Trayvon Martin

[Exterminator]

It was being investigated or did you miss that.  What happened was simply to stir things up and give the news people something to talk about.

No, it was not being investigated; the decision had already been made that they would not prosecute Zimmerman until the media made it an issue.

[me]

No, it was not being investigated; the decision had already been made that they would not prosecute Zimmerman until the media made it an issue.

And you know this because?  I know, the media said so. 

[The Troll]

     There is one thing you can count on here on the Zone.  Hawk, Henery and is always on the WRONG SIDE.

  "Accident" killer Zimmerman seem to be going back to jail  until his bail is reset.  It seem that Zimmerman lied about not having any money.  I seem that he's been busy.  With his internet scam he has receive $200,000 in donations for a lawyer.    He and his lawyers, the same lawyers that is always crying about.    Damn he forgot to say anything about it.   

[Locutus]

Who else besides me isn't surprised that the same people who claim that their hatred of Obama has nothing to do with race are defending the guy who pursued and then shot an un-armed black teenager?

True dat! 

[me]

Had the police done their job none of us ever would have heard about this case and had the media done nothing, Zimmerman would have gotten away with murder.

Just because you weren't hearing about it everyday in the news doesn't mean it wasn't being investigated.  You all are accusing me of taking Zimmerman's side in this based on what you perceive by my posts.  Well, you're wrong just simply wrong as you are most of the time when you do that.  I am simply pointing out the fact that the media is causing what very well may cause innocent people to be hurt by the things they are saying.  The media is getting people stirred into a frenzy without regard to anyone's safety they just want sensationalism.  What if that elderly couples house had gotten burned down over the wrong address being twittered as Zimmerman's house would that have been justified?  You just don't get it do you?

[The Troll]

Just because you weren't hearing about it everyday in the news doesn't mean it wasn't being investigated.  You all are accusing me of taking Zimmerman's side in this based on what you perceive by my posts.  Well, you're wrong just simply wrong as you are most of the time when you do that.  I am simply pointing out the fact that the media is causing what very well may cause innocent people to be hurt by the things they are saying.  The media is getting people stirred into a frenzy without regard to anyone's safety they just want sensationalism.  What if that elderly couples house had gotten burned down over the wrong address being twittered as Zimmerman's house would that have been justified?  You just don't get it do you?

                           

[Exterminator]

here's an interesting article on various stand your ground type situations/cases: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on each of these.  I am a long-time gun enthusiast and adamantly support the rights of citizens to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property but I am also an ex-Army MP and have spent countless hours in the classroom learning about what does and does not constitute the reasonable and lawful use of deadly force.  Is it unreasonable to ask people to take a test in order to obtain a personal carry permit?

[Bo D]

here's an interesting article on various stand your ground type situations/cases: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on each of these.  I am a long-time gun enthusiast and adamantly support the rights of citizens to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property but I am also an ex-Army MP and have spent countless hours in the classroom learning about what does and does not constitute the reasonable and lawful use of deadly force.  Is it unreasonable to ask people to take a test in order to obtain a personal carry permit?

Haven't had time to read the article, but I will answer that last question with a very strong affirmative. They should also be required to take extensive training and not just be given some basket-weaving level test.

[me]

here's an interesting article on various stand your ground type situations/cases: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on each of these.  I am a long-time gun enthusiast and adamantly support the rights of citizens to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property but I am also an ex-Army MP and have spent countless hours in the classroom learning about what does and does not constitute the reasonable and lawful use of deadly force.  Is it unreasonable to ask people to take a test in order to obtain a personal carry permit?

In view of the way things seem to be lately I say, yes, people should be required to go to classes and take a test. 

The only thing is, like taking guns away from law abiding citizens, those who know they can't pass a test for a permit or criminals will still be able to manage to get guns illegally and that is what's bad.

I'm also beginning to think that "stand your ground" law, although well intended, is a big mistake and should be amended in some way to better clarify it.

[Bo D]

In view of the way things seem to be lately I say, yes, people should be required to go to classes and take a test. 

The only thing is, like taking guns away from law abiding citizens, those who know they can't pass a test for a permit or criminals will still be able to manage to get guns illegally and that is what's bad.

I'm also beginning to think that "stand your ground" law, although well intended, is a big mistake and should be amended in some way to better clarify it.

I may be wrong, but I think the question was worded "take a test in order to obtain a personal carry permit?" In my mind, that only applies to a very small percentage of gun owners and has nothing with "taking guns away from law abiding citizens."

It only applies to the "carry permit" not the gun itself.

[me]

I may be wrong, but I think the question was worded "take a test in order to obtain a personal carry permit?" In my mind, that only applies to a very small percentage of gun owners and has nothing with "taking guns away from law abiding citizens."

It only applies to the "carry permit" not the gun itself.

What I was meaning by using that comparison was if someone knows they can't pass a test to obtain a personal carry permit they will carry one anyway in all probability and although it may slow this kind of thing down some it won't stop it altogether just like denying a gun to a law abiding citizen doesn't keep criminals from getting guns.  Maybe a poor comparison but surely you know what I mean. 

[Bo D]

What I was meaning by using that comparison was if someone knows they can't pass a test to obtain a personal carry permit they will carry one anyway in all probability

At that point they are no longer a "law abiding citizen" then, are they?

and although it may slow this kind of thing down some it won't stop it altogether just like denying a gun to a law abiding citizen doesn't keep criminals from getting guns.  Maybe a poor comparison but surely you know what I mean.

Yes. A poor comparison. I will agree with you on that.

[The Troll]

In view of the way things seem to be lately I say, yes, people should be required to go to classes and take a test. 

The only thing is, like taking guns away from law abiding citizens, those who know they can't pass a test for a permit or criminals will still be able to manage to get guns illegally and that is what's bad.

I'm also beginning to think that "stand your ground" law, although well intended, is a big mistake and should be amended in some way to better clarify it.

  I think the Stand Your Ground law was well intended, so many people who were on their on property, in their own business, in their homes have had to go through the criminal system and great expense to save themselves from going to prison when someone was robbing or assaulting them and they defended themselves.

  But if the law is too vague, not well written it surely be misused.  Not to long a go a jewelry store owner was sent to prison for shooting and killing an armed robber on his way out of the business.  The prosecutor said he had no business shooting the armed robber as the robber was leaving the business and was no danger to the owner or the customers.    The armed robber was still in his store, still had the gun in his hand and carrying a bag of the owner's money and jewelry.   And the wonder Judaical system sent him to prison.   

  But what truly gets me is the dumbasses on the jury convicted him. 

[Palehorse]

A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.

[Palehorse]

What it lies in our power to do, it lies in our power not to do.