People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

... for handguns, minus the insurance requirement. Also, your #8 seems to rule out concealed carry. Was that your intention?

In any case, it hasn't made an appreciable difference in gun crime rates. Therefore, factions in our legislature want more and more and more. When they passed the most restrictive gun legislation in the country, the NY "SAFE" Act, we were told, "This is just the beginning." And yet we are told here that the "slippery slope" is paranoid NRA propaganda. Hmm ... I wonder whom I should believe?

Getting out of the car was stupid, but the actual use of the gun is a different issue. I someone larger and stronger than I is beating my head in the sidewalk, I would do whatever I had to do to survive.

How well do you actually know about this case? What I know, I didn't get from the media. I actually watched the trial. In this case, with all the facts being the same, Zimmerman would be dead or a vegetable. The eye witnesses who saw Martin beating his head in the sidewalk called 911, which is why the cops showed up in less than a minute after the shot. Martin would be in prison.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=193413

New Jersey has laws similar to what you describe. That didn't work out so well for Carol Bowne did it?
http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/crime/2015/06/04/woman-fatally-stabbed-berlin-twp/28461361/

Your proposals might affect the few accidents and acts of negligence and would certainly stop people from defending themselves, a fundamental human right. Would it affect most of the murders in the US? Not close. Most of them are criminals killing each other. Most of the murders, crimes in general, are committed by very few people. A study in Redmond, California, found that ten people were responsible for over 100 of its murders.

Zimmerman also, unquestionably, initiated the situation.

Being weak and cowardly doesn't make me sympathize with a child-killer nor supporters of child-killers.

All of the trial evidence suggests the opposite is true. It isn't about any individual. I watched the entire trial. There is no doubt Martin was larger and stronger. There is also no doubt two eye witnesses saw Martin Z's head in the sidewalk. That picture of the kid in the Hollister shirt? That wasn't him.

Martin ran away from a perusing aggressive and armed threat.

"no doubt Martin was larger"
Zimmerman weighed in at 185.
Martin weighed 158.
Apparently, you would have been better served watching a TV show that explains that 185 is more than 158.

He went to where he was staying and double backed to the bushes where he waited Z to walk by. That is when Martin suckered punched him to the ground and starting pounding his head in the sidewalk.

Once again, a very basic and undisputed part of the case.

Martin ran for his life from an armed and aggressive assailant.
Martin fought for his life with an armed and aggressive assailant

I don't blame the gunned down and unarmed child for not running far enough.
In fact, I find that argument ludicrous.

There are a lot of genuine disagreements about this case. Disagreements that can't be definitively solved by anyone here because we didn't witness the event.

But, you're the only person I've heard say, this long after the incident, that the picture of Trayvon Martin in the Hollister shirt wasn't actually Trayvon Martin.

There are still quibbles about when the actual picture was taken, but nobody that I know in person, or any serious, or even half-way serious source I've read still actually proclaims that the picture of Martin in the red shirt wasn't actually a picture of Martin.

I'm thinking you really don't know that much about this case at all. And I'm saying this as a guy that was probably thought of as a "Zimmerman Defender" here because I said that I didn't think that the Prosecution proved their case, and that Zimmerman should be found 'not guilty'.

Most of the disagreements are between those who know the facts of the case, and those who don't. Those who cling to the false narrative put out by the likes of Al Sharpton, Ben Crump, and those let the

I doubt it based on the difference on skin tone and nose.

At most, the kid in the photo as maybe twelve. It looks nothing like the photo on his Twitter account.

I know the case very well. There wasn't a conviction because there was no case. That is why the Seminole County DA didn't prosecute. Rick Scott appointed Corey in Jacksonville because she is as ethically challenged as he is, and she needed the votes to get re elected in Jacksonville.

Here's the pic that I think we are talking about:



Could you please post the one from his Twitter account? I think that would really help clear things up, at least for me. Thanks in advance.

The Twitter account seems to have been deleted. To answer your question, IIRC, the claim was that Martin saw the gun and went for it, but Zimmerman got it first after Martin saying something to the effect of "now you are going to die." I have only seen an account in a blog and haven't seen a source. Without that, it may be true or it might be part of the "stay in the car" myth. Either way, it is of no consequence.

My answer to all the above is a flat NO!

How acceptable are your proposals then?

That's what I thought. Since each are Constitutional rights, this could be problematic.

That's the source of our mistrust. It is about controlling people.

That's the RW talking point about Voter ID.

Licensing a constitutionally protected civil right is a VERY big deal.



Nope. Not a bit of it. One needs a license to do those things in PUBLIC. One can drive off of public property, operate a boat on a private lake, and so forth, all without a license, and completely legal.

What that poster wants to do, is to set the same limits for private ownership as are set with activities that involve doing in public.

No sale.

True. Because due process.


False. Internet auction sales require delivery to an FFL, who will do the background check on the buyer before allowing him/her to take possession. The exception would be a face-to-face sale to a resident of the same state, and the seller still can't legally knowingly sell to a felon or other "prohibited person." The trick is in the knowing. If we could have NICS access for private sellers, there wouldn't be a problem, but most gun controllers oppose that for some reason. Maybe you could explain that one.

That doesn't mean that I think innocent people should lose their rights and lose their freedom of movement.

A failure of the system isn't fixed by repealing the rights of the innocent.

I watched the trial first hand. The only system that failed was the media being competent and honest. As much as Ben Rhodes took shit for saying reporters are gullible and stupid, he was quite right.

He initiated and perpetrated the situation.
He is responsible for it.

He was walking to his car when attacked. A 6'3" 17 year old is not a child.

Zimmerman got out of his car and chased an unarmed child before shooting and killing him.
This is a fact not disputed by anybody.

"child-A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority."

Trayvon Martin was 5'11. Not 6'3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
In any case, how tall is "tall enough", in your estimate to justify shooting and killing an unarmed child?

That's three very basic facts you are completely wrong on, but thanks for sharing your TV watching history.

Getting the the head beat in the sidewalk. I saw it in person.

You support a person that unquestionably did so.

I don't support child-killers.
I'm very comfortable with my position on this.

"I saw it in person"
Saw what in person and why should I care?

You may have seen the trial in person, but I don't think you did. You may have seen the trial on television, which would mean you didn't even see the trial "in person", much less the actual event being discussed during the trial.

Was there a point in the trial where George Zimmerman said he shot Trayvon Martin because he was getting his head beat into the sidewalk?

Part of it anyway. I saw the rest on TV and You Tube, including the evidence hearings the jury didn't see.

Forensics backed up the two eye witnesses that saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head in the sidewalk.

I understand that. I didn't ask you if Martin was beating Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. I asked you if there was a point in the trial, where Zimmerman claimed that that's why he shot Martin. I don't know (since I wasn't actually there, like you were). Thanks, in advance, for clearing this up for me.

since he didn't testify. It was clear that Martin was beating his head in the sidewalk. It doesn't take a MENSA member to know that fact meets the reasonable person standard of immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury.
Zimmerman screamed for help while enduring the assault for something like forty seconds.

But, Zimmerman never said (in court, or to anyone else as far as we know) that he shot Martin because his head was getting beat against a sidewalk. I am not doubting his head was getting beat against the sidewalk. I think it was.

But, Zimmerman gave a very specific reason for shooting Martin, and it wasn't that his head was being beaten against the sidewalk.

What was that reason?

Zimmerman was neighborhood watch. He was keeping an eye on the youth and the youth jumped him, smashing his head into the sidewalk repeatedly.

I would hope my loved ones would have the sense to use self defense to save their lives.

I raised sons to become successful productive adults - Hillary never asked me to go with her on the campaign trail.

"Chase-verb-1. pursue in order to catch or catch up with.
synonyms: pursue, run after, give chase to, follow;"

"Child-noun-a young human being below the legal age of majority."

Thank you for sharing your hope. Allow me to share some of mine.
1) I would hope that my children defend themselves from an armed aggressor.
2) If they are unable to, I would hope that the law holds the perpetrator accountable.
3) I would hope that your sons don't share your bizarre fear of unarmed children.

He hid behind a wall/shrub and jumped a man with a gun.

You should be teaching your kids not to jump people and try to kill them then they wouldn't have to be concerned about someone using their right to defend themslves.

If a great big person is smashing your head into a sidewalk you don't ask him if he's turned 18 yet and if he has a weapon - beside his fists that he's using to smash your skull into the edge of the sidewalk.

How about the millions of mothers who raised successful productive men - how about a big thank you or ' tell us how you did it'? No....... I am just bizarre.

"He hid"
That's right.
He ran for his life.
He hid for his life.
He fought for his life.
He was unsuccessful and was gunned down.

I completely support the right to defend themselves.
That's why I support Martin and not the child-killing aggressor.

"great big person"
Zimmerman outweighed Martin.
But simple facts haven't stopped your spirited defense of a cowardly child-killer yet, so why stop now?

Perhaps your sons are so physically intimidated by unarmed children they, like you, support a child-killer.
I do not.
My parents raised me better.

By any means necessary.

I would not ask someone trying to kill me how old they were. When you are being overpowered you don't care if the person killing you is still 17 or has already turned 18.

No one should sacrifice themself just because the person killing them hasn't turned 18 yet. "I'll let him kill me because this large youth smashing my head in might be a darling little unarmed child". lol.

I raised my son's better than Martin's mother did.

Your welcome America.

Because a person has a right to defend themselves from a lethal threat.

"I raised my sons better than Martin's did"
Have your children ever been chased by an armed and aggressive assailant?
Do you think your children shouldn't defend themselves if they are?

"Your welcome"
Somehow I am less than surprised that someone who supports those that killed an unarmed black child would be unable to use the proper forms of "your/you're".
Thanks for confirming.

Zimmerman was NOT chasing after Martin. If that was the case Martin could have out run him easily. Martin doubled around, hid and then attempted to kill Zimmerman. Zimmerman had the right to protect his own life. I would do the same.

Like you I was told that a white man chased a little black child through a gated community and then shot him dead. But unlike you I listened to more facts. We were told the black child was a good student, star athlete and had never been in trouble before. All bullshit.

Zimmerman is Hispanic.
Zimmerman's face and head showed signs of a big fight, so did the evidence on the ground.
Zimmerman was out of shape - did not chased down the youth.
Youth was not star athlete, had been suspended from school and his mother shipped him off to his dad's girlfriend's house.
Youth had a record of fighting, vandalism, pot, guns and stolen goods.
So much more....I have to run but will take you on later.

PS Typing fast and fucked up...So what, nobody died and I've lived a good life. Raised good sons.

I've specifically said the facts:
An armed assailant chased, shot and killed an unarmed child.
You support the child killer.
I do not.

"Youth was not star athlete"
And that means he deserved to be shot and killed?!

"Raised good sons"
Do they support a child-killer, chase after children walking home or are physically intimidated by unarmed children?
Are they star athletes?

A naughty boy jumped a fellow from the neighborhood watch and tried to kill him. Neighborhood watch guy defended himself as he is allowed to do by law.

You judged me by a typo and I'm tempted to say something about your critical thinking skills but I shan't.

Do you really believe that I was claiming that he deserved to be killed because the NAACP telling fibs about his background? NO...It was mentioned by me to point out the lies the public was told about the case at the very beginning.

My sons are men. One is a business owner and the other is a retired military man - so no, they are not star athletes. lol

Sons are gun owners and are not stupid enough to allow a person to smash their heads into a sidewalk. Boudica herself is a gun owner and will become an "armed assailant" if someone tries to take her life.

You keep saying "unarmed child" like most children are armed. Martin was a big lad and he liked a fight and that was his undoing.

NAACP letter to Eric Holder;
http://action.naacp.org/page/-/FSC%20NAACP%20Holder%20031312.pdf

This is the letter that got Holder and the President on the case.

Nobody disputes this fact.


"You judged me by a typo"
Not nearly as much as I am judging you for your support of a child killer.

"Martin was a big lad"
Martin was a 158 pound string bean that was lighter than the child killing coward you are identifying with.

If your sons are so weak and cowardly that an unarmed child physically intimidates them, then I would suggest they not chase a child simply walking home.
Otherwise, you will have raised a cowardly killer of unarmed children.

shot at by someone else, arrested for battery on a police officer, etc...

Is that (plus Zimmerman's other behavior) enough to prove that Zimmerman "started" the fight in a court of law? No. Is it enough to prove that Zimmerman was 50.1% likely to have started the fight? Yes.

Of course, Zimmerman had a gun. Gun owners are pretty much always allowed the use of deadly force, even if they start a fist fight, then lose, then pull their gun. Unarmed individuals do not have the same rights to self defense as gun owners (in theory they do, in practice they do not).

Why does Zimmerman have the right to put a hole in Trayvon Martin, but Trayvon Martin does not have the right to bash an armed aggressor's head into the sidewalk?

no proof of the wife beating. In fact, she got in trouble for filing a false claim. Daddy's security cameras didn't show what she claimed.

no because the two events have nothing to do with each other.

no they don't.

because Martin was bashing his head in the sidewalk.
He didn't know Zimmerman was armed, and there is no evidence that he was the aggressor. The evidence showed that Martin went to where he was staying and doubled back. He told the person he was on the phone while he was doing it.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/6/26/223210/512/crimenews/-Rachel-Jeantel-Court-Antics-and-How-Martin-Profiled-Zimmerman

no proof of the wife beating. In fact, she got in trouble for filing a false claim. Daddy's security cameras didn't show what she claimed.

Didn't she get in trouble for filing a false claim about her and GZ's assets rather than the domestic violence case?

Also, as I said, there were other incidents of domestic violence with different women. Zimmerman shoved a cop in 2005 and also had his 2005 girlfriend (not his wife) accuse him of domestic violence... as well as incidents in 2013 with different women. Both asked the charges to dropped, but that is extremely common in domestic violence cases.

no they don't.

Yes, in practice, they do. Not according to the letter of the law, but according to how the law is applied... yes... if I'm involved in an incident and claim that I was justified in self defense and I kill someone with a single punch or stab... and go before 100 juries I will be convicted more often than if the facts are exactly the same but I shot my assailant once.

because Martin was bashing his head in the sidewalk.

So, bashing someone's head against the sidewalk is not justified in self defense but shooting someone is?

He didn't know Zimmerman was armed, and there is no evidence that he was the aggressor. The evidence showed that Martin went to where he was staying and doubled back. He told the person he was on the phone while he was doing it.

So a suspicious creeper (Trayvon obviously interpreted Zimmerman as that way) is free to follow you and you're not allowed to double back and ask them why the F they're following you?

And yes I don't think the prosecution had enough evidence to convict. But it takes takes beyond a reasonable doubt, not preponderance of evidence to convict.

In the 2013 case was dropped because the cops threatened to charge her for filing a false report after reviewing Daddy's security tapes that showed her lying. The "shoving a cop" was a natural reaction to a friend sitting next to him being grabbed by an ABC officer who was not in uniform and did not identify himself. He just saw some guy grabbing his friend. Context is everything.

not if the evidence show that it is self defense.

Trayvon ran when he saw Zimmerman still sitting in the car, talking on the phone.

There wasn't enough evidence for a trial. All of the evidence showed that it was self defense. There was ZERO evidence of anything other than self defense.

I think Trayvon knew. The one definition of "creepy assed cracker" I have seen was for any gay person. Trayvon might have been as homophobic as he was violent. Yes he was free to double back to ask why are you following me. He didn't do that.

In the 2013 case was dropped because the cops threatened to charge her for filing a false report after reviewing Daddy's security tapes that showed her lying. The "shoving a cop" was a natural reaction to a friend sitting next to him being grabbed by an ABC officer who was not in uniform and did not identify himself. He just saw some guy grabbing his friend. Context is everything.

George Zimmerman, acquitted in July in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, was arrested Monday afternoon for allegedly pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend and pushing her out of her house as he packed to move out, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office said.

Zimmerman barricaded himself in the house Samantha Scheibe rented in Apopka, which he had shared with her since around August, Chief Deputy Dennis Lemma said at a news conference. She gave deputies a key, and they pushed aside furniture he had piled against the door.

Zimmerman was unarmed and offered no resistance when he was arrested about 1 p.m. Lemma said investigators believe two weapons are in the home -- a shotgun and an assault rifle -- and are seeking a search warrant. The arrest report said Zimmerman had apparently locked up the shotgun before deputies arrived.

AND

At 11:30 p.m. four days earlier, an officer heard breaking glass and saw 28-year-old Brittany Brunelle, Zimmerman's dental hygienist, drive away from their home without turning on her headlights.

When officers pulled her over, she told them that she and Zimmerman had argued about her decision to move out.

She and her 5-year-old son had lived with him for about two months, she said.

Zimmerman had insisted that she return a painting, she told police, and she did, but while she was at the house, Zimmerman started yelling, she said, and took away her phone. He then threw it and the wine bottle at her, she said

She and Zimmerman had strictly been friends and roommates, although they had sex one drunken night, she told police.

She described him as "insane," "suicidal" and "a psychopath. … Why that man is not locked up is beyond me," she said.

She told officers that night that she did not want to prosecute Zimmerman, and after police turned the case over to the State Attorney's Office, she stuck with that plan.


Those are separate cases from what happened with his ex-wife.

and she she offered the story for sale to the National Enquirer before it happened. After the trauma of the assault etc and physical damage to the brain from being bounced off the sidewalk, it is possible that he became off his rocker.
You want to hear the rest of the story? They filed restraining orders against each other and both were ordered to give their guns to the police. When the whole thing blew over, they went to the armory together and picked up their guns, his and hers, and drove off in the sunset.

violence but nahhhh he doesn't abuse women, no sir-e-bob!

Sure might be not enough to convict him of domestic violence in a court of law (shit, I was only early in HS at time of the OJ trial, but looking back on it there probably wasn't enough evidence to convict him either) but the probability of that happening with 4 separate women = enough for me to conclude he's a scumbag piece of shit and tell him to fuck off.

Oh wait, I probably shouldn't unless I put a bullet or a knife hole in him first else I might end up like TM.

restraining orders in crashing relationships are not unusual. False accusations of abuse are not unusual in divorces either. This is a woman that wanted a million dollar life insurance policy, with her as the beneficiary knowing that the NBPP has a contract out on him. Shelly made a claim that George pulled a gun on her dad and punched something at her dad's house. Her dad, being kind of wealthy, had an security system that recorded everything. When the cops reviewed the tapes, they saw nothing of the sort. That would prove filing a false report in court. You know what else his now ex wife, Shelly, lied about them hiding in a dumpy trailer out in the sticks during the trial. Truth was they were staying with her dad at his McMansion.

There is no evidence they happened. Not just enough to convict, but not even enough to file charges. Most of them have been hyped out of proportion by the media.

I have been in the Army, then in the Air Force, to war and back, lived in a couple of other countries, and was a combat camera unit when that happened. The reasonable doubt was some cop driving around with a vial of blood that was unaccounted for and the glove stupidity.

victim of it.

So we have 4 cases of allegations of DM against Zimmerman - and your conclusion is what, the bitch was just looking to get a better deal in the 2005 divorce from a 21 year old Zimmerman? OK LOL.

the public record only shows that they filed restraining orders on each other. IIRC, it was someone other than Shelly, the woman he married. No media source offered evidence that was the reason why.

In the case of a divorce with Shelly, not the same person years earlier, probably.

In Florida, the alleged victim recanting doesn't matter. If the police see evidence of abuse, it becomes a crime against the State and the State files charges.

vindictive bitches huh? 4 who all alleged DM against him.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer

"In August, Zimmerman's fiancee at the time, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman reciprocated with his own order on the same grounds, and both orders were granted. The relationship ended."

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.

ZUAZO, VERONICA vs. ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE M

08/09/2005
Div 44
44, TBA

Domestic Violence
Closed - SRS

I knew women who go from one abusive piece of shit to another.

That has nothing to do with Angela Corey's malicious prosecution because Rick Scott cowered to the likes of Al Sharpton.

saying these allegations are enough to convict him in the death of Trayvon Martin) but you've stated he goes beyond not guilty, but actually innocent. Ie he did absolutely nothing wrong (let alone criminally wrong). Clearly he was not harassing or threatening TM whatsoever.

In the "murder" of Trayvon Martin, yes I'm saying he is innocent. The evidence of innocence was overwhelming. Physical evidence showed Zimmerman was violently assaulted. Two ear witnesses put Martin hiding behind bushes at the scene. A burglary tool found at the scene. Two eye witnesses saw Martin pounding Zimmerman's head in the sidewalk. If you bothered to watch the trial, you would see that the prosecution tried to raise reasonable doubt about his innocence. No, this is nothing like OJ.

No, evidence in court showed that he was walking back to his car when attacked.

It has nothing about "team gun", hell there were photos and texts of illegal gun and drug sales by Trayvon on Trayvon's phone. I am on team facts, evidence, reason, and the law.

You are claiming that it was murder only because some dishonest SJWs fed you a bunch of bullshit just like they did about Michael Brown and Wesley Cook.

The evidence of innocence was overwhelming. Physical evidence showed Zimmerman was violently assaulted.

So? If Zimmerman threw the first push or shove or brandished his gun, TM had the right to beat the shit out of him, including pounding his head into the sidewalk until he was no longer a threat.

Two ear witnesses put Martin hiding behind bushes at the scene

So? What if he just (initially) wanted to confront Zimmerman to ask why the hell he was following him?

A burglary tool found at the scene

So? Burglars have the right to self defense, as do wife/girlfriend beaters.

You are claiming that it was murder only because some dishonest SJWs fed you a bunch of bullshit just like they did about Michael Brown and Wesley Cook.

lol ok. No, I didn't say he should have been convicted (or not). I just said if I had to bet the farm, I would bet that that Zimmerman was at least partially responsible for the incident.

But the gun was holstered, so it didn't happen. Under Florida law, as soon as Zimmerman struggled to get away or screaming for help, that ended the threat. Martin was using lethal force against a lesser threat, if true. But then, your speculation is based entirely speculation about Zimmerman, but ignoring Martin's record of recreational violence. None of the evidence supports your speculation. None of it.

his texts and social media showed him to be violent who enjoyed beating the shit out of people. He told of the technique he learned and was looking forward to testing it out on someone. That someone happened to be Zimmerman.

it gives evidence to Zimmerman's claim that Martin was casing the house. Not while in commission of the crime. Since you are speculating about "if Zimmerman started it", which the person Martin was on the phone with did not hear, let's speculate if Zimmerman didn't walk by. Say he drove off, or took a different route to his car. Would Martin go back to where he was staying, or would he have hit the house he was in front of? Since the occupant was home, one of the ear witnesses, would he have tested out the technique on her instead?

If you look at Martin's less than stellar record, you could easily said the opposite. When he was sent packing to Sanford, the burglary rate in that part of Miami did go down.

threat in a grappling situation.

Again, there is no evidence Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.

while I know such recantations are not unusual, that doesn't have anything to do here, other than maybe one. My only experience with DV was a classmate in elementary school who had a drunken step dad who used to beat him and his mom. One day step dad had mom on the floor beating her to death until my classmate put an abrupt end to the violence, which the whole neighborhood heard.

All of the known allegations were after the shooting and two were proven false. The middle one is a maybe based on my knowledge.

The "aggressor" is the person who initiates violence. The court did not determine that this was Zimmerman. You may have beliefs to the contrary, but they have no bearing on the legal issue.


That varies from state to state. Florida state law does not allow the aggressor to use deadly force, with two exceptions:


In other words, even though you may have initiated the fight, you are not legally obligated to allow the other person to kill you. If you stop fighting and the other does not, you are no longer the aggressor.

in the right because guns are holy objects in America.

I'm not talking about what the law says or doesn't say, I'm talking about how the law is applied (just like it's just as illegal for off duty cops to speed or drive drunk as any citizen but they are less likely to face consequences for either of those behaviors).

If you described a two person encounter to 100 people and it ended with one person pulling a gun to kill in self defense... and then described the exact same encounter to another 100 people but just changed "gun" to "knife" or even "fists"...

Well, the gunner is likely to get viewed more positively overall than the stabber or the puncher.

... then you're living in a world of your own imagining. That is simply not true legally, morally, or culturally. I deal with gun owners on a daily basis, and I've never heard anything remotely like that.


If that were true, then no one would ever be convicted of murdering someone with a firearm.


Where do you get this stuff? It's ludicrous and cartoonish: "He shoved me, so I punched him" vs. "He shoved me, so I shot him." And you're claiming that the latter would get more public approval in contemporary America?

I would suggest that you need to get out and talk to people more. Your perceptions are seriously skewed.

If that were true, then no one would ever be convicted of murdering someone with a firearm.

When did I say no one would ever be convicted of it? I just said your odds of getting convicted are lower.

Where do you get this stuff? It's ludicrous and cartoonish: "He shoved me, so I punched him" vs. "He shoved me, so I shot him." And you're claiming that the latter would get more public approval in contemporary America?

If you punched him so hard it killed or crippled him? Sure. Especially if he was a big strong guy (or gal) it's pretty much grade A approval to shoot. It's a fucked up situation we have. An armed society is not polite, it's polite up to a point, then after that since anyone and everyone might be armed, it's immediately go to deadly force.

You said this:

Now you're saying this:


You are claiming that anyone who shoots and kills another one in America will be exonerated or not even charged. Your "pretty much" preface provides only the slightest pretext of plausible deniability. And I'm still telling you that it's manifestly untrue that someone who defends himself/herself with a firearm has a better chance of acquittal than someone who uses a less deadly means. The law doesn't allow for that, nor does public opinion. Your contention is absurd.

that is why Rick Scott chose Corey. It also the corruption and dishonesty of the media.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/11/22341/3139/crimenews/Benjamin-Crump-Who-Screamed-Doesn-t-Matter

what value is the opinion that gives a rambling rant by someone who doesn't seem to know the basic facts of the case?