Which video clip is that? I can't seem to find that in the several hundred pages of released evidence.
This is from the guy who think Z is guilty of murder because he broke known neighborhood watch rules!
The forensics tell the story.
forensics tell the story, so you actually believe in science versus your god rantings
Dan, you know you evolved from an ape, right?
i don't want to get into with you. Remember, I am essentially the only person that doesn't talk about your personal life or business on here. I guess I have exploited your low level of intelligence once or twice.
Which video clip is that? I can't seem to find that in the several hundred pages of released evidence.
This is from the guy who think Z is guilty of murder because he broke known neighborhood watch rules!
When did I say that? (Whoops! You're lying again -- as you did re: Trayvon's height, THC levels, Neighborhood Watch, jury selection, Z's contact with the prosecution ...)
Horse wrote:The forensics tell the story.
It's "forensics tells." And neither you nor we have seen all of the evidence; you haven't even seen all of what's publicly available; you blow off what you don't like; and your concept of forensics is "my guess is."
Which video clip is that? I can't seem to find that in the several hundred pages of released evidence.
This is from the guy who think Z is guilty of murder because he broke known neighborhood watch rules!
The forensics tell the story.
forensics tell the story, so you actually believe in science versus your god rantings
Dan, you know you evolved from an ape, right?
i don't want to get into with you. Remember, I am essentially the only person that doesn't talk about your personal life or business on here. I guess I have exploited your low level of intelligence once or twice.
So you're above mentioning his personal life but it's okay to call him stupid? Awesome.
Which video clip is that? I can't seem to find that in the several hundred pages of released evidence.
This is from the guy who think Z is guilty of murder because he broke known neighborhood watch rules!
The forensics tell the story.
forensics tell the story, so you actually believe in science versus your god rantings
Dan, you know you evolved from an ape, right?
i don't want to get into with you. Remember, I am essentially the only person that doesn't talk about your personal life or business on here. I guess I have exploited your low level of intelligence once or twice.
So you're above mentioning his personal life but it's okay to call him stupid? Awesome.
VirginiaDave wrote:Just because you're stupid doesn't mean using the words "low level intelligence" is any different.
ok, sorry. my complete and utter inability to make friends much less find a mate of any sort (sans an exorbitant amount of cash) coupled with my severe social handicap is what prevents me from being humorous and/or reasonable. I will have to beg your pardon as science has determined that approximately 96% of my limited brain function is tied to my obsession with hating the police. The other 4% is a combination of cartoons, action figures and any other hobby I can adopt that will, again, add to my inability to find a mate. It is rather complicated so I thank you for bearing with me.
VirginiaDave wrote:Just because you're stupid doesn't mean using the words "low level intelligence" is any different.
ok, sorry. my complete and utter inability to make friends much less find a mate of any sort (sans an exorbitant amount of cash) coupled with my severe social handicap is what prevents me from being humorous and/or reasonable. I will have to beg your pardon as science has determined that approximately 96% of my limited brain function is tied to my obsession with hating the police. The other 4% is a combination of cartoons, action figures and any other hobby I can adopt that will, again, add to my inability to find a mate. It is rather complicated so I thank you for bearing with me.
Laertes, I apologize for what I said. I don't know you at all and I am douchebag for making those remarks. I also shouldn't be in denial about the girth of my wife. Then I go and make the same joke as you by changing your comments, but not as funny.
north ridger wrote:I'm curious Dan. If Zimmerman hadn't had a concealed weapon do you think either him or Martin would be dead today? Or even have serious injuries?
Let’s play the “What If Game….”
What if Z left his house 5 minutes earlier or 5 minutes later? Same “What if” questions apply to Martin. Would Martin still be alive? (hint: they most like would not have crossed paths)
What if Martin continued to run home, instead of choosing to confront Z…would he still be alive today?
What if Martin didn’t throw a punch and then continue to pound Z head into the ground…would he still be alive today?
The "what if" questions are endless and don't solve anything.
Besides, the only reason you asked such a question is to get an opportunity to express your anti-gun opinions…guns kill people…let’s get rid of them!
If that’s your opinion, that’s fine. But, don’t be blaming anyone but yourself, if one day you and your wife become one of the statistics that could have been avoided if only you had a weapon to defend yourself and your wife.
You and people like you seem to think it’s the guns that are evil. Get rid of the guns and the killings will be drastically reduced.
We do agree on one point, guns are dangerous.
The real question is….WHO DECIDES WHO GETS THEM?
You and other libs would like to restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to own guns. The problem then becomes of course, law-abiding citizens will resign themselves to your restrictions.
The criminals…..not so much! .
Why would you want to give the advantage to the criminals? (another question that will undoubtedly be ignored )
It seems to me a gun gives law abiding women for example, a much better chance of defending themselves against an attacker….
Why allow the attacker the advantage?
Washington DC had THE MOST restricted liberal gun laws in the country. Look how that has worked. NOT!
We STILL live in a country, thank God, that gives us a right to defend ourselves against those who wish to do us harm.
This woman’s parents would likely still be alive if it weren’t for liberal laws that restricted her on the use of her gun.
Liberal laws legislate us out of the right to protect ourselves and our family. "The right to bear arms" Does that ring any bells?? It’s our Constitutional Right, Our Constitution that so many liberals just ignore.
Dan the purpose of my question was not to play endless what-if games.
The purpose was to show how guns impact people's behavior, in particular the carrier of a concealed weapon, and your response is very telling. Given everything you have said so far your response to the question should have been "yes, Zimmerman could be dead. Martin could have bashed his head into the concrete until he was dead.Or at least until Zimmerman possibly suffered severe head trauma".
But you didn't say that. Instead you hemmed and hawed and complained about what-ifs.
Why the change all of a sudden? With the gun Zimmerman was in a life or death situation and shot in self defense. Without the gun? Why the change of heart Dan?
Not only have you presented opinion as fact, but you've plagiarized swaths of material from places like wagist.com and from Jeralyn Merritt's much-quoted material ... without crediting them or noting their caveats. And you've presented that as "my thoughts."
north ridger wrote:Dan the purpose of my question was not to play endless what-if games.
The purpose was to show how guns impact people's behavior, in particular the carrier of a concealed weapon, and your response is very telling. Given everything you have said so far your response to the question should have been "yes, Zimmerman could be dead. Martin could have bashed his head into the concrete until he was dead.Or at least until Zimmerman possibly suffered severe head trauma".
But you didn't say that. Instead you hemmed and hawed and complained about what-ifs.
Why the change all of a sudden? With the gun Zimmerman was in a life or death situation and shot in self defense. Without the gun? Why the change of heart Dan?
"I hemmed and complained" that you libs want to restrict law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves, which was your real reason for asking the question.....after all guns kill people!
Btw,I was just wondering, are you going to hang a sign outside your new home that says:
Not only have you presented opinion as fact, but you've plagiarized swaths of material from places like wagist.com and from Jeralyn Merritt's much-quoted material ... without crediting them or noting their caveats. And you've presented that as "my thoughts."
I asked a simple question because I think it's a very useful one to help see how people think about this issue. Here it is even easier because Z said he didn't even remember he had a gun on him until they were struggling. So we have a scenario where everything would be the same, according to you, except the last few seconds. With a gun we know Martin was shot dead. Without Z having a gun in him?
Forgot to mention...you can support the right to bear arms and simultaneously not support citizens walking around with concealed 9mm pistols. The issues are orthogonal.
Shooting a person robbing your home is very different from carrying a concealed pistol in public and stalking people while carrying it.
VirginiaDave wrote:Just because you're stupid doesn't mean using the words "low level intelligence" is any different.
ok, sorry. my complete and utter inability to make friends much less find a mate of any sort (sans an exorbitant amount of cash) coupled with my severe social handicap is what prevents me from being humorous and/or reasonable. I will have to beg your pardon as science has determined that approximately 96% of my limited brain function is tied to my obsession with hating the police. The other 4% is a combination of cartoons, action figures and any other hobby I can adopt that will, again, add to my inability to find a mate. It is rather complicated so I thank you for bearing with me.
Laertes, I apologize for what I said. I don't know you at all and I am douchebag for making those remarks. I also shouldn't be in denial about the girth of my wife. Then I go and make the same joke as you by changing your comments, but not as funny.
Awww, shucks. No problem.
As expected. Not clever at all. Go play with your action figures and I will hang out with my rather fit and attractive wife. Like most instances in life, you lose.
I asked a simple question because I think it's a very useful one to help see how people think about this issue. Here it is even easier because Z said he didn't even remember he had a gun on him until they were struggling. So we have a scenario where everything would be the same, according to you, except the last few seconds. With a gun we know Martin was shot dead. Without Z having a gun in him?
The answer should be easy, right Dan?
I actually gave you more credit than you were due....Of course he wouldn't have been shot if there wasn't a gun present.
north ridger wrote:Forgot to mention...you can support the right to bear arms and simultaneously not support citizens walking around with concealed 9mm pistols. The issues are orthogonal.
Shooting a person robbing your home is very different from carrying a concealed pistol in public and stalking people while carrying it.
Why is it different? One you're defending yourself in your home, the other you're defending yourself in public.
Your "stalking" comment is your anti gun biased showing up.
Z wasn't stalking a person as a criminal would who is about the rob or rape a person would stalk.
He was keeping his eye on a suspicious guy in order to help the police when they arrived.
krakenblood wrote:I don't understand the right-wing outrage about guns. When has the 2nd Amendment ever been seriously threatened by anyone?
This is why our rights have been allowed to be slowly been taken from us.
How so? I have no issue whatsoever with someone having a gun in their home for protection, or whatever they need to hunt with. I know a number of people who hunt, and as long as they eat what they kill, I don't have a problem with that either. The idea that anyone on the street could be walking around with a handgun does make me a little uncomfortable though. Cops are trained to use guns, and are taught when to use them. Some guy with an attitude and a gun, and a few drinks in him, can be very dangerous.
I asked a simple question because I think it's a very useful one to help see how people think about this issue. Here it is even easier because Z said he didn't even remember he had a gun on him until they were struggling. So we have a scenario where everything would be the same, according to you, except the last few seconds. With a gun we know Martin was shot dead. Without Z having a gun in him?
The answer should be easy, right Dan?
I actually gave you more credit than you were due....Of course he wouldn't have been shot if there wasn't a gun present.
Why did you ask such a dopey question?
I didn't ask who would be shot. I asked what the outcome with be if Zimmerman didn't have a gun on him.
Given your statements you said you believed Z was in fear of his life and had forgotten he even had a gun. So following your logic, Dan, if Z didn't have a gun that night Z would be dead or have suffered serious head trauma.
Not only have you presented opinion as fact, but you've plagiarized swaths of material from places like wagist.com and from Jeralyn Merritt's much-quoted material ... without crediting them or noting their caveats. And you've presented that as "my thoughts."
Show me
Just one small and recent example:
Horse wrote:In fact, the very next day, and without any legal representation, Zimmerman voluntarily took the police back to the scene. There, he reenacted what happened. The police video taped the whole thing.
From http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/ ... -zimmerman: "Then the next day, still without any attorney present or legal advice, Zimmerman took the police back to the scene of the shooting at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, and reenacted what happened on the evening of February 26th with them, step-by-step on video"
That's just a detail ... because most of your material -- except for the rantings -- consists of direct uncredited lifts from other people and sites, cobbled together and presented as "my thoughts." (The lifts are obvious to someone who has read the originals -- esp when you break style and start to speak in a known writer's distinct voice, or comically mangle things to try to hide your source.)
Apparently, ranting is the only thing you can do in your own words.
And not once have you referred directly to the released evidence, a/k/a the "evidence dump," or to the motions in the case -- several hundred pages that include the autopsy (re: which you were clueless), EMS report, full witness statements, and account re: the Zs' money chats (which you claimed I made up). Why is that?
north ridger wrote:Forgot to mention...you can support the right to bear arms and simultaneously not support citizens walking around with concealed 9mm pistols. The issues are orthogonal.
Shooting a person robbing your home is very different from carrying a concealed pistol in public and stalking people while carrying it.
Why is it different? One you're defending yourself in your home, the other you're defending yourself in public.
Your "stalking" comment is your anti gun biased showing up.
Z wasn't stalking a person as a criminal would who is about the rob or rape a person would stalk.
He was keeping his eye on a suspicious guy in order to help the police when they arrived.
The difference is circumstances. You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater for yucks, which shows free speech has limits when people's lives are put in danger. Guns are the same. Carrying a rifle to hunt or having a gun in your home is not the same as carrying a concealed pistol. The pistol is a danger to those around you who are unaware that you have a powerful long-distance weapon on your person.
Your own statements show how dangerous it is. You've said if a man came at your with a knife at 12 feet you'd pull out you gun and keep shooting until you were out of bullets. How about all the other people you shoot by mistake when some of your shots go wild? Don't those innocent bystanders have the right not to be shot by a loose cannon like you?
krakenblood wrote:How so? I have no issue whatsoever with someone having a gun in their home for protection, or whatever they need to hunt with. I know a number of people who hunt, and as long as they eat what they kill
Where in the Second Amendment does it say you have to eat what you kill? Where in the Second Amendment does it say you can only have gun in your home?
The idea that anyone on the street could be walking around with a handgun does make me a little uncomfortable though.
The idea of a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon makes me feel just a little more secure if something were to go down when a bad guy shows up with one.
You'd rather have nothing.
You'd rather ignore the Constitution that says we have a right to defend ourselves against the "bad guys"
Cops are trained to use guns, and are taught when to use them. Some guy with an attitude and a gun, and a few drinks in him, can be very dangerous.
Citizens should also be trained to use guns, and are taught when to use them....and many if not most are.
Dan, you carrying a concealed handgun mostly just ups the chance of you facing manslaughter or assault with a deadly weapons charge. You clearly value your right to defend yourself over other people's right not to get shot by you. Or are you a perfect marksman under pressure?
krakenblood wrote:How so? I have no issue whatsoever with someone having a gun in their home for protection, or whatever they need to hunt with. I know a number of people who hunt, and as long as they eat what they kill
Where in the Second Amendment does it say you have to eat what you kill? Where in the Second Amendment does it say you can only have gun in your home?
The idea that anyone on the street could be walking around with a handgun does make me a little uncomfortable though.
The idea of a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon makes me feel just a little more secure if something were to go down when a bad guy shows up with one.
You'd rather have nothing.
You'd rather ignore the Constitution that says we have a right to defend ourselves against the "bad guys"
Cops are trained to use guns, and are taught when to use them. Some guy with an attitude and a gun, and a few drinks in him, can be very dangerous.
Citizens should also be trained to use guns, and are taught when to use them....and many if not most are.
Well since the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention anything about hunting, you don't legally have to eat what you kill. But what kind of person kills a deer just for fun, and then walks away? Mankind has always hunted wild animals for survival. It's a recent thing that men kill animals just for fun.
How do you know the person walking down the street with a concealed pistol is a law abiding citizen? It's not like criminals walk around with signs on their backs.
Your own statements show how dangerous it is. You've said if a man came at your with a knife at 12 feet you'd pull out you gun and keep shooting until you were out of bullets. How about all the other people you shoot by mistake when some of your shots go wild? Don't those innocent bystanders have the right not to be shot by a loose cannon like you?
There are laws that protect "those innocent bystanders"
A well trained person with a gun will not fire a weapon if there is a good chance that an innocent person might get hit.
krakenblood wrote:Well since the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention anything about hunting, you don't legally have to eat what you kill. But what kind of person kills a deer just for fun, and then walks away? Mankind has always hunted wild animals for survival. It's a recent thing that men kill animals just for fun.
Ignorance once again. One can't just kill a dear legally and walk away. There's a process to follow, and leavingf it there is not part of the process.
That being said, many people sell the meat, others give it away, other decorate their homes and offices with them.
How do you know the person walking down the street with a concealed pistol is a law abiding citizen? It's not like criminals walk around with signs on their backs.
To obtain a CHL one has to go through a very extensive FBI background check .
"The person walking down the street with a concealed pistol" is more than likely a more law abiding citizen than the average guy walking down the street.
Last edited by Horse on 08 Jun 2012, 10:55, edited 1 time in total.
The pistol is a danger to those around you who are unaware that you have a powerful long-distance weapon on your person.
The pistol is a danger
I can assure you that pistol is not the problem. It will not go off unless someone pulls the trigger.
I doubt anyone would be particularly afraid of you without a handgun.
With a handgun? You've stated repeatedly that you would use your concealed weapon in an obviously wreckless and dangerous manner if you were confronted with an assailant. What's really scary is that you think your right to defend yourself trumps other people's right not to get shot by you as collateral damage.
Your own statements show how dangerous it is. You've said if a man came at your with a knife at 12 feet you'd pull out you gun and keep shooting until you were out of bullets. How about all the other people you shoot by mistake when some of your shots go wild? Don't those innocent bystanders have the right not to be shot by a loose cannon like you?
There are laws that protect "those innocent bystanders"
A well trained person with a gun will not fire a weapon if there is a good chance that an innocent person might get hit.
If you miss your assailant with one round how far will that bullet go where it could potentially hit someone else?
If you empty your clip how many bullets will hit your target and how many will miss?
Remember Dan you've already said here you'd empty your clip at an assailant coming at you. That doesn't sound like a professional taking careful assessment of bystanders around him. It sounds like...you.
north ridger wrote:I doubt anyone would be particularly afraid of you without a handgun.
Why would I want anyone to be afraid of me? I'm only interested in the guy wishing to do harm to me and my family to be afraid.
With a handgun? You've stated repeatedly that you would use your concealed weapon in an obviously wreckless and dangerous manner if you were confronted with an assailant.
"wreckless and dangerous manner?"
I've never said that. Stop lying.
What's really scary is that you think your right to defend yourself trumps other people's right not to get shot by you as collateral damage.
[/quote]
Stop lying. I never said that nor do I believe it. I would be legally accountable if some innocent person got shot while I was defending myself.
I doubt anyone would be particularly afraid of you without a handgun.
Why would I want anyone to be afraid of me? I'm only interested in the guy wishing to do harm to me and my family to be afraid.
With a handgun? You've stated repeatedly that you would use your concealed weapon in an obviously wreckless and dangerous manner if you were confronted with an assailant.
"wreckless and dangerous manner?"
I've never said that. Stop lying.
What's really scary is that you think your right to defend yourself trumps other people's right not to get shot by you as collateral damage.
Stop lying. I never said that nor do I believe it. I would be legally accountable if some innocent person got shot while I was defending myself.
NR was referring to the risk-taking that you endorse.
north ridger wrote:If you miss your assailant with one round how far will that bullet go where it could potentially hit someone else?
I would be legally accountable for the decision I were to make at that time.
Wrong decision ...I could end up in prison.
If you empty your clip how many bullets will hit your target and how many will miss?
Find out what rule #4 is Gun Safety.
Remember Dan you've already said here you'd empty your clip at an assailant coming at you. That doesn't sound like a professional taking careful assessment of bystanders around him. It sounds like...you.
Stop making straw man arguments. I made that comment in a context where there were no innocent bystanders around. Now, you're being misleading by making the comment that I wouldn't care if innocent bystanders were around. That's a lie! But that's all you have.
Dan when an incident goes down things move rapidly. Based on your comments I have zero confidence that you would take the time to assess the disposition of bystanders around you and to become fully aware of the situation before taking action.
You have demonstrated here that you are hasty and fairly lazy. And you like to carry an easily concealed handgun "just in case". And that you feel there are situations where emptying your clip into an assailant is appropriate.
Ask any professional what he thinks of emptying your clip in ANY situation with a bad guy. That bit alone shows how dangerous an individual you are with a gun.
north ridger wrote:Dan when an incident goes down things move rapidly. Based on your comments I have zero confidence that you would take the time to assess the disposition of bystanders around you and to become fully aware of the situation before taking action.
You have demonstrated here that you are hasty and fairly lazy. And you like to carry an easily concealed handgun "just in case". And that you feel there are situations where emptying your clip into an assailant is appropriate.
Ask any professional what he thinks of emptying your clip in ANY situation with a bad guy. That bit alone shows how dangerous an individual you are with a gun.
)