George Zimmerman Trial

[Redbar]

A few things:

If my neighborhood had a watch and I was on it, and I saw someone suspicious walking in the rain, after I notified the police, if I had an occasion to interact with the person, my first words would be something like, "Hey are you all right? I see you walking around in the rain, are you looking for an address or do you need me to call someone for you?" I would probably say that even and especially if they turned to me and said, "why are you following me?"
-Secondly, I understand the verdict in a legal setting, but I think there are some more lasting moral and cultural problems with the law encouraging/allowing this type of interaction between people.
-Thirdly, everyone saying this is not about race, should go back and look at the first couple of pages of this thread. Most were SURE there would be rioting, any decent person would take offense to such a low view of another race of people. Especially since, crimes of poverty excluded, that race has been pretty peaceful in the face of legal, state endorsed, slavery, and then constant institutional racism. One poster in his glee and I guess victory lap??? even tried to inflame the thread that there was in fact rioting.
-Finally, I think there are a few ideas in this thread that should be taken forward and looked at in calmer days, some important ones being Bogtrotter's thoughts on life v. property, the gun lobby, the media's agenda, etc...

 

[Bluto]

A defamation case against ABC or NBC will never get to court. They will definitely settle before it comes to that. Kind of sad and ironic that Zimmerman could end up being a millionaire when all is said and done but may not survive to use the money if some of these death threat are real.

Well, I guess I just don't see people who live close to one another that unite to help protect themselves and their property as lunatics.

And also, it's certainly debatable that GZ is a "paranoid wannabe cop out patrolling the streets with a gun." If you want to believe that, fine. What isn't debatable though is that GZ is the one and only representation of a citizen involved in a neighborhood watch. I'd be willing to bet that almost all involved in neighborhood watches are pretty good, decent people. Your disdain for GZ leads you to believe that neighborhood watches are somehow inherently bad? That'd be like me believing virtually all black teenage boys are bad because I once saw one out in my neighborhood trespassing, loitering, and vandalizing.

I have no problem with a neighborhood watch. An armed neighborhood watch? That's a whole different ball of wax and I see nothing but bad things happening. By the way aren't we experiencing one of the lowest levels of violent crime in our recent history? If so why the need for armed citizen patrols?

 

[GoIrish41]

Or he will end up paying the Martins all his millions if he loses the civil case.

My understanding is that Zimmerman will have to testify in the civil case, exposing him to the prosect of explaining his plethora of inconsistencies and unbelievable statements. Plus the burden of proof is lower in a civil trial.

 

[GoIrish41]

I have no problem with a neighborhood watch. An armed neighborhood watch? That's a whole different ball of wax and I see nothing but bad things happening. By the way aren't we experiencing one of the lowest levels of violent crime in our recent history? If so why the need for armed citizen patrols?

I've read reports that Zimmerman's HOA has already settled with the Martin family for well over a million dollars. They clearly understand that it was inappropriate for Zimmerman to be armed on patrol in his neighborhood.

 

[Woneone]

I have no problem with a neighborhood watch. An armed neighborhood watch? That's a whole different ball of wax and I see nothing but bad things happening. By the way aren't we experiencing one of the lowest levels of violent crime in our recent history? If so why the need for armed citizen patrols?

I believe we also have a record number citizens with Conceal and Carry.

 

[Woneone]

How about race as inferior to class? As in a class thing. Today, as evidence that this existed, Martin supporters pointed out all the people that insisted there would be violence over the verdict. They were more wrong and were racist and "class"ist. And they pointed out how morally wrong that was.

Guess we shouldn't have been worried at all:

“If Zimmerman get off ima shoot the first #hispanic/white I see"

“If they don’t kill Zimmerman Ima kill me a cracka.”

Twitter lynch mob threatens to kill George Zimmerman | Twitchy

New Facebook Groups To “Kill George Zimmerman” As Thousands Threaten To Riot // Mr. Conservative

Na. False alarm people. False alarm.

 

[GoIrish41]

Guess we shouldn't have been worried at all:

“If Zimmerman get off ima shoot the first #hispanic/white I see"

“If they don’t kill Zimmerman Ima kill me a cracka.”

Twitter lynch mob threatens to kill George Zimmerman | Twitchy

New Facebook Groups To “Kill George Zimmerman” As Thousands Threaten To Riot // Mr. Conservative

Na. False alarm people. False alarm.

Talking about the inevitability of riots was akin to what Zimmerman did when he followed that "fvcking punk" and made sure he wasn't going to be like all the others who "always got away." It is profiling and it is horribly offensive. I'm not defending anyone who makes those kinds of idiotic comments, but so far as I know none of them have acted on them. Zimmerman did.

 

[Bluto]

I believe we also have a record number citizens with Conceal and Carry.

So you think there is a correlation? I have not seen a single piece of evidence to support this claim. If you want to go back in history and look at say the frontier West as a case study a heavily armed population had a strong correlation with death and violence as crazy as that may seem. In my opinion lax conceal and carry standards coupled with stand your ground type legislation heaped on top of good old American paranoia is gonna lead to nothing but bad things. Oh wait it already has.

 

[Woneone]

Talking about the inevitability of riots was akin to what Zimmerman did when he followed that "fvcking punk" and made sure he wasn't going to be like all the others who "always got away." It is profiling and it is horribly offensive. I'm not defending anyone who makes those kinds of idiotic comments, but so far as I know none of them have acted on them. Zimmerman did.

If it's your opinion that GZ uttered those words, had the intention to kill, followed TM, and shot him cold blood, Ok. You're entitled to that opinion. I don't share it. In the very least your implying that "Fvcking punk" and "Always got away" == Deserves to die. I don't have to make that inference here.

In any case, the point of the post was the speculation of riots. I don't see how you can speculate anything BUT that when, well, they're telling you they're going to do it.

It was a great thing for this country that they didn't. Well, unless you're white. Then you're racist.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Lax I could not quote your post # 1610. Internal server errors abound.

For a moderator, the way you started the post was incredibly crass, and just wrong. It was stupid and shortsighted to, because it opens the opportunity for everyone to nitpick at each other. I don't even consider the standard of factually correct because of the absolute abdominal bull shiit that has been posted on this thread in the guise of "conservative media."

Some of this was inflammatory stuff, something that I kind of waited for moderators to remove but other than the jackoff that started the most racist race thread, I haven't seen much. And this is a curious late date to start for you.

One every expert and that was five on CNN, so you can review the tapes specifically, state that as tough as the case was they thought the prosecution had met the burden of proof, four for M2, the remaining for manslaughter. None though self defense was justified, and two had a conversation about how Zimmerman could now ask for a stand your ground hearing in the advent of a wrongful death suit, which is what I am referring to as a civil suit. As far as a civil rights suit, every expert on ABC, CBS, and CNN stated that the government would have to show that GZ acted on a basis of racial bias, and they would have to start with showing a pattern of that behavior, which they couldn't. WATCH THE TAPES YOURSELF!

Also, in the last two paragraphs (Secondly and Thirdly), you should go back to law school. I bet the monetary value of all claims of GZ to liability above printing corrections and retractions is negligible. I think if we dragged it out I could prove it, but I don't care to. I will offer common sense, if GZ had golden claims, why do you think his attorneys offered to "help recover some of his legal fees from the state", which is nearly a quote?

Nope, today the big guy does not lose in civil court. Like the friend of my mother that went in for a biopsy and got a mastectomy, of the wrong breast. A radical Mastectomy. Then she went in to get her biopsy of her remaining breast. They needed to do a partial-mastectomy, they arbitrarily did a radical. She won a seven million dollar award. Good huh? The hospital kept the case in court repeatedly slowing down the process until the woman died. The hospital saved their money. Case closed.

Final thoughts of TM case. I hope this is one too many for the gun lobby and people realize they can change stupid laws. I hope they saw what I did. That Andrea Corey lady was a bought dupe of the gun lobby. I don't know that any of the prosecutors really wanted to win. Did anyone ask NRA affiliations with the prosecutors office or the jury?

Final thoughts for this thread. Citing my factual inaccuracies in this thread, kind of like bringing coals to New Castle, an old cliché that my family uses.

Thoughts for IE. I guess it is time to take a break for a while.

 

[Woneone]

So you think there is a correlation? I have not seen a single piece of evidence to support this claim. If you want to go back in history and look at say the frontier West as a case study a heavily armed population had a strong correlation with death and violence as crazy as that may seem. In my opinion lax conceal and carry standards coupled with stand your ground type legislation heaped on top of good old American paranoia is gonna lead to nothing but bad things. Oh wait it already has.

I dunno, just pointing it out. A quick Google search does suggest a correlation however.

And a side note. I remember hearing that after the Movie Theater tragedy in Colorado, there were 2 other Movie Theaters on the killers way to the eventual theater he shot up. Why skip them? Both allowed conceal and carry in the theater.

 

[irishog77]

For a moderator, the way you started the post was incredibly crass, and just wrong. It was stupid and shortsighted to, because it opens the opportunity for everyone to nitpick at each other. I don't even consider the standard of factually correct because of the absolute abdominal bull shiit that has been posted on this thread in the guise of "conservative media."

Some of this was inflammatory stuff, something that I kind of waited for moderators to remove but other than the jackoff that started the most racist race thread, I haven't seen much. And this is a curious late date to start for you.

One every expert and that was five on CNN, so you can review the tapes specifically, state that as tough as the case was they thought the prosecution had met the burden of proof, four for M2, the remaining for manslaughter. None though self defense was justified, and two had a conversation about how Zimmerman could now ask for a stand your ground hearing in the advent of a wrongful death suit, which is what I am referring to as a civil suit. As far as a civil rights suit, every expert on ABC, CBS, and CNN stated that the government would have to show that GZ acted on a basis of racial bias, and they would have to start with showing a pattern of that behavior, which they couldn't. WATCH THE TAPES YOURSELF!

Also, in the two paragraphs that I highlighted, you should go back to law school. I bet the monetary value of all claims of GZ to liability above printing corrections and retractions is negligible. I think if we dragged it out I could prove it, but I don't care to. I will offer common sense, if GZ had golden claims, why do you think his attorneys offered to "help recover some of his legal fees from the state", which is nearly a quote?

Nope, today the big guy does not lose in civil court. Like the friend of my mother that went in for a biopsy and got a mastectomy, of the wrong breast. A radical Mastectomy. Then she went in to get her biopsy of her remaining breast. They needed to do a partial-mastectomy, they arbitrarily did a radical. She won a seven million dollar award. Good huh? The hospital kept the case in court repeatedly slowing down the process until the woman died. The hospital saved their money. Case closed.

Final thoughts of TM case. I hope this is one too many for the gun lobby and people realize they can change stupid laws. I hope they saw what I did. That Andrea Corey lady was a bought dupe of the gun lobby. I don't know that any of the prosecutors really wanted to win. Did anyone ask NRA affiliations with the prosecutors office or the jury?

Final thoughts for this thread. Citing my factual inaccuracies in this thread, kind of like bringing coals to New Castle, an old cliché that my family uses.

Thoughts for IE. I guess it is time to take a break for a while.

A departing salvo.

Can we get some v-action on when he will return? What's the starting over-under date?

 

[Bluto]

I dunno, just pointing it out. A quick Google search does suggest a correlation however.

And a side note. I remember hearing that after the Movie Theater tragedy in Colorado, there were 2 other Movie Theaters on the killers way to the eventual theater he shot up. Why skip them? Both allowed conceal and carry in the theater.

Lets be real, there is no demonstrable correlation at this time. It would be interesting to see if there was one. So a predator picked the easiest target? Doesn't demonstrate much. If everyone had conceal carry he would have followed through regardless (i.e. he was crazy). Now how about average citizens operating under the idea that the other guy is probably packing? Things get heated and one decides to reach in his jacket to get his cell phone?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

A departing salvo.

Can we get some v-action on when he will return? What's the starting over-under date?

A) It is not a departing salvo. I am actually going on vacation. (So stupid, I am still laughing.)

B) I have often wondered why you just don't keep your nose out of other peoples business.

C) I know others have had their fill of your smart@ss commentary.


So now all you have to figure is how long my vacation actually is, Lol.

 

[LoveThee]

These political threads get so intense.

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. That type of thing. I don't post in them because I have a propensity to take things personally. Debates can get out of control. Its a good thing that people are so passionate in their views.

But don't let a couple arguments deter you from continuing to post. The more diverse opinions, the better the board.

Lets all just relax. What happened, happened. And it can't be changed.

Anyone else excited for football season?

 

[irishog77]

A) It is not a departing salvo. I am actually going on vacation. (So stupid, I am still laughing.)

B) I have often wondered why you just don't keep your nose out of other peoples business.

C) I know others have had their fill of your smart@ss commentary.


So now all you have to figure is how long my vacation actually is, Lol.

Hahahahahaha!

If you don't want others commenting on your business...then don't post it on a message board-- keep it to PM's, emails, texts, phone calls, hand written letters, or personal hook ups. Any and all of those provide a TAD more privacy than a public message board on the internet.

And with that, I say farewell to IE.







Actually, I just have to take a dump.

 

[EddytoNow]

Sticks and stones!


As I quoted above, three networks and all three people I have talked to privately UNANAMOUSLY feel that the not guilty verdict was the wrong outcome; that there was no justification of self defense, there was evidence of a depraved mind, and that in other venues the verdict would have been different. This includes Jeffery Toobin from CNN, who was very clear in his pronouncement. Toobin has the bona fides, from President of the Harvard Law Review to Assistant US ATTY, to state said claim.

Are these the same people who were saying Zimmerman was guilty before the trial even started? Did they cite any actual evidence presented at trial to prove any of their assertions? One of the first things I learned in school was to distinguish facts from opinions. The opinions of a few TV commentators (who happen to increase their viewing audience by claiming the absurd) are not facts. The six members of the jury saw all the facts presented at trial and none of the vitriol being espoused on TV. I'll go with the decision of those who knew the facts, some of which we are not even aware because they were agreed to and presented to the jury on paper to evaluate during deliberations.

 

[Woneone]

Lets be real, there is no demonstrable correlation at this time. It would be interesting to see if there was one. So a predator picked the easiest target? Doesn't demonstrate much. If everyone had conceal carry he would have followed through regardless (i.e. he was crazy). Now how about average citizens operating under the idea that the other guy is probably packing? Things get heated and one decides to reach in his jacket to get his cell phone?

Again, I'm not saying their is a correlation, just it out. As you said, crime is at at low point, but why? Conceal and Carry has been suggested as one of those reasons (and a multitude of others).

You don't think someone avoids a conceal and carry theater to "pick on the easiest target" demonstrates much?

And what if that person has a pocket knife? A bow and arrow? Is in a car and sees the person they don't like walking? What if there is no conceal and carry, what if the gun is illegally obtained? What if there is a group of them? What if they have rocks? A baseball bat? Do we ban them all?

As you said (and I'll paraphrase). Crazy is crazy. If someone has malice as the intent, they'll find a way to carry it out. Taking guns out of law-abiding citizens hands isn't going to do much. Crazy will find away to inflict mortal harm if that's the intent.

There is a reason one of the Columbine kids was following the Gun Control law in Colorado so closely (the shooting actually happened the day it was supposed to go for vote, fancy that).

 

[IrishLax]

Lax I could not quote your post # 1610. Internal server errors abound.

For a moderator, the way you started the post was incredibly crass, and just wrong. It was stupid and shortsighted to, because it opens the opportunity for everyone to nitpick at each other. I don't even consider the standard of factually correct because of the absolute abdominal bull shiit that has been posted on this thread in the guise of "conservative media."

Some of this was inflammatory stuff, something that I kind of waited for moderators to remove but other than the jackoff that started the most racist race thread, I haven't seen much. And this is a curious late date to start for you.

I'm legitimately sorry that you feel my post was inflammatory or offensive or cited your factual errors. But you made a habit of posting stuff in this thread that is just certifiably wrong, so I made a habit of correcting it. Here are a couple highlights:
#1221: Zimmerman weighs over 230Lbs. Fact: When Zimmerman was arrested approximately a month and a half after killing Martin, he weighed in at 185 pounds. So you randomly added 45 pounds to him.
#962: Legally he is white or Caucasian. See Golden Domer's post #967 where he poignantly addresses the faults with this statement.
#630: ...witnesses saw GZ on top of TM, including the guy that took the pictures. The guy who took the pictures of Zimmerman's injuries stated emphatically that he didn't see anything until after the fight had concluded and told his wife to get away from the window as it wasn't their problem.

When I see someone state something as fact that is wrong, I'm going to correct it.

One every expert and that was five on CNN, so you can review the tapes specifically, state that as tough as the case was they thought the prosecution had met the burden of proof, four for M2, the remaining for manslaughter. None though self defense was justified, and two had a conversation about how Zimmerman could now ask for a stand your ground hearing in the advent of a wrongful death suit, which is what I am referring to as a civil suit. As far as a civil rights suit, every expert on ABC, CBS, and CNN stated that the government would have to show that GZ acted on a basis of racial bias, and they would have to start with showing a pattern of that behavior, which they couldn't. WATCH THE TAPES YOURSELF!

Also, in the last two paragraphs (Secondly and Thirdly), you should go back to law school. I bet the monetary value of all claims of GZ to liability above printing corrections and retractions is negligible. I think if we dragged it out I could prove it, but I don't care to. I will offer common sense, if GZ had golden claims, why do you think his attorneys offered to "help recover some of his legal fees from the state", which is nearly a quote?

Nope, today the big guy does not lose in civil court. Like the friend of my mother that went in for a biopsy and got a mastectomy, of the wrong breast. A radical Mastectomy. Then she went in to get her biopsy of her remaining breast. They needed to do a partial-mastectomy, they arbitrarily did a radical. She won a seven million dollar award. Good huh? The hospital kept the case in court repeatedly slowing down the process until the woman died. The hospital saved their money. Case closed.

Zimmerman is going to settle with everyone, and in turn its most likely that a number of parties will settle with the Martin family. This is how stuff works. I work for a engineering consulting firm that is quite often called in to perform expert witness testimony. We also review exposure for clients all the time for cases of personal injury or even death.

The Martin family has a valid negligence claim against the home owner's association (I'm assuming they sanctioned the neighborhood watch) in addition to wrongful death for Zimmerman. I already explained why they have a reasonable chance of winning/settling with Zimmerman, and against the HOA the case is that if they organized a neighborhood watch without instructing participants on proper conduct then they can be partially liable for what happened. In fact, that might be an easier lawsuit/settlement than a case directly against Zimmerman.

For Zimmerman, all he has to do is show tangible harm from the media foul ups and prove that the foul ups were intentional/malicious/etc... this won't be difficult because they had to INTENTIONALLY edit the sound bytes... and these companies will likely settle rather than get their names dragged through the mud by their competitors as they have very embarrassing trials. It's all about exposure... they will settle for the amount that makes sense relative to their exposure.

Final thoughts of TM case. I hope this is one too many for the gun lobby and people realize they can change stupid laws. I hope they saw what I did. That Andrea Corey lady was a bought dupe of the gun lobby. I don't know that any of the prosecutors really wanted to win. Did anyone ask NRA affiliations with the prosecutors office or the jury?

Final thoughts for this thread. Citing my factual inaccuracies in this thread, kind of like bringing coals to New Castle, an old cliché that my family uses.

Thoughts for IE. I guess it is time to take a break for a while.

Her name is Angela Corey... and the fact that you would suggest someone who has been criminally indicted for going TOO FAR to win this case is a "bought dupe of the gun lobby" is... wow. The irony of defending factual errors with this closing gem is pretty crazy.

 

[Bluto]

Again, I'm not saying their is a correlation, just it out. As you said, crime is at at low point, but why? Conceal and Carry has been suggested as one of those reasons (and a multitude of others).

You don't think someone avoids a conceal and carry theater to "pick on the easiest target" demonstrates much?

And what if that person has a pocket knife? A bow and arrow? Is in a car and sees the person they don't like walking? What if there is no conceal and carry, what if the gun is illegally obtained? What if there is a group of them? What if they have rocks? A baseball bat? Do we ban them all?

As you said (and I'll paraphrase). Crazy is crazy. If someone has malice as the intent, they'll find a way to carry it out. Taking guns out of law-abiding citizens hands isn't going to do much. Crazy will find away to inflict mortal harm if that's the intent.

There is a reason one of the Columbine kids was following the Gun Control law in Colorado so closely (the shooting actually happened the day it was supposed to go for vote, fancy that).

You seem to be advocating for conceal and carry being the norm based on the assumption that it deters violent crime. If conceal carry was equitable at all three theaters I'm thinking the crazy guy just goes and shoots up the first one he comes to. So did it deter the criminal from committing the act or just redirect him to an easier target? If all the targets are equitable does he not follow through? Maybe he simply buys full body armor like those dudes who got in that firefight with the LAPD several years back. Then what? People begin wearing body armor to the movies just in case? Then maybe the crazy guy uses armor piercing rounds. Then what?

Limiting conceal and carry would however, prevent the average citizen from playing Charles Bronson when emotions are running high. The whole knife, rock, bow and arrow argument is a big off topic. Yeah they can kill but they are highly inefficient and there have not been any mass murders using any of those instruments that I am aware of and that comparison is pretty tired in my opinion. As to your question if you see an angry mob carrying bats and rocks stay in tour car, call 911 and drive the other direction.

 

[drayer54]

Not if you are not a racist.

Ohh please. You got another river to cry?

 

[IrishSteelhead]

This thread is still alive, and that is a huge testament to the IE community, and our ability to disagree without things going to "11." I'm not politically savvy enough to contribute on the topic, but keep reading here to see what everyone else is thinking. It is awesome the most outspoken people from each end of the spectrum have traded barbs for a few weeks, and still haven't crossed the line (too much). I liken it to an NHL playoff series handshake line. Kudos to all of you. GO IRISH.

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[Cackalacky]

Did Zimmerman take the stand? Irish Houstonian, I want all your v-bucks forever.

 

[Woneone]

You seem to be advocating for conceal and carry being the norm based on the assumption that it deters violent crime. If conceal carry was equitable at all three theaters I'm thinking the crazy guy just goes and shoots up the first one he comes to. So did it deter the criminal from committing the act or just redirect him to an easier target? If all the targets are equitable does he not follow through? Maybe he simply buys full body armor like those dudes who got in that firefight with the LAPD several years back. Then what? People begin wearing body armor to the movies just in case? Then maybe the crazy guy uses armor piercing rounds. Then what?

Limiting conceal and carry would however, prevent the average citizen from playing Charles Bronson when emotions are running high. The whole knife, rock, bow and arrow argument is a big off topic. Yeah they can kill but they are highly inefficient and there have not been any mass murders using any of those instruments that I am aware of and that comparison is pretty tired in my opinion. As to your question if you see an angry mob carrying bats and rocks stay in tour car, call 911 and drive the other direction.

I do believe it deters violent crime (again, this is just an opinion). But, you're asking me my opinion on how a scenario, which follows the script of your already formed opinions, plays out. Yea, in the scenario you laid out, it didn't do much, other than give everyone in the building a chance to defend themselves.

You think the number of deaths would have been as high assaulting a theater with Conceal and carry? I believe I read that there is conceal/carry rate of something like 4% in Colorado. In a theater with a few hundred people, there's a good chance he's facing multiple armed citizens. And my guess? The death toll is much lower.

That's a pretty substantial difference, isn't it?

Limiting Conceal and Carry does NOT prevent the wanna-be vigilant from going all Bronson. That's a tired opinion. You know how hard it is to get a gun in this country? Go to a gun show. It's not that hard. Ask a friend who hunts. Those people you speak of, the ones who apparently wear masks and go by names like "Wonder Boy" are not going to be deterred from getting a weapon. That's like saying making the relation between GZ having a gun and conceal and carry if you think he's sole intent was murder. If that's the case, if he was only out for blood, you think he'll break the crime of taking a life, but won't break the law to get a weapon (not you, just in general)?

In any case, this is the scenario YOU provided that I was responding to:

Now how about average citizens operating under the idea that the other guy is probably packing? Things get heated and one decides to reach in his jacket to get his cell phone?

So you're saying, in the situation you provided, you're only fear is a gun, not any other type of weapon that person may have? If things get heated, I'm more worried that he has a WEAPON. I don't care what kind, be it ball bat, knife, or even a car. If he is trying to a wound severe enough to kill, at that point I don't care about how much more convenient it would be to kill me with a gun. I'm just worried about the whole killing part.

And that's not limited to conceal and carries.

Edit: Sorry, hurried typing (baby crying). GZ comparison doesn't sound as good as it does in my head. Will fix later.

 

[GoIrish41]

I do believe it deters violent crime (again, this is just an opinion). But, you're asking me my opinion on how a scenario, which follows the script of your already formed opinions, plays out. Yea, in the scenario you laid out, it didn't do much, other than give everyone in the building a chance to defend themselves.

You think the number of deaths would have been as high assaulting a theater with Conceal and carry? I believe I read that there is conceal/carry rate of something like 4% in Colorado. In a theater with a few hundred people, there's a good chance he's facing multiple armed citizens. And my guess? The death toll is much lower.

That's a pretty substantial difference, isn't it?

Limiting Conceal and Carry does NOT prevent the wanna-be vigilant from going all Bronson. That's a tired opinion. You know how hard it is to get a gun in this country? Go to a gun show. It's not that hard. Ask a friend who hunts. Those people you speak of, the ones who apparently wear masks and go by names like "Wonder Boy" are not going to be deterred from getting a weapon. That's like saying making the relation between GZ having a gun and conceal and carry if you think he's sole intent was murder. If that's the case, if he was only out for blood, you think he'll break the crime of taking a life, but won't break the law to get a weapon (not you, just in general)?

In any case, this is the scenario YOU provided that I was responding to:



So you're saying, in the situation you provided, you're only fear is a gun, not any other type of weapon that person may have? If things get heated, I'm more worried that he has a WEAPON. I don't care what kind, be it ball bat, knife, or even a car. If he is trying to a wound severe enough to kill, at that point I don't care about how much more convenient it would be to kill me with a gun. I'm just worried about the whole killing part.

And that's not limited to conceal and carries.

Edit: Sorry, hurried typing (baby crying). GZ comparison doesn't sound as good as it does in my head. Will fix later.

Not sure I want to attend a movie theater when a full on gunfight breaks out. Wouldn't it be much easier just to not allow firearms in public places?

 

[Woneone]

Not sure I want to attend a movie theater when a full on gunfight breaks out. Wouldn't it be much easier just to not allow firearms in public places?

That's what that particular move theater in Colorado did. It was private property, they banned concealed weapons.

But, the law is only useful when you're dealing with law abiding citizens. That's the problem. It's hard to apply the law when, for instance the Colorado shooting, the guy just walks in with an Automatic weapon and goes all postal.

Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world, I'd love to outlaw guns. We just don't live there, and you have to give people the opportunity to lawfully defend. What is "Lawfully Defend". I have my opinion, but people much smarter than I will have to work out the legal details, because as much as I'd like it to be (no pun intended) black and white, there is a bunch of grey area in this.

 

[GoIrish41]

That's what that particular move theater in Colorado did. It was private property, they banned concealed weapons.

But, the law is only useful when you're dealing with law abiding citizens. That's the problem. It's hard to apply the law when, for instance the Colorado shooting, the guy just walks in with an Automatic weapon and goes all postal.

Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world, I'd love to outlaw guns. We just don't live there, and you have to give people the opportunity to lawfully defend. What is "Lawfully Defend". I have my opinion, but people much smarter than I will have to work out the legal details, because as much as I'd like it to be (no pun intended) black and white, there is a bunch of grey area in this.

hope it's not the same shortsighted folks who wrote Florida's laws.

 

[ACamp1900]

Am I missing something, people are crying about stand your ground and such... Unless I'm mistaken the whole stand your ground law had nothing to do with this case, was never invoked or argued.... Correct? Why are people so intent on using a basic self defense claim to attack laws that have nothing to do with the case?

 

[ACamp1900]

That was a general question relating to media and such... Not at anyone in this thread