealous with his neighborhood watch. Personally, I feel that unless you have a spotless record and pass a some sort of psycho-analytical test, you should not be able to own a gun. I don't know the statistics but I'm willing to bet that more accidents and crimes are committed with legally owned guns than actual justice.

It's that pesky little document called the Constitution. It makes for great reading - and apparently, the current Solicitor General forgot to review his copy before he made a fool of himself at SCOTUS today.

 

[IDBasco]

I don't know the statistics but I'm willing to bet that more accidents and crimes are committed with legally owned guns than actual justice.

And even more (exponentially) crimes are committed by people that ignore/break gun control laws...so what are we solving with even more?

 

[periopdoc]

I'm unaware of the actual police protocol for this, and I'm sure it varies by department and state, but under what circumstances is it not expected for the shooter in a self defense shooting to be taken to the station?

Perhaps your questions have already been answered, but I will reiterate and give you my take.

Protocol for dealing with a self defense shooting varies from state to state and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within an individual state. As you would expect, a shooter in California can expect significantly rougher handling from the police than a shooter in my state. Because arrest and attempted prosecution is a very real threat to those of us who choose to be armed, some legislatures (ie Florida) have enacted laws to protect the individual that shoots in self defense. The logic is that one might not act quickly enough in defense of one's life or the defense of a life of another if the concern of unjustified arrest and prosecution is weighing heavily on ones mind. Although I live in an area where self defense shootings are generally accepted by law enforcement and the general public, I choose to not carry the gun I shoot best with because I fear the potential for confiscation and it is too valuable to me to lose.

Because self defense courses tend to not be tailored to a specific jurisdiction (and even if they were the rules of that jurisdiction might change between the time the course is put on and the time that the training is put to use), they tend to train for the worst case scenario (you will be arrested, your gun will be confiscated, and you will be subjected to extensive interrogation). More critical for the person who chooses to carry is to understand thoroughly the laws regarding use of force in any jurisdiction where they carry.

... if I shoot someone in self defense, I EXPECT to be brought in, pretty much regardless of the degree of ambiguity in the situation surrounding the shooting.

As JWK has mentioned "being taken in" is a very nebulous term. Interrogation can take place at the location of the shooting, at the police station, or any place in between. If you live in a state like Florida where the police are prohibited from arresting you unless there is probable cause that you committed a crime, then you can expect that they will question you on the scene and release you.

- pod

 

[periopdoc]

It's that pesky little document called the Constitution. It makes for great reading - and apparently, the current Solicitor General forgot to review his copy before he made a fool of himself at SCOTUS today.

Oh **** I missed that. Do tell!

- pod

 

[periopdoc]

If this isn't a case for gun control, I don't know what is... From what I hear, this guy has had a few run ins with the police.

Sources please?

Why is it that we feel that every schmo on the street has the right... Personally, I feel that unless you have a spotless record and pass a some sort of psycho-analytical test, you should not be able to own a gun.

Someone disagrees with you...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

perhaps you should take it up with your Senators and Congressman.

I don't know the statistics but I'm willing to bet that more accidents and crimes are committed with legally owned guns than actual justice.

Then get off your lazy ass and do a Google search before throwing around wildly inaccurate statements.

All of the following quotes are taken directly from the Just Facts Site

According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001[131] (the earliest year such data is available from the CDC[132]). This is roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes.

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year

A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

- pod

 

[pgg]

If this isn't a case for gun control, I don't know what is. Why is it that we feel that every schmo on the street has the right. From what I hear, this guy has had a few run ins with the police. He was known to be a little to overzealous with his neighborhood watch. Personally, I feel that unless you have a spotless record and pass a some sort of psycho-analytical test, you should not be able to own a gun. I don't know the statistics but I'm willing to bet that more accidents and crimes are committed with legally owned guns than actual justice.

Odd how that's not stopping you from having a strong opinion on the subject.

I hope you don't take that kind of betting discipline to Vegas. 🙂


You do raise an interesting and timely point though, perhaps accidentally, when you say that a "spotless record" and "some kind of psycho-analytical test" should be prerequisites for gun ownership. This very issue of whether strict vs intermediate scrutiny should be the standard for government limitations of rights protected by the 2nd Amendment is something that will probably arrive at SCOTUS in the next few years.

Just last week, in the latest iteration of the decade-long trainwreck that has been the Nor**** case, the court again dodged the scrutiny issue. But there are other cases trickling through federal courts that will resolve this issue, and soon. ("Soon" being a relative term, given the glacial pace of our courts.)



The mistake I think you're making is that you don't recognize gun ownership as the civil right that it is. It's #2 on the Bill Of Rights, with such company as free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, freedom from quartering troops, freedom from warrantless searches, freedrom from compelled self-incrimination, etc. All of these are INDIVIDUAL civil rights, yet somehow people advocating gun control think that the intent of the 2nd Amendment, sandwiched in between these other INDIVIDUAL civil rights, is either not a civil right at all, or some kind of nebulous collective right dependent upon militia membership (which it's not).

You should realize that ALL gun control in the United States is simply racism writ large. Gun control was conceived and implemented by white southern racists who were terrified at the thought of a bunch of newly freed black slaves getting uppity and asserting their newly protected civil rights.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was nothing more than an assault on the civil rights of poor people. The $200 per device tax we pay today per NFA-regulated firearm was $200 in 1934 - if they'd had the foresight to adjust it for inflation, that same fee would be $3400 today. The intent was to exclude poor people. Silencers are tightly regulated not because they're "assassination tools" but because starving poor people were using them while poaching during the Great Depression.

I'd go on, but you get the idea.

One of the great tragedies and political coups of our time was convincing poor black people in high-crime areas like Washington DC and Chicago that gun control benefited them.


Before you get behind gun control, stop and think about whose company you're keeping.

 

[yappy]

Bah. Lets not go down the rabbit whole of gun right issues.

Nothing wrong with a little protection in life. Indeed, I have a 12 g shotgun and a 45-70 ready to go in case anyone tries to break into my studio appartment lol.

*45-70 marlin's are a great guns. I would recommend it to those who enjoy hiking or needs a little extra power.

 

[sleepallday]

Sources please?

Ok. I got off my lazy ass and quick search shows this guy was a pretty outstanding citizen. One arrest for domestic violence another two arrest for resisting arrest, once with violence.


http://rollingout.com/culture/george-zimmerman-son-of-a-retired-judge-has-3-closed-arrests/

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

Ok. I got off my lazy ass and quick search shows this guy was a pretty outstanding citizen. One arrest for domestic violence another two arrest for resisting arrest, once with violence.


http://rollingout.com/culture/george-zimmerman-son-of-a-retired-judge-has-3-closed-arrests/

Not to mention that mug shot you always see? That was taken during his arrest for resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. I guess no one ever wonders why they had a mugshot of him?

 

[sleepallday]

The mistake I think you're making is that you don't recognize gun ownership as the civil right that it is. It's #2 on the Bill Of Rights, with such company as free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, freedom from quartering troops, freedom from warrantless searches, freedrom from compelled self-incrimination, etc. All of these are INDIVIDUAL civil rights, yet somehow people advocating gun control think that the intent of the 2nd Amendment, sandwiched in between these other INDIVIDUAL civil rights, is either not a civil right at all, or some kind of nebulous collective right dependent upon militia membership (which it's not).

You should realize that ALL gun control in the United States is simply racism writ large. Gun control was conceived and implemented by white southern racists who were terrified at the thought of a bunch of newly freed black slaves getting uppity and asserting their newly protected civil rights.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was nothing more than an assault on the civil rights of poor people. The $200 per device tax we pay today per NFA-regulated firearm was $200 in 1934 - if they'd had the foresight to adjust it for inflation, that same fee would be $3400 today. The intent was to exclude poor people. Silencers are tightly regulated not because they're "assassination tools" but because starving poor people were using them while poaching during the Great Depression.

I'd go on, but you get the idea.

One of the great tragedies and political coups of our time was convincing poor black people in high-crime areas like Washington DC and Chicago that gun control benefited them.


Before you get behind gun control, stop and think about whose company you're keeping.

I fully understand that the Constitution has given us the right to bear arms. But (and I'm sure I will get attacked for saying this) this right should be earned. In my opinion the right to bear arms is not the same as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly etc. This right if not handled by a sane, responsible person can have lethal consequences. If you have not proved that you are a responsible mature adult, you know what? You should not get to own a gun.

Zimmerman, with a history of three arrests should not get that right.

 

[periopdoc]

Ok. I got off my lazy ass and quick search shows this guy was a pretty outstanding citizen. One arrest for domestic violence another two arrest for resisting arrest, once with violence

http://rollingout.com/culture/george-zimmerman-son-of-a-retired-judge-has-3-closed-arrests/

Did you really just use Rollingout.com as your source.

A few other recent headlines from this cutting edge news site...

Rihanna and Ashton Kutcher: Is Rihanna in Love and Switching Religions for Him?

Diggy Simmons Hosts Skate Party to Celebrate Album Release and ‘Rolling Out' Cover (Exclusive Photos)

‘Basketball Wives' Episode 6 Recap: 5 Best Moments

That's funny right there.


U.S. News Staff actually took the time to look at the court documents to resolve why the charges were either "dropped" or "plead down" after both explanations appeared in various newspapers across the country.

Zimmerman accused of domestic violence, fighting with a police officer

- In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer," both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to "resisting officer without violence" and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.

- In August 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders' being granted.

- In December 2006, Zimmerman was charged with speeding. The case was dismissed when the officer failed to show up in court..

We can argue whether there was monkey business in getting that first charge reduced, but we will never know. The second charge sounds like a relationship gone bad, but Zimmerman was not arrested. Get your facts straight. The fact is he was never convicted of anything that would/ should disqualify him from owning and carrying weapons.

If you have not proved that you are a responsible mature adult, you know what? You should not get to own a gun.

I guess no one ever wonders why they had a mugshot of him?

Oh gee he has a mugshot, I never noticed that 🙄 Maybe someone should look into that. Was he actually charged with a crime? Was he convicted? Following you guys' logic, I guess that the mere fact that one is (rightly or wrongly) arrested or charged should disqualify him from owning a weapon. Whether or not the courts uphold those charges is irrelevant. Perhaps doctors should also start paying out settlements immediately upon being sued without bothering to seek a court judgement.

In my opinion the right to bear arms is not the same as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly etc.

Once again, the courts have so far disagreed with you. Don't like it? Change the law... If the intention of the authors of the constitution was that this right was somehow in a different class of rights than the others, why did they couch it comfortably between them (and ahead of Quartering of Troops, Right to Trial by Jury, Due Process etc)?

This right if not handled by a sane, responsible person can have lethal consequences.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law let me just say that the rights embodied in the first amendment are equally as dangerous as the individual right to bear arms (I would argue that they are more dangerous). That is why monarchies and dictatorships work so hard to suppress these rights and why the authors of the constitution felt so compelled to protect them.


- pod

 

[pgg]

I fully understand that the Constitution has given us the right to bear arms. But (and I'm sure I will get attacked for saying this) this right should be earned.

The people who wrote the Bill of Rights disagree. The right to keep and bear arms was viewed as so basic and fundamental that they made it #2.

In my opinion the right to bear arms is not the same as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly etc. This right if not handled by a sane, responsible person can have lethal consequences. If you have not proved that you are a responsible mature adult, you know what? You should not get to own a gun.

Maybe you should have to pass a test before voting, or at least pay some kind of fee to prove you're a gainfully employed good citizen and not some vagrant layabout.

Zimmerman, with a history of three arrests should not get that right.

There's already a threshold for criminal history that prohibits gun ownership. That threshold is a felony conviction (and certain misdemeanors, IIRC), and Zimmerman didn't have any.

 

[jwk]

The people who wrote the Bill of Rights disagree. The right to keep and bear arms was viewed as so basic and fundamental that they made it #2.



Maybe you should have to pass a test before voting, or at least pay some kind of fee to prove you're a gainfully employed good citizen and not some vagrant layabout.



There's already a threshold for criminal history that prohibits gun ownership. That threshold is a felony conviction (and certain misdemeanors, IIRC), and Zimmerman didn't have any.

Geez, there's that darn Constitution thingie getting in the way again.

You SHOULD have to pass a test before voting. Too many idiots out there are clueless about the issues, and as we see here, many are clueless about the Constitution and what's in it.

Oh wait - that would be unconstitutional! Dang!

Maybe we can just pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we want to follow, and which ones really aren't that important? We could start with the 2nd amendment - after all, guns kill people, right? Oh wait - people kill people. Dang.

And what about that "commerce clause" doo-dad we hear so much about lately? If I can be forced to buy health insurance, what else can I be forced to buy? I know - LIQUOR!!! Hey, it's a legal product, plenty of the good stuff made right here in the good ole U S of A. If I can be forced to buy one, then clearly I can be forced to buy that. But hey, I draw the line at broccoli - Justice Scalia mentioned that yesterday - I can't be forced to buy broccoli. Thank God! (Note to periopdoc - Scalia actually DID raise the point about being forced to buy broccoli yesterday while questioning the Obama tool, I mean fool, I mean Solicitor General. It was not a good day for Obama-lovers).

 

[sleepallday]

Jeeez, some of you guys are misunderstanding my disagreement with the portion of the Bill of Rights which gives up the right for gun ownership with not actually understanding it. I get it. I know every citizen gets that right. I just think that right should be earned.

But what I find even more alarming is that some of you would like to make it easier to get a gun than it is to vote. Seriously, pay fee to vote?!?! Pass a test to vote?! WOW! Some of you are so out of touch with reality (or maybe I am).

 

[lane]

Jeeez, some of you guys are misunderstanding my disagreement with the portion of the Bill of Rights which gives up the right for gun ownership with not actually understanding it. I get it. I know every citizen gets that right. I just think that right should be earned.

But what I find even more alarming is that some of you would like to make it easier to get a gun than it is to vote. Seriously, pay fee to vote?!?! Pass a test to vote?! WOW! Some of you are so out of touch with reality (or maybe I am).

that's called a privilege by definition

 

[imfrankie]

It was the wrong (stupid) thing to do.

It was not wrong (illegal) for him to do it.


Even if someone had been spotted clearly, obviously casing MY house - I'd be satisfied (delighted) if a neighborhood watch guy called the police. I wouldn't expect him to personally intervene and put himself in danger to protect my stuff. If he wants to observe from a safe position until the police arrive, OK. But I have insurance, an alarm, good locks, security cameras.

Likewise, if I witnessed a suspicious guy casing a house, or even a non-violent crime in progress, there's no way in hell I'd do anything more than call the police, maybe take pictures or video. Because

1) If I'm unarmed, that's stupid. I could get hurt. No one wins here, not even the trauma surgeon and anesthesiologist who take care of my pulverized corpse-to-be, because I have Tricare.

2) If I'm armed (as always, except when on federal property), that's stupid. I could STILL get hurt, or the other guy could escalate things to the point where I'm forced to shoot him. No one wins here either, especially the aforementioned surgeon et al, because the guy with all the holes in him probably doesn't even have insurance.


THINGS are not worth any of this hassle.

I enjoy your posts and respect your thoughtfulness, but gotta say, I don't think I'd want to live in a place where I feel the need to have my house alarmed with security cameras and always pack some heat. It doesn't seem like freedom to me.

 

[aneftp]

Florida has a very liberal "stand your ground" law. I'm surprised one of Sean Taylor (former UM and Washington Redskins pro bowl safety) who got killed. I'm surprised one of the defendants doesn't use that same argument that he shot Sean Taylor through the door cause he was standing his ground and though Taylor might have had a gun. I guess stand your ground doesn't apply in the commission of a crime? I think people wouldn't be upset if George Zimmerman were in front of his house when this happened. But he wasn't. He was chasing after some kid. Sure, I think what happened was the kid confronted Zimmerman. First a shouting match, than a fight broke out. And than a gun was used. Self Defense? But this is Florida and we must respect the stand your ground law. If it happens say in Virginia, manslaughter charges would probably be pursued. My cousin was a med student at UVa when this case happened in the early 2000s. UVa student killed other guy during bar fight. UVa student claimed self defense. But jury returned manslaughter charges. http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2011/04/07/a-shocking-decision/ Different states, different laws. The end result is that George Zimmerman doesn't get charged. I can't see the prosecutor's office charging George Zimmerman based on the laws of the state and the supposed evidence. Basically Zimmerman's statement. Martin is dead so he can't tell his side of the story and no one saw the confrontation. What was said, what wasn't said to cause the fight to break out. What will end up happening and this is an election year. Many local state lawmakers will be under heavy political pressure to tweak this law. And that's what I believe will happen. The NRA will be pissed...using their usual argument of people kill people. Guns don't kill people. But the Florida Stand your Ground law is flawed. I could get an a shouting match at the local Costco over parking on a Saturday (true story). That person may feel "threaten" by me and shoot me and claim self defense.

 

[pgg]

Jeeez, some of you guys are misunderstanding my disagreement with the portion of the Bill of Rights which gives up the right for gun ownership with not actually understanding it. I get it. I know every citizen gets that right. I just think that right should be earned.

Civil rights don't need to be earned.

And they should only be lost after extensive due process.

I maintain that the basic disconnect here is that you (like many proponents of gun control) don't view the right to armed self defense as a fundamental civil right, no more (or less) important than other fundamental civil rights like free speech or freedom from warrantless searches.

But what I find even more alarming is that some of you would like to make it easier to get a gun than it is to vote. Seriously, pay fee to vote?!?! Pass a test to vote?! WOW!

I didn't think I was being too subtle ... my reference to having to "pass a test before voting, or at least pay some kind of fee to prove you're a gainfully employed good citizen and not some vagrant layabout" was a reference to the history of poll taxes in this country.

Poll taxes were (yet another) attempt to oppress minorities, especially poor black people, by preventing them from voting unless they could afford to pay the fee.

The 24th Amendment prohibited it.

I wasn't seriously suggesting we make people PAY to vote. 🙂 Just drawing attention to another basic right of citizenship which shouldn't be regulated any more than is absolutely necessary. (Though it bears pointing out that voting is a granted right, not an inherent one like those protected by the first 10 Amendments).

 

[sleepallday]

I maintain that the basic disconnect here is that you (like many proponents of gun control) don't view the right to armed self defense as a fundamental civil right, no more (or less) important than other fundamental civil rights like free speech or freedom from warrantless searches..

You are absolutely right. I believe the 2nd Amendment should be modified. It is outdated...written in different era with a different purpose in mind.

 

[pgg]

I enjoy your posts and respect your thoughtfulness, but gotta say, I don't think I'd want to live in a place where I feel the need to have my house alarmed with security cameras and always pack some heat. It doesn't seem like freedom to me.

I live in a very safe area. An affluent neighborhood of a smallish town in a rural farming community. Most people are never assaulted or robbed.

I don't mean to suggest that you or anyone else is either naive or blissfully ignorant of danger


I've been robbed, I've been assaulted, I've been threatened with deadly weapons before. I just have a different sense of awareness than I used to. That's not to say I'm afraid. There's this unjustified (IMO) stereotype of gun owners and people with carry permits being afraid ... and if you talk to enough, you'll generally find that not only are they not currently afraid, but most never were. They were just exposed in one way or another to a risk they didn't previously appreciate, and chose to take simple, rational steps to reduce that risk.

I work on federal property, and so most days I leave my house without a gun (because no permit in no state is ever recognized on federal property like military bases, post offices, etc). I don't feel naked or at risk without it. I do carry it at all other times - in part because it's a habit I want to be comfortable with if, at some unspecified point in the future, I happen to be in a place where I feel carrying is truly necessary. It's a practicable, perishable skill that can't be comfortably learned in the 5 minutes or 5 days before you decide you really need it.

Anyway - I'm no more afraid of being mugged and needing to shoot someone, than I am afraid of a house fire and needing to use a fire extinguisher or my insurance policy.


I put the cameras on our driveway after one of our cars was broken into and an expensive instrument was stolen. There are no laser guided remote control guns tied into that system yet.

 

[pgg]

You are absolutely right. I believe the 2nd Amendment should be modified. It is outdated...written in different era with a different purpose in mind.

Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion (however wrong it may be 😀). There's a mechanism for amending the Constitution.

 

[jwk]

You are absolutely right. I believe the 2nd Amendment should be modified. It is outdated...written in different era with a different purpose in mind.

Then start a movement to modify it if you feel that strongly. Good luck though, because it's a very high bar. The Constitution is not living and breathing - it's supposed to be a rock-solid foundation. Not that Obama cares of course...hence my avatar. 😉

 

[Gern Blansten]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[Gern Blansten]

FDR looks good out of his wheelchair. Certainly more handsome than his wife Eleanor.

 

[Apollyon]

Taft and Lincoln are too short, Nixon is too tall, slick Willie is too short, Jefferson should have red hair, and Wilson is in the wrong suit.

But, still, an interesting picture.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Taft and Lincoln are too short, Nixon is too tall, slick Willie is too short, Jefferson should have red hair, and Wilson is in the wrong suit.

But, still, an interesting picture.

Ford was caught right before he tripped and fell.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Does anyone have any comments about the actual gun which was fired by Zimmerman? This is a small 9mm weighing about 12 ounces. I looked it up. This type of weapon is clearly for close range, personal defense. If Zimmerman was really looking to shoot somebody wouldn't he have a better gun?

I personally have no issues with that Kel Tec 9mm but if my life depended on a gun I wouldn't be using that one. My carry weapon is a lightweight smith and wesson 5 shot revolver or a .380 Ruger LCP. Again, those guns are for personal defense at a range of less than 10 feet.

I realize that the bullet killed Trayvon so the gun may seem irrelevant. But is it? If you were a vigilante I doubt that Kel Tec would be your weapon of choice. If Trayvon was carrying the typical Glock that is common place in Florida Zimmerman would have been outgunned.

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/28/george-zimmermans-gun-a-popular-choice-for-concealed-carry/

 

[loveoforganic]

Glocks are really common criminal guns? I always see crap like .32 acps, .22 revolvers, or the range of hi points coming up as being used in crimes. Glocks ain't cheap

 

[BLADEMDA]

Glocks are really common criminal guns? I always see crap like .32 acps, .22 revolvers, or the range of hi points coming up as being used in crimes. Glocks ain't cheap

Neither are 6-8 Gold teeth/caps. Not to mention tattoos.

 

[DreamMachine]

Glocks are really common criminal guns? I always see crap like .32 acps, .22 revolvers, or the range of hi points coming up as being used in crimes. Glocks ain't cheap

Yeah, I looked it up. I had wrong info here. Only 10-15% of criminal guns have been stolen.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I don't have statistics on this, but I am doubting most criminals actually buy their guns at a store. I would think the majority are stolen (from cars, etc.) and then used or sold for crimes. Since Glocks are prolly the most popular handgun, they are the most commonly stolen gun too.

In Florida Glocks can be purchased used for $300, like new/slightly used for $350. Gun laws are lax in Florida and it is easy to buy one at a garage sale.

 

[BLADEMDA]

So If I am stuck on night watch duty in my neighborhood do I pursue an unidentified male who is 6'3" 70-75Kg with a POS Kel Tec 9mm? No way. I call 911 and head right back to my SUV. I Lock the door and if I have a gun with me I grab my HK 45 or CZ 75 9mm, etc and wait for the police.

The last thing any intelligent person does is pursue this possible "criminal" with no real weapon and no back-up.

Zimmerman is lucky he wasn't the one being buried a few weeks ago.

 

[Gern Blansten]

The last thing any intelligent person does is pursue this possible "criminal" with no real weapon and no back-up.

.

His intelligence, however, has been called into to question. That could invalidate your point.

 

[yappy]

Like you I would have the ruger LCP on me (good carry gun). But would head back to my truck to grab my bush gun (45-70 Marlin) or my shorty 12g alternating buckshot and slug loaded up.

Let the hunting begin! lol.

I agree that the 9mm can leave you in a tough spot in a close fight.

So If I am stuck on night watch duty in my neighborhood do I pursue an unidentified male who is 6'3" 70-75Kg with a POS Kel Tec 9mm? No way. I call 911 and head right back to my SUV. I Lock the door and if I have a gun with me I grab my HK 45 or CZ 75 9mm, etc and wait for the police.

The last thing any intelligent person does is pursue this possible "criminal" with no real weapon and no back-up.

Zimmerman is lucky he wasn't the one being buried a few weeks ago.

 

[periopdoc]

Jeeez, some of you guys are misunderstanding my disagreement with the portion of the Bill of Rights which gives up the right for gun ownership with not actually understanding it. I get it. I know every citizen gets that right. I just think that right should be earned.

I don't think that we misunderstand your position at all, we just don't like it. As you said, you disagree with the constitution and apparently think it needs to be changed. You may think that the right to keep and bear arms should be earned, but that is not what the constitution says. To plagiarize PGG's terminology the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent right and responsibility for every adult citizen of this country unless that right has been removed by due process. It is not a right that is granted based on the citizen meeting preconditions.

You are free to disagree with the constitution, just realize that while it does not agree with it does supersede your opinion.

You are absolutely right. I believe the 2nd Amendment should be modified. It is outdated...written in different era with a different purpose in mind.

Because the world has fundamentally changed? We are now at peace and there is no longer a threat to national security from nations or groups that would do us harm? Because the potential need to overthrow treacherous men who subvert the standing army and/or the government against the will of the people no longer exists?


The individual role in the defense of our nation is woven into the fabric of our founding documents and our society. The individual right is one of the key differences between the US and other countries. To remove the individual right from the second amendment is to tear a hole right through the middle of the foundation and the structure of our country, no less significant than removing the right to a free press, or free speech.


Madison (the father of the Bill of Rights), in The Federalist No. 46

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Thomas Jefferson, 1808 in his final State of the Union Address

Considering the extraordinary character of the times in which we live, our attention should unremittingly be fixed on the safety of our country. For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security. It is therefore incumbent on us at every meeting to revise the condition of the militia, and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion.

Which of course brings up the question of what comprises the militia?

A great article on the evolution of the term militia as used by the founding fathers is to be found in an article by William Fields and David Hardy in Military Law Review. Spring, 1992.


THE MILITIA AND THE CONSTITUTION: A LEGAL HISTORY

In resolving the arms versus militia issue, language that combined a militia statement with a recognition of an individual right fitted Madison's objectives perfectly. A militia statement standing alone likely would have been unacceptable to liberal [p.39] groups such as the Pennsylvania minority, Samual Adams and his supporters, the New Hampshire majority, and possibly Jefferson himself--all of whom had advocated an individual right to arms and none of whose efforts had so much as mentioned the militia. Conversely, an individual right to arms clause, standing alone, might well have irritated supporters of the traditional militia such as George Mason and possibly Richard Henry Lee, both of whom were powerful Virginians. In addition, both were figures with whom Madison still had to deal because they would vote on his proposal--Mason as a Virginia legislator and Lee as a member of the federal Senate. By joining the two issues, Madison would be assured of broad-based support for his proposal. He naturally chose language that already had proved acceptable to both groups. "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country."

The individual right to bear arms is heavily ingrained in our history and our society. What has changed that makes this right a relic of the past? How is the individual right any more dangerous than the right of freedom of speech that can lead men to revolt? How is it more dangerous than a press which is free to mislead the country? And how is it more dangerous than the most dangerous right... the freedom of religion that can convince a man that while his actions may cross the boundaries of natural law, they are in line with a higher law that is neither codified nor appealable?

The individual right to keep and bear arms. One of the least dangerous rights in The Constitution.

- pod