Another Stellar Day for Gun Owners

I thought that was all you three understood. I mean all I have seen from you 3 is innuendo and lies, but you still have Zimmerman convicted. Also, take into consideration that it was my response to Dershowitz was wrong and an attempt to say it is Fox's fault. Now there is a liberal's expert opinion for you.

 

Run-ins with pit bull reportedly led Zimmerman, wife to get guns

George Zimmerman and his wife began carrying handguns after repeated run-ins with a pit bull, and the volunteer neighborhood watchman continued his armed vigil over a gated community in Sanford, Fla., as a rash of burglaries left neighbors frightened, according to a report.

The couple took firearms training courses and got handguns and concealed carry permits in late 2009 -- three years before Zimmerman shot unarmed teen Trayvon Martin dead -- after a pit bull named Big Boi menaced Shellie Zimmerman near their home, Reuters reported.

Big Boi later spooked a dog owned by Zimmerman's mother-in-law, prompting the Zimmermans to contact Seminole County Animal Services and to buy pepper spray, the news agency reported. After a third encounter with the dog, Zimmerman called authorities and an officer who came to the house advised him to take up arms.
"Don't use pepper spray," the officer told the Zimmermans, (emphasis mine) according to a friend who relayed the conversation to a Reuters reporter. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter-second for the dog to jump you. Get a gun." (emphasis mine).

That November, Reuters reported, the Zimmermans heeded that advice and bought two guns in early December. George Zimmerman selected a lightweight Kel-Tec PF-9 9-mm. handgun. It is not clear if that was the same gun that killed Martin on Feb. 26, after a confrontation. Zimmerman, 28, who claims he acted in self-defense after Martin attacked him, has been charged with second-degree murder. He went into hiding after being released from jail on $150,000 bond.

Prior to the fateful encounter with Martin, Zimmerman's attention had shifted from Big Boi to a string of robberies that began to plague the community sometime around June 2011, Reuters reported. He was later asked by the homeowners association to launch a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman began carrying the 9-mm. handgun as his walked his dog -- a violation of neighborhood-watch guidelines, but not a crime.

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/26/encounters-with-pit-bull-reportedly-led-zimmerman-wife-to-get-guns/#ixzz1tAiAGKf3​

 

Thank you. I've removed most of your comments from the article as they would be distracting.

That's a given.

​

I took the likelyhood of Zimmerman having wounds as "a given" throughout this thread. To be clear though, Zimmerman claims the wounds came from a beating he received from Martin, and while I contend that is indeed highly likely, it also means there may be another explanation, such as self-infliction, which I view as more unlikely than the wounds being the result of a fight between the two.​

​

Corey stated the following in that release: (quoted from http://m.jacksonville.com/news/crim...charges-george-zimmerman-second-degree-murder)​

...and...

...while the actual document stating the charges are here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88952000/George-Zimmerman-Information-Document

I strongly disagree. To the best of my knowledge, Corey is under no such obligation. The document stating the charges is just that, the charges. Stating any physical injuries to Zimmerman is an obligation of the Defense , not the Prosecution, especially in formal charges.​

The charge of manslaughter, later more accurately expressed as involuntary manslaughter, was endorsed by me from the begining of this thread. I've also stated previously that the charge of 2nd-degree murder was excessive, but that it may be possible they had done so under the idea that they may be able to bring charges of a lesser offense later on. I haven't said so previously, but another reason may be to counter any anticipated plea-bargain offered by the Defense.​

​

​

All along you've said we shouldn't pre-judge Zimmerman, true... and then that call was followed by pre-judgements of your own. That's hypocritical.

Take this post of yours: You think any of this is relevant? Not in my opinion, as I've stated these points before, points you considered "jumping to conclusions" yet now claim as your own, all while condemning others for the same thing mentioned in their posts!

Hypocritical as hell, IMO.

 

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I posted an article that referenced Alan Dershowitz's comments. You can read it for yourself. I wasn't making the comments personally.

Now, what I did say and what you've actually agreed with, is that I've said that I think everyone should wait until the facts are presented before making a judgment. You've certainly not done that in this case. You've pre-judged the guy (that's called "prejudice", BTW) and have already convicted him.

Just recently, one of the forum members here contradicted himself by saying that Zimmerman was a member of Neighborhood Watch. Then he said he wasn't a member. Which is it? Did he hear these things from different news sources? Now, we have photos of a wound on Zimmerman's head which some members here said never existed. Then we had members here saying that Zimmerman should obey the cops when he talked to them on the telephone. Now, we hear that a cop told Zimmerman to "get a gun". Are you going to agree that Zimmerman should obey the cop in "getting a gun"? There are just too many things that are unknown in this case and all the evidence hasn't been presented. In fact, evidence is still being found! It's simply too early to convict this man. Let the trial (if there is, indeed, a trial) proceed. I'm simply asking that you don't convict this man in the Court of Public Opinion. Is that really too much to ask?

 

We did? (turns and yells at the lefties) Allright, who the hell hanged Zimmerman here? (receives response, replys to the lefties) ...Oh, ...yeah, ...well I did recently accuse them of lacking originality... so I'm partly to blame for the bs.

Yes, I've decided on the case, for the most general issues. Yes, I've stated my conclusions (which have been shown to be highly accurate btw), which you have repeatedly attempted to stop. In effect, you are attempting to censor what is said here about the case from anyone on the left, yet wish to maintain your own right to comment. Pathetic.

 

That's bs lol... why would you even want to imitate a logic "style" that you absolutely hate? Nahhh, the truth is you're using rightie-logic all along.

Once again though, any injuries Zimmerman had that night are highly likely to have been as a result of a physical altercation between him and Martin... but that hasn't been proven to be true. There are other, less likely possibilities, self-infliction being among the nore obvious possibilities, that cannot be discounted.

It's interesting to me that while coin is focusing almost exclsively on getting the lefties here to stop talking about this subject, to in effect censor them, you yourself haven't been as determined. I suppose censoring isn't in your blood as thickly as it is in coin's, though that may be the result of you having posted your own thought on the case early on in this thread. Eh. To each his own.

 

...and then he joins coin on his bs censorship train lol...

 

As I mentioned earlier, while laid up I watched the coverage of this story in great depth. I watched both network & cable news coverage and came to the conclusion I posted previously.
Now, I think Zimmerman was over charged and I suspect it was done intentionally. If the prosecution wanted to see him punished for what happened it would be much easier to get a guilty verdict on lesser charges. Charging him with a crime was nothing more than a reaction to national coverage and by charging him to the extend they did it is a virtual lock he will be found not guilty.

 

As I've stated previously, I myself have no issue with Zimmerman carrying a concealed weapon, but the obvious point is that on the night of the shooting he failed to use it properly, and that resulted in Martin's death.

 

They really don't care what the facts are. I mean CoinOKC posts a lawyer's opinion, a liberal lawyer at that, and gets accused of being a hypocrite for demeaning people for making up their mind, but the lawyers post say CoinOKC has made up his mind. HUH? Then CoinOKC is accused of trying to censure the thread? Posting something to talk about is there to censure/stop discussion. I think they are running out of ways to twist the innuendo and lies.

 

You beat me to it, RLM. I was going to say this exact same thing. If the liberals here would go back and read my posts, I've stated that I would like all facts presented and I would certainly relish discussing them. I don't see how that's in any way, shape or form "censorship" or wanting to stop the conversation. IQ<1 has said it, but that doesn't make it so. Far from it. I challenge any reasonable person on this forum to show where I've tried to "censor" the discussion. Quite the opposite is true, in fact.

Now, I've presented some new articles concerning the incident and have asked for opinions. But, all I've received is attacks from the Left. Go figure. Nothing new there.

 

Who says he "failed to use it properly"? Has the man been tried in court and proven to have "failed to use it properly". It may come out in court that Zimmerman was in fear for his life and used the weapon to defend himself. If that's the case, I wouldn't say he "failed to use it properly". Man, you like to jump to conclusions!

 

I have a better question. Just exactly how can a poster possibly censure a thread? Now moderators can do it, but posters?

 

Sorry, my gf interrupted me for sex, so it took a while to respond. I thoroughly enjoyed the interruption.

...anyway...as to the comment:

Saying so and it being true are two different things. While I accept that you are of that opinion, I myself consider your claim to be in the realm of fantasy, as there is ample evidence to the contrary.

Claiming the article isn't your opinion is about as lame an excuse as you can get. You posted the article to make a particular point, therefore the article is directly related to your opinion. You went soo far as to write comments on the article itself, in direct support of the points made in the article.

Again, it's hypocritical ..and an attempt at censorship...to call on others to cease chatting about the incident in a way you do not approve of while you yourself are under no restrictions from us.

So, please ...continue postting at your leisure, as we will be doing the same. If that means you will continue to call for us to cease, then so be it. Just don't expect us to obey lol
o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o
The following comments and responses, originally in one large paragraph, have been separated for clarity's sake.

In this instance, I choose not to answer for someone else's comments. Feel free to restate your questions to the appropriate person.

Again, that was never my personal position, so I'm not going to respond any further than that.

That's been my position throughout this thread, and I stand by it.

Again, feel free to respond to a cop's order with "No.", just don't expect a favorable response from the cop.

Now, if you want to rehash the details of why this phone call is a key point to me, I can oblige. However, since I've stated them repeatedly in this thread, I don't feel the need to restate them here at this time, as it is quite involved ...but if you want me to explain it to you again I can.

From my point of view this is a silly attempt to gain some self-respect back from the beatings you've taken in this thread. My position all along has been that Zimmerman had the right to carry a concealed gun, but failed to use it properly.

There are two points I'd like to make here. One: No one here is convicting Zimmerman. We all have our opinions and we state them, but those opinions are not a conviction... that takes place in a courtroom alone. Two: Hypocrite! What gives you the right to comment about evidence while simultaneously telling the lefties here that they can't?

Again, who here is impeding any trial? You continuously confuse this forum with the legal system. That confusion is apparently intentional, as it ignores reality with a seemingly willful intent.

Nope, it isn't too much to ask, but it's hypocritical to ask considering you yourself state your own opinions on the incident. Besides, the point of a forum such as this is to discuss the issues. What you are asking flys straight into the face of that.

So, I shall continue to state my opinions, despite your protestations that they "convict" Zimmerman. It's highly probable you will continue to object, and continue to post information about the incident, in direct conflict with yourself. Stubborn as always, eh? lol

 

Again, as before after one of your previous comments, I agree... with minor differences of opinion.

While I do believe the attention this case has gotten in the press is the reason Zimmerman became charged with a crime, I go further and say that it was warranted.

I too believe the charge of 2nd-degree murder is unwarranted, but have also stated the likelyhood they were made with the understanding that a plea-bargain may be attempted by the Defense, or a lesser charge could be filed later on. As such, I disagree that Zimmerman is likely to be found not guilty, though there's always that possibility in any trial.

On a side note: It feels somehow wrong for us to agree so much on something lol

 

I'm pretty certain you mean me and not "they" so I'll respond.

Of course facts matter to me, for you to say otherwise is obtuse. That I believe coin is being a hypocrite, particularly in this thread, is separate from the liberal lawyers statements.

I also stand by my accusation that, by objecting to what people are writing regarding the incident, to ask them to only write about things according to coin's specific preferences, that is an attempt at censorship by coin. And you support coin without pause while he does that, so you bear some of that responsibility yourself.

Far from being innuendo don't you agree? This is after all a direct accusation, with explanations as to why it is believed to be true. There are no twists to it, there are no lies (the accusation being an opinion). What you may be expressing is your disbelief that it could be true, that such a thing can only be stated using twists and lies. The reason that may be your expectation is that is what you yourself would do under the circumstances. Food for thought lol

It's really not that complicated, but you insist on making it so lol

 

I'm assuming that any evidence I provide would be automatically dismissed by you as a matter of course, but in any case I find it impractical to provide the evidence. The sheer number of posts you've made containing the proof, even edited to provide a concentrated summary, may be too large to post here.

However, a reasonable person may or may not be convinced of my accusations, but one thing that cannot be denied is your repeated calls for people to not pre-judge or "convict" Zimmerman on this forum. Those calls are the basis of my accusation. Since they are easily found here in this thread, and they are many, I shall not produce them as you've challenged.

Instead I direct you, as well as anyone else who may be interested (yawns), to review the thread with the intention of discerning whether or not my allegations are true. What a perfectly pointless exercise that would be! lol

 

Another obtuse comment. I say he failed to use it properly, and I've explained why previously in this thread. It's likely you have either failed to read it or you have failed to comprehend it, therefore I am forced to also question your perceptive abilities. Unless of course this failure is intentional.

Proper use of a gun is something that comes naturally with experience. Without sufficient experience people like Martin get killed. Laugh that one off.

 

IQ you are only convincing them that they are right and not by any flaws in your logic but simply by challenging their beliefs at all. That is all they can take from your posts. Sad but why fuel the anger of the intellectually challenged?

 

In one my earliest statements here, probably the first, I stated my repulsion on how some here have treated this incident. I want to clarify that somewhat.

Most of my outrage is directed specifically at coin's seeming indifference to Martin's death. His focus has been on having Zimmerman shown in the best possible light. Consequently, any comments about the incident made by others questioning how the incident may have occurred have been objected to by coin.

rlm, of course, has coin's back so-to-speak, but that's to be expected somewhat, and I don't view his particular posts as overly offensive. Uncharacteristically, or maybe surprisingly, David and I only differ on a superficial point here and there, so I have no specific complaints against him.

To the point: Whether or not any of us believe that shooting is justified isn't relevant. What we all should remember here is that the shooting ended the life of someone, and that is worthy of our attention.