I'm guessing we agree on this, unless you believe people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves in home with children.

an actual threat. This is the problem - people are hyper-vigilant.

True story - I was in a hardware store a couple of years ago, I was looking for a specific item in the wrong aisle and walked around a corner into the next one. I startled an older guy (I'm a short black woman so I can only imagine if I was a tall black male teenager or man). I don't know what his problem was but he grabbed at his hip for his gun, wide eyed and intense. Thank GOD he didn't have his gun that day! I have no doubt he would have shot me.

Another time, also in Missouri, I startled a woman at a dog training class in Petco. She had this huge dog (not very disciplined either) that went into protective mode because she freaked out. The dog lunged at me and she could barely hold him. Once she realized I was just minding my own business she was saying, "Bad dog! Heel!" trying to get this dog under control, a dog that was just a perfectly normal a few seconds before. I had noticed how pretty she was and wondered about her breed.

I was just looking for the fuggin cat food, ffs!! People need to calm the f down.

I don't need to be worrying about random people with guns, God help me. God help us all.

Be allowed to defend themselves or the children in their care?

And on edit, what do you think people should do of threatened?

because they make us nervous.

unknown people forced their way into your house.
And then pointed a firearm at you.

From defending criminals. I have zero sympathy for those who would take by force (using guns) what others worked for. Democrats should never, ever side with criminals/thieves.

but if he fired, he would have gone to prison. Perceived has nothing to do with it. SYG, which is the standard in every other country in the world, and duty to retreat which is in the minority of US states, does not change the threat needing to be immediate and reasonable under the reasonable standard. It only removes the requirement to try to retreat, which puts you in greater danger.
http://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/

Since we are talking castle doctrine, we are talking specifically inside the home. If someone forces their way into an occupied home, they are an immediate threat by any standard.

But since you "can't trust other people", are you are saying that people don't have the right to defend themselves? IOW expecting other people to die or suffer grave bodily injury for something you believe in. That is fundamentally immoral and illiberal. Either that, or you are misinformed about SYG, which is probably the case given the media's incompetence and dishonesty.

The dog could have reacted to anything. My black lab gets defensive to any man with a loud voice or Brooklyn accent regardless of race. Doesn't matter what I do or how I react. He would probably like you. Trump's loud voice and NYC accent, not so much. Some dogs are racist. I worked with a guy who's dog didn't like white people, any white people.

I had a pit bull who hated highway toll collectors and full service gas stations.

When we used self-service gas stations, she barked at me uncontrollably.

My own dog.

And yes, I've known of racist dogs. Against any skin color or accent they are not familiar with.

And Rebkeh would be dead. Fine outcome all around, just like the Z man.

being startled is different than getting your head bounced off the sidewalk.

A forty hear old man with mixed martial arts training and professional level boxing skills against a 17 year old high school football player and the guy pulls a gun in "self defense"?

Truth be told Martin was Standing His Ground because he was stalked by someone he didn't know and when the stalker didn't desist when confronted used the only weapons he had, his fists. But Zimmerman had a gun so Martin died and Zimmerman got off because Martin was dead and the one left living gets to tell his story.

Go ahead, defend and support the Z man. Makes ya' look real good.

You are nothing if not entertaining.

eye witnesses and forensics is on my side.

Before I provide the facts and evidence to prove you wrong, let me give you some background. At first, I believed all the media and blogger bullshit about racist, wanabe cop, unhinged that called the cops all the time, was told to stay in the car, got off because he was buddies with the cops, and that the little kid in the Hollister shirt was Trayvon. I wanted to see the prosecution lay out the facts to convict him. I hated Zimmerman based on what I was told. By the time the prosecution rested, I fully realized that every blog, media speculation, and the likes of Hartman and MSNBC, fucking lied about everything. Everything we were told was a complete fucking lie. My next question is why, and it was obvious why the Seminole County DA didn't file charges, yet Corey, being appointed by Rick Scott, filed charges a week before election day where she was facing a tough re election and wasn't popular in the black community.

Not true. He actually did what amounts to boxing aerobics to lose weight. The trainer said Zimmerman had zero skill and would get his ass kicked in any ring. BTW, age is a disadvantage, especially if the younger person is athletic. Here is the trainer in his own words


Except the evidence doesn't show that either. The evidence shows, based on a phone conversation Martin was having and testimony of Jayne Surdyka that Martin was likely hiding behind Surdyka's bushes waiting for him to go back by. There is no evidence to support your claim. Even if true, under Florida law, Zimmerman's screams for help, while getting his head bashed in, and struggling to escape negates any self defense claim because it would make him the aggressor in a second fight. Either way, as the lead investigator said, there was no evidence that contradicted the self defense claim.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
you are defending the false narrative created by a race baiting ambulance chaser and and anti Hispanic racists who happen to be black. That isn't that unusual in that part of Florida.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/11/22341/3139/crimenews/Benjamin-Crump-Who-Screamed-Doesn-t-Matter

The only thing I am defending is facts, evidence, and rule of law. Zimmerman has nothing to do with it. I oppose political prosecutions of anyone. My personal opinion of him is, like I said, indifferent.

That is because I'm a real liberal who is guided by facts, evidence, and reason, and not letting the likes of Cenk Uyger or Sean Hannity do my thinking for me. Unfortunately, that seems to be an endangered species.

Unlike you, I actually watched the trial first hand. I did not just take the word of the likes of Thom Hartman, Bill O'Reilley, Cenk Uyger, or Glenn Beck. I saw the whole fucking thing, including the evidence hearings the jury didn't see. If your interested, there is a compete archive on You Tube.

Can you ever make a factual argument?

celebrity match but had to kill a 17 year old football player with his GUN.

Hiding behind a bush? If Zimmerman weren't stalking him Martin could have hidden for hours or would be alive today. Martin was standing his ground. Zimmerman killed him. Zimmerman got to tell his story. Martin didn't.

You have your gun. Martin is dead. Everything is good with the world.

Loves yoruself some Z man.

Jury members recanted their votes. Loves you some Z man.

Any defense of killing with guns is okay, but punch a stalker in the face and it's justifiable homicide.

Keep talking.

and you didn't read the links.
No, he wasn't good at all. I doubt DMX, the rapper who was supposed to "fight" him is skilled either. Are you actually gullible enough to think celebrity anything is real?

Look up the definition of "stalking", it doesn't fit. Martin ran to where he was staying and doubled back according to the person he was on the phone with.

Where did you learn about the "jury recanting their votes"? Did you hear it from the Armenian genocide denying antisemitism named Cenk Uyger or one of his dim bulbs on TYT? The lying sack of shit anti Mormon bigot Larry O'Donnell? Or was it Piers Morgan that got fired from the Mirror, before he came here for CNN, for running a photo he knew was staged and falsely accused British solders of war crimes?

Evidence talks, bullshit walks.

At 15:45 the defense: "lets talk a bit more now, about Mr. Zimmerman, you know him do you not?"

Pollock: "Absolutely."

Defense: "And do you recall when you first met him?"

Pollock: Yes.

Defense: "About when was that?"

Pollock: "That would have been, I want to say, roughly October of 2010"

Defense: "And he came to your gym?"

Pollock: "Correct".

Defense: "And what did he come to your gym for?"

Pollock: " Ah he came to lose weight and to get into shape".

Defense: "And did you assist him in that regard?"

Pollock: "Absolutely".

Defense at 18:30 "Then tell the jury if you would, just how accomplished he was, at grappling?"

Pollock: "Um, he wasn't, he was a rank beginner".

Pollock: "Well, theres a difference between somebody whos an accomplished athlete, and somebody whos just not physically an accomplished individual. Look, if you look at a professional athlete at any sport, you know, its really easy to say 'this guys just done, you know, a certain amount of work, but theres also a certain amount of predisposition that they have of athleticism, strength, that kind feeds for that, and then the more they train, the better they get and the faster they get and the stronger they get and things of that nature. So its...lets say we figured a scale of 1 to 10. If you start off a 1 youre going to do a lot more work to get to 10. If you start out a 5 because you've done a bunch of work previously, theres less work to get you to 10 comparatively.

Defense "Ok".

Pollock: "Usually when you see an accomplished athlete, when they come into a gym they've already had a history as a child of all kinds of athletics that they've been exposed to. And if you have an adult that hasn't had that type of background exposure, they're going to have a bit more work, and they're probably never going to get to the same degree of accomplishment that somebody that had that childhood background has had."

Defense: "On that scale of 1 to 10, when george zimmerman first got to you, what number would you assign to his abilities?"

Pollock: ".5"

Defense: "Less than a 1."

Pollock: "Yes".

Defense: "After, um...I'm going to sort of fast forward, as a grappler, having been through...uhh...let me ask this, tell us the...about the length of time where mr Zimmerman was involved with your gym.

Pollock: "George actually trained, once I looked up the information, it was just under a year, actually about a year that he was a part of the gym as far as training goes, and of that he had some time that he put his membership on hold because of his schedule and whatnot."

Defense: Ok. for future purposes, um, and to keep the record clear, I know that you may call him by his first name but were going to use first and last name, George Zimmerman, if you would, just so we keep it very clear".

Pollock: "yes sir".

Defense "He was there minus a few months of hiatus, did you say?"

Pollock : "yes"

Defense at 21:14: "So lets talk about boxing, he came to you...I think you said a .5...a zero point 5?"

Pollock: "Correct".

Defense at 22:05 : "So during that approximate year give or take a few months that he was involved with your facility and grappling, did he, he got from a .5 to what rating would you give him on your scale?"

Pollock: "maybe a 1, maybe a 1.5."

Defense: "And why so little progress?"

Pollock: "Well, its not that he made such little progress, its a tremendous amount of work, you know, its really easy to get the concept that that somebody joins up to golds gym and then are automatically a professional body builder, or if somebody joins up to a fight gym they're a world champion fighter, it just doesn't work that way. Its a tremendous amount a work, it takes a lot of dedication, a lot of athleticism...

Defense: "Did he simply not put that level of work into it?"

Pollock: "no he was very diligent, very coachable, very pleasant to work with, you know, um...There is just a certain strength level, and athleticism and it takes a tremendous amount of time to develop that, and he didn't have that history and background of childhood athletics that helps to create that.

Defense: "So on a similar scale if you would, not in the grappling environment but just in general athleticism, I think you've identified that you have a feel for where people fit in their abilities, based upon their history and athleticism, on a scale ofg 1 to 10 where would mr Zimmerman fit?"

Pollock: "Like I said, about a 1".

Defenseat 23:40: "Lets talk then about his proficiency in the boxing that he took."

Pollock : "Mhmm"

Defense: "First of all tell us what it is, how how, what you do when you start out and where you progress to as you learn more about boxing."

Pollock: "The way we first start in my facility, is we just simply getting proficient within your own body. So if you don't have control of your body its going to make sure...its not going to really facilitate other things working well. So if I started somebody in a boxing ring sparring right off the bat before they know how to punch or defend or move that's going to produce a pretty unpleasant result, you know, so instead of creating that type of situation where its a liability and people are just getting damaged, we'll start o0ff learning to control their body. Calesthenics, foot work, you know, ab work, just learning structural integrity and aligning their frame.

Defense: "ok. And, tell me then how mr Zimmerman came to you in the beginning again on a sort of scale of 1 to 10, as far as his boxing proficiency?"

Pollock: ".5"

Defense at 25:38 "Did mr Zimmerman ever get in the ring?

Pollock: "No."

Defense: "Why not?".

Pollock: "Because he wasn't skilled enough for that. Mr Zimmerman, you know, worked diligently at learning how to control his body better than what he had, and you know, the steps we'll start off as with calesthenics then we'll put a person on a heavy bag where they'll start to learn how to throw a punch, with shadow boxing and heavy bag work, and once they get proficient with that, then we'll start pairing them up with a partner for doing defensive counters where somebody would throw a punch at them and they learn how to go and defend the punch, catching pairing redirecting etc, and once they got proficient with that then we'll start learning how to move with slipping and weaving and shuffling and putting small movements to it.

Defense: "At what point did George Zimmerman get to in that training...sort of progression?"

Pollock: "He never got off shadow boxing and hitting the heavy bag and learning how to punch."

Defense: "So tell me or explain to the jury what that means".

Pollock: "uh, hes still learning how to punch, he didn't know how to really effectively punch".

Defense at 26:54: "Did he ever get to the...progress to the point where he could box somebody else?"

Pollock: "Absolutely not."

Defense: "And why...you may have just answered this I apologize, but why would you not let him get to that point or why did he not get to that point?"

Pollock: "Its not a matter of me not letting him get to that point, its a matter of him simply being physically accomplished to do that. If somebody is not physically accomplished to do that, I'm not going to put them in harms way."

Defense: "Um, did he ever do any...I think your answer was the same...What was his progression then, from the .5 what did he progress to as a boxer?

Pollock: "Well, he never got off of learning how to punch, so not very far, I mean he improved his physicalness considerably where he lost a lot of weight because of the diet and the exercise, but regardless of body weight theres a matter of athleticism, and you know, you can lose all kinds of weight and still not have the athleticism to be ready to climb into the boxing ring with an opponent."

I didn't think my opinion on the honesty of anti-gunners could get any lower.

I was wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=192266

That little piece of dishonesty has already been disproven in this thread.

The real question, is why you decided to lie about it.

If so then do you avoid them in fear?

If not, then what makes the different?
They all carry firearms, both concealed and openly.

as LE and retired LE are almost always exempt from these laws.

you posted an anti-gun message that included two examples with no guns involved.

I get that you were talking about hyper-vigilant and threat assessment, but you can include yourself in that group with your statement "I have no doubt he would have shot me." If this guy goes around shooting people for surprising him in stores than odds are that he would have shot someone years ago and still be in prison during your store experience.

I tend to be a very quiet walker and often times surprise people or will have someone run into me because they don't know I've stopped because they don't hear my footsteps stopping. Nobody's pulled a gun on me nor any other weapon. Maybe you and I should put taps on our shoes?

I agree with you on the threat assessment issue as this has led to folks calling in cops for black men holding a bb gun in a store and brown skinned men wearing turbans. I'm much more concerned about these types of reactions than having someone shoot me, but I'm white so my main threat to others is that I might be a corporate raider who will steal your pension or legislator that will cut back your social security.

Their proposals never stand-up to the light of day.

Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

The New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 commonly known as the NY SAFE Act is a gun regulation law in the state of New York. The law passed by the New York State Legislature on January 15, 2013, in the middle of the night under a "message of necessity", bypassing the state's 3 day required review period [1] and was signed into law by Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo on the next day.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act

Last week, Senate and Assembly Democrats “gutted and amended” 5 bills that were stalled and changed them into 5 brand new, ANTI-GUN measures.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/alerts/alert-new-gun-control-bills-gutted-and-amended/?mc_cid=61b77ea8df&mc_eid=e1cd298f90

while its not related to firearms it is another example of how our gov. likes to screw us over by sneaking in unpopular legislation.
https://www.propublica.org/article/why-north-carolinas-new-anti-lgbt-law-is-a-trojan-horse

“The LGBT issues were a Trojan horse,” added Erika Wilson, a law professor at the University of North Carolina who co-directs a legal clinic for low-income plaintiffs with job and housing discrimination claims. The broader change hasn’t received much attention, she said, because “people were so caught up in [the LGBT] part of the law that this snuck under the radar.”

Conservative-leaning groups have been trying for decades to reduce the number of civil lawsuits in the states. In HB2, lawmakers accomplished this by adding a single sentence to the state’s employment discrimination law that says: “[No] person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein.”

this thing.

then why did they pass it in the middle of the night, bypassing the state's 3 day required review period?

Cuomo said he would waive a mandatory three-day aging period for new bills if the Legislature puts the gun measures to a vote. The reason, he said, was in part to give the bill the best chance of passing and part to prevent a potential bump in sales for assault rifles in the period before lawmakers act.

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/14/cuomo-new-york-guns/1833271/

It does nothing to make any type of firearm anywhere 'less lethal.'

It just makes them look like they belong on a sci-fi movie set.

No, it did not have 'broad support' and has nothing to do with 'safety,'

Being anti-gun is not being 'pro-safety.'

That's crap.

Pro safety people get range instructor certs, they teach classes, they go to (mostly rural) schools with NRA big bird posters and talk about hunting safety.

The SAFE Act was a midnight massacre of 2nd Amendment rights. Gov. Cuomo is a demagogue.

since your'r a new yorker, did you attend any of those anti-safe act protests.

i watched a couple on youtube. it was hilarious watching lawmakers attempting to support it.

And what do you mean by "safety"? That seems pretty vague

And prevent a comment period?

Do tell or are you going to run away

its a shame too. i enjoy hearing differing ideas and opinions.

For some reason, they do not want to have a civil discussion.

They confronted that evil gun lobby directly and they are so proud of themselves. They sure told us!

No need for discussion, since they are morally and ethically superior. Besides they might actually learn something and we can't have that happening.

The great news is, that's about all any of them do.

....very scholarly if you refuse to actually discuss

After a public hearing where better then 95% of the thousands who showed up were against the gun control laws they were trying to pass, the legislature then proceeded to pass a bill at short notice and in the middle of the night, giving the legislators no time to read the bill and no time for the public to react.

Congrats to the safety minded citizens of Missouri.