OK been holding on to this story for a bit, now that the main stream media has broadcast that he was pulled over speeding in Texas. I can spill the story.....
as I spoke I would in this thread
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=87375
The Sunday after the close of his court case, He was eating at a truckstop Arby's on I-10 in central Texas. I dropped in about 2pm Sunday since its the closest place with any social interaction to my Ranch, and that Arby's stays busy, keeping the food quality high.
As I walked through the door, I spotted him and said to myself, there is Geo. Zimmerman.... Then, I laughed no way! Until I sat close enough to overhear the conversation. 100% federal law talk. George looked very reflective staring out the window to the wide open country-side. There was a storm front coming and you could see the distant dark clouds dance and advance across the gentle rolling hills and patchwork of farmland.
It was very peaceful scene and one I like to view from that truck stop.
He had the same stare like state as existed in the video from the trial, but was fully aware of his surrounding and a few times got pulled into the law discussion and was able to answer and agree to something but I had no context to follow. Their discussion started prior to my arrival.
I did not want to cause an issue to my peaceful part of Texas so I only told a few people...
Saw George Zimmermen in Texas weeks ago!
-
Dewbie
Ted Dog wrote:
Perhaps it was about his new business venture...and a few times got pulled into the law discussion and was able to answer and agree to something but I had no context to follow.
-
Bruce B
Stand your ground from the first paragraph of wikipedia article at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
The law of my being says SURVIVE.
As far as a requirement to retreat or evade, it might be wise to do so and it might not be wise to do so. This depends on the circumstance.
It is often wise to keep a safe distance. A big problem I have with retreating is I say: Almost always in a life threatening situation where self-defense is required Don't give the assailant your back.
If one is pretty adept at walking backwards very fast and not stumbling over something, maybe a retreat is in order . . . .
I don't know because each situation is different. But I think it a handicap, even a very bad move, to think about the law, rules and such when one's life is at stake. SURVIVE seems to me to be the job at hand.
~~
As far as Zimmerman is concerned, I have mixed thoughts and some of them are not favorable to Zimmerman.
On the other hand I think Martin gave up many of his rights when he attacked Zimmerman.
~~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
- A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is law in certain jurisdictions within the United States.
The law of my being says SURVIVE.
As far as a requirement to retreat or evade, it might be wise to do so and it might not be wise to do so. This depends on the circumstance.
It is often wise to keep a safe distance. A big problem I have with retreating is I say: Almost always in a life threatening situation where self-defense is required Don't give the assailant your back.
If one is pretty adept at walking backwards very fast and not stumbling over something, maybe a retreat is in order . . . .
I don't know because each situation is different. But I think it a handicap, even a very bad move, to think about the law, rules and such when one's life is at stake. SURVIVE seems to me to be the job at hand.
~~
As far as Zimmerman is concerned, I have mixed thoughts and some of them are not favorable to Zimmerman.
On the other hand I think Martin gave up many of his rights when he attacked Zimmerman.
~~
No it sounded like they where stating federal statues (word Fed was used then some number ) and discussing it, that would be used to justify an agencies actions. The name of the federal agency was never said. They knew the subject matter so well no books where used.Dewbie wrote:Ted Dog wrote:Perhaps it was about his new business venture...and a few times got pulled into the law discussion and was able to answer and agree to something but I had no context to follow.
amigo wrote:I just saw that he got stopped for speeding in North Texas -had a handgun in the glovebox and got a warning for the speeding.
Yeap, he has been hiding out in Texas, I did not want to break the story until someone else did, I expected he would just be holed-up on someones 1000 acre ranch and out of public eye for a year or so.
We actually get a fair number of Hollywood types with in 15 miles of that Truckstop.
Ben Aflick, Matt Damen, Henry Thomas (kid from ET) saw them in person Henry Thomas has a very large house/Ranch near by, Goldie Hawn, Robert Duval, and many more.
Maybe the problem is "gated communities"?
I know it's a big question with no easy answers, but walking round the walls of York, and noticing people on the other side watching tv in their homes, made me think, well you lot would have been truly *ucked if the Scots were taking a raid down to England in medieval times, so the occupants on the other side of the wall would have had a chance to get the old burning containers of oil, an archery battallion etc, but the occupants of the other side would have been seen as expendable.
I don't know this for sure as I haven't read the history of old Yordik, but I think gated communities are a bit funny really, sort of us and them.
Maybe it's always been necessary...
Matt Damon gets zero hassle compared to his mate Brad Pitt, 'cos he just lives an easy family life apparently.
Like reading your accounts of Texas life Ted Dog.
I know it's a big question with no easy answers, but walking round the walls of York, and noticing people on the other side watching tv in their homes, made me think, well you lot would have been truly *ucked if the Scots were taking a raid down to England in medieval times, so the occupants on the other side of the wall would have had a chance to get the old burning containers of oil, an archery battallion etc, but the occupants of the other side would have been seen as expendable.
I don't know this for sure as I haven't read the history of old Yordik, but I think gated communities are a bit funny really, sort of us and them.
Maybe it's always been necessary...
Matt Damon gets zero hassle compared to his mate Brad Pitt, 'cos he just lives an easy family life apparently.
Like reading your accounts of Texas life Ted Dog.
-
Dewbie
Bruce B wrote:
We will never know whether that actually happened.
If someone fights off an assailant, is that considered an "attack"?
The way the law is currently written, if you stalk and kill someone and there are no witnesses, you can basically fabricate a story and get away with it.
The law needs to be changed so that if someone initiates a conflict, they can't claim "stand your ground." That's just messed up.
On the other hand I think Martin gave up many of his rights when he attacked Zimmerman.
We will never know whether that actually happened.
If someone fights off an assailant, is that considered an "attack"?
The way the law is currently written, if you stalk and kill someone and there are no witnesses, you can basically fabricate a story and get away with it.
The law needs to be changed so that if someone initiates a conflict, they can't claim "stand your ground." That's just messed up.
-
Bruce B
TrueDewbie wrote:We will never know whether that actually happened.
But actually in most crimes we don't learn everything. We get enough pieces of the puzzle to see how the puzzle would likely look if we had all the pieces.
My philosophy is I'd rather be the one standing than the one who will never stand again. If it works out this way, and no witnesses, I have to explain what happened. If the opponent disagrees, not much he can say about it.
I think it is an attack. But the attack may also be justified, legal and necessary.Dewbie wrote:If someone fights off an assailant, is that considered an "attack"?
In order to sell, the story should plausible and believable enough that the cops and prosecutor believe the jury would side with you.Dewbie wrote:The way the law is currently written, if you stalk and kill someone and there are no witnesses, you can basically fabricate a story and get away with it.
We have conflicts very often and we sometimes stand our ground. There is nothing wrong per se with conflicts and standing your ground.Dewbie wrote:The law needs to be changed so that if someone initiates a conflict, they can't claim "stand your ground." That's just messed up.
What you said as it applies here I think should be worded something like, if someone initiates a physical or life threatening conflict.
~
-
Dewbie
Under previous laws, the defendant had to prove self-defense.
Under "stand your ground" laws, the prosecution has to prove the defendant didn't act in self-defense. And when the other witness is dead, that's a much higher threshold.
But all of this is a smokescreen.
"Stand your ground" was initially written by the gun lobby for one reason:
to sell more guns
When lobbyists write laws, you get bad laws, period.
Under "stand your ground" laws, the prosecution has to prove the defendant didn't act in self-defense. And when the other witness is dead, that's a much higher threshold.
But all of this is a smokescreen.
"Stand your ground" was initially written by the gun lobby for one reason:
to sell more guns
When lobbyists write laws, you get bad laws, period.
-
Bruce B
In the event of a misunderstanding and I don't know if there is, I wasn't trying to say much about stand your ground laws, I don't know or think about them. They don't exist in my Republic.Dewbie wrote:Under previous laws, the defendant had to prove self-defense.
Under "stand your ground" laws, the prosecution has to prove the defendant didn't act in self-defense. And when the other witness is dead, that's a much higher threshold.
But all of this is a smokescreen.
"Stand your ground" was initially written by the gun lobby for one reason:
to sell more guns
When lobbyists write laws, you get bad laws, period.
My law of my being is SURVIVE.
Survival might not have much to do with standing ground and scanning my memory it seems when I stood my ground it had more to do with principles and ego than survival, even to the extent of putting my survival at risk.
~~~
In the case of Zimmerman I don't know what ground he was standing.
I think often alcohol can be a source of liquid courage. I think packing heat can also be a source of an artificial courage. A person who knows he's armed and can make a deadly strike from a distance against a person who probably isn't armed, might make "courageous" decisions he wouldn't make if unarmed.
To this extent I doubt there would have been a deadly incident if Zimmerman was unarmed.
But the application of criminal law might be much more narrow than that.
As for myself, I don't pack heat or carry any kind of self defense tools. I have my own arguments why it is safer in most situations not to be armed.
I just don't know if I should use up time explaining the theories?
~
Somehow I believe that there had been overreactions .
Zimmerman went the track to deny everything without showing weakness in court .
Time will tell , (if he was guilty in the charge) if he is mentally strong enough to keep it on .
Zimmerman went the track to deny everything without showing weakness in court .
Time will tell , (if he was guilty in the charge) if he is mentally strong enough to keep it on .
«Give me GUI or Death» -- I give you [[Xx]term[inal]] [[Cc]on[s][ole]] .
Macpup user since 2010 on full installations.
People who want problems with Puppy boot frugal :P
Macpup user since 2010 on full installations.
People who want problems with Puppy boot frugal :P
-
Bruce B
An incident I had years ago
A friend and I were camping in the Los Angeles Forest, which is owned by the US government and not patrolled except rarely or if someone calls the LA County Sheriff because the police work if needed is their jurisdiction.
~~
After setting up our campground at the north of the area, we walked through the campground toward a store, bar, cafe, gas station combination type of place.
Long before making it to the store, a man attacked us verbally, he threatened us and he was raging and he was serious.
His charge against us was trespassing of all things. Trespassing!
In sane terms, we might have walked through a corner of his campground in the dark. We certainly didn't walk through his campground or disturb anyone.
Very importantly, it is a public campground on U.S. owned property. It would be very hard a legitimate camper to actually trespass.
Simply stated, we didn't trespass or do anything wrong.
Nevertheless, he was so mean and menacing to us that he was about to get attacked by us. The motive would have been fear and the fact that he was going the extra mile to provoke a fight.
But why would he want a fight with two strong teenagers?
Luckily, I didn't attack. I first spoke up in our own defense. That is when pulled out his shaking and raging hand holding a large caliber handgun in my face threatening to use it.
With the playing field being more visible, I apologized profusely for anything and everything I suppose.
After he stopped pointing his gun in my face, my friend and myself, for our own safety, moved our campsite to high ground in the canyon. An area which wasn't marked for camping. But if one has to defend, high ground is easier to defend, even with rocks or running by the superior stamina of two young men able to climb higher.
However, I still didn't feel good about what happened. We went back to his campsite to take some notes such as location, number in party, vehicle types and camping equipment.
He wants guns? I was going to make damn sure 'my friends' who have guns and who won't hesitate to drop him dead if need be will have a talk with him.
'My friends' being defined in this scenario as the Los Angeles County Sheriff.
Drop a few quarters in the phone booth, give the lawmen the story about a raging gun toting camper frightening kids by sticking his gun in their face and threatening to blow their heads off.
Four sheriffs arrived faster than I expected. This means they were closer to the campground than to the Sheriff Station.
We stayed a little up hill that dark night and watched the cops do their job. When the sheriffs had their red lights flashing, spotlights, flash lights AND guns drawn, the mean gun toting asshole was not so brave as he was with us unarmed kids.
And they did take the man away. It appeared he had been bothering others also. Bye, bye.
In any event I was sort of happy about the outcome.
~~
A friend and I were camping in the Los Angeles Forest, which is owned by the US government and not patrolled except rarely or if someone calls the LA County Sheriff because the police work if needed is their jurisdiction.
~~
After setting up our campground at the north of the area, we walked through the campground toward a store, bar, cafe, gas station combination type of place.
Long before making it to the store, a man attacked us verbally, he threatened us and he was raging and he was serious.
His charge against us was trespassing of all things. Trespassing!
In sane terms, we might have walked through a corner of his campground in the dark. We certainly didn't walk through his campground or disturb anyone.
Very importantly, it is a public campground on U.S. owned property. It would be very hard a legitimate camper to actually trespass.
Simply stated, we didn't trespass or do anything wrong.
Nevertheless, he was so mean and menacing to us that he was about to get attacked by us. The motive would have been fear and the fact that he was going the extra mile to provoke a fight.
But why would he want a fight with two strong teenagers?
Luckily, I didn't attack. I first spoke up in our own defense. That is when pulled out his shaking and raging hand holding a large caliber handgun in my face threatening to use it.
With the playing field being more visible, I apologized profusely for anything and everything I suppose.
After he stopped pointing his gun in my face, my friend and myself, for our own safety, moved our campsite to high ground in the canyon. An area which wasn't marked for camping. But if one has to defend, high ground is easier to defend, even with rocks or running by the superior stamina of two young men able to climb higher.
However, I still didn't feel good about what happened. We went back to his campsite to take some notes such as location, number in party, vehicle types and camping equipment.
He wants guns? I was going to make damn sure 'my friends' who have guns and who won't hesitate to drop him dead if need be will have a talk with him.
'My friends' being defined in this scenario as the Los Angeles County Sheriff.
Drop a few quarters in the phone booth, give the lawmen the story about a raging gun toting camper frightening kids by sticking his gun in their face and threatening to blow their heads off.
Four sheriffs arrived faster than I expected. This means they were closer to the campground than to the Sheriff Station.
We stayed a little up hill that dark night and watched the cops do their job. When the sheriffs had their red lights flashing, spotlights, flash lights AND guns drawn, the mean gun toting asshole was not so brave as he was with us unarmed kids.
And they did take the man away. It appeared he had been bothering others also. Bye, bye.
In any event I was sort of happy about the outcome.
~~
That's common here , too .because the police work if needed is their jurisdiction
That's seldom .Four sheriffs arrived faster than I expected
Nice outcome .And they did take the man away
But anyway, if there is weapon/murder/manslaughter involved ,
the police somehow shows much more activity than for bicycle burglary .
Hmm....yeah. Zero tolerance to the gun violance in Finland nowadays.
In our village, somebody told in school that one student is approaching the school with gun. That was it. The student was guilty until proved innocent. There wasnt any gun. There was no intent school violence. Didnt mean anything. His father is police, didnt matter. The polices came home, arrested him, chained him, he was sent under mental disorder law, without exception to the acute psychiathric clinic for evaluation of mental acute illness, chained, where...was the first person, the acute psychiatric hospital doctor, which started to think....is there any sense or proof that you should be here. He stopped for the first time think what has happened. Is there something real happened. Beside the wild story spread by nasty students. No there wasnt. But becauce he was guilty until proven innocent, he couldnt go to the college afterwards. The police investigation lasted 6 months. He was guilty during that time.
He had to write his exams in small cottage near the sport center under surveillance and he couldnt finish his college with others. He had to finish his college in evening college. I was in his graduate celebration, if you can call that celebration. He moved quickly away, becauce he was marked guilty. Nothing had happened, but it didnt mean anything. There is zero tolerance in schools. Told finnish highest police officer in his statement. It gives jurisdication over students. If someone wants to blame other student, the student is guilty until proven innocent. That is finnish law nowdays. It is due to several bad shooting incidents in Finland.
The story has been broadcasted several times in finnish TV.
If someone wants to try google translator, here is his story rewritten from those TV broadcasts and there is the statement from highest police authority in Finland and also the school official statement of the incident. Our village is famous, wrong way though.
http://kiusaaminen.fi/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15
Oh...these kind overreactions happens all the time.
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to ... ggles.html
In our village, somebody told in school that one student is approaching the school with gun. That was it. The student was guilty until proved innocent. There wasnt any gun. There was no intent school violence. Didnt mean anything. His father is police, didnt matter. The polices came home, arrested him, chained him, he was sent under mental disorder law, without exception to the acute psychiathric clinic for evaluation of mental acute illness, chained, where...was the first person, the acute psychiatric hospital doctor, which started to think....is there any sense or proof that you should be here. He stopped for the first time think what has happened. Is there something real happened. Beside the wild story spread by nasty students. No there wasnt. But becauce he was guilty until proven innocent, he couldnt go to the college afterwards. The police investigation lasted 6 months. He was guilty during that time.
He had to write his exams in small cottage near the sport center under surveillance and he couldnt finish his college with others. He had to finish his college in evening college. I was in his graduate celebration, if you can call that celebration. He moved quickly away, becauce he was marked guilty. Nothing had happened, but it didnt mean anything. There is zero tolerance in schools. Told finnish highest police officer in his statement. It gives jurisdication over students. If someone wants to blame other student, the student is guilty until proven innocent. That is finnish law nowdays. It is due to several bad shooting incidents in Finland.
The story has been broadcasted several times in finnish TV.
If someone wants to try google translator, here is his story rewritten from those TV broadcasts and there is the statement from highest police authority in Finland and also the school official statement of the incident. Our village is famous, wrong way though.
http://kiusaaminen.fi/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15
Oh...these kind overreactions happens all the time.
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to ... ggles.html
http://www.bild.de/news/ausland/schiess ... .bild.htmlgoogle translate wrote:Already in 2008, killed a vocational school students in the western Finnish town of Kauhajoki nine classmates, a teacher and themselves A year earlier, a 18-year-old killed six fellow students, a nurse and the school principal at a secondary school in the southern Finnish town of Tuusula.
Approximately 650 000 of the 5.4 million inhabitants of Finland are registered gun owners.
Less than 15% weapon owners in Finland -- that's not too much IMHO .
Many might be 33% and much would be 50% probably .
Found some incomplete statistics http://www.fwr.de/statistik/ .
I dont protest zero tolerance politics. I just think that debriefing mechanism should be also prompt and protect when there has happened accidental accusation and innocent person suffers. It has not been in the priority list at all.
Our neighbor city, Orivesi had also recently school gun violence incident. Mentally labile young man tried to shoot classroom of young students. The brave teacher pushed him out from the class. The shooter pressed the rifle button, but fortunately there was faulty ammunition. Then the teacher closed and locked the door and calmly told the students to cover as far from the door as possible. The shooter shot through the door several times. Nobody got hurt. The teacher got medal.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/orivesi_shooter_n ... nd/6291794
And no...I dont have gun where I live. I though have one shotgun registered, but it is now in use by farmer and he shoots with it sometimes the birds which eat his strawberries. Mostly to the air I think. He has side-register to my gun.
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/BREAKI ... 9103717412
Our neighbor city, Orivesi had also recently school gun violence incident. Mentally labile young man tried to shoot classroom of young students. The brave teacher pushed him out from the class. The shooter pressed the rifle button, but fortunately there was faulty ammunition. Then the teacher closed and locked the door and calmly told the students to cover as far from the door as possible. The shooter shot through the door several times. Nobody got hurt. The teacher got medal.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/orivesi_shooter_n ... nd/6291794
And no...I dont have gun where I live. I though have one shotgun registered, but it is now in use by farmer and he shoots with it sometimes the birds which eat his strawberries. Mostly to the air I think. He has side-register to my gun.
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/BREAKI ... 9103717412
-
DM was on fire!
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2009, 15:47
- Location: N.E. Georgia Mountains, USA
In certain areas of my state it's a requirement to own a gun (see Kennesaw, Georgia). 
-
Bruce B
I didn't know thatDM was on fire! wrote:In certain areas of my state it's a requirement to own a gun (see Kennesaw, Georgia). :?
- Gun law for Kennesaw
The town is noted for its unusual gun legislation. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][17]
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[18] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.[19] Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw],[20][21] even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.[22]
The city's website claims the city has the lowest crime rate in Cobb county.[23]