Leaderboard

Well, the police are correct; law enforcement does not need any reasonable suspicion to write down license plate numbers or run them.  The police can run your tags whenever they want as long as it is for official police business (not for personal use).  In this case, it was clearly police business because the were responding to a situation where a group of people were openly violating the law by carrying in a park, which was prohibited by local laws.  If you decide to engage in civil disobedience, don't cry like little wusses when the police show up to enforce the law.   I am also very irritated with the response and ignorance of the people filming the officers.  I will never understand the mentality of people (regardless of political affiliation) that think they are going to score points or attract supporters who do ignorant crap like this.  They show up, intentionally violate the law, and then verbally abuse the police who show up to investigate the crimes by calling them Nazis.  What a bunch of douchebags!  Frankly, I hope a bunch of them did get citations.  I also hope that we never see this sort of pure ignorance in our state!   The fact that the Glenn Beck machine presents this as a legitimate response is just one more reason I am no longer a fan and glad to see he has become largely irrelevant.   These morons also fail to realize that most beat cops are fully supportive of Second Amendment rights in this country.  It's mostly the big city police chiefs and sheriffs that are anti-gun.  Nothing good comes from alienating supporters, which is something many pro-gun groups need to learn. Gun owners are proving more and more to be their own worst enemy.  :mad: EDIT: Holy  :censored: !  I made the mistake of going back and reading the comments on the Blaze website.  Good friggin' grief!  If those comments reflect even a substantial portion of gun owners...

  So was every, single individual who signed the Declaration of Independence.   I'm not necessarily putting Snowden on the same level.  However, when the government is betraying its own people then perhaps the only way to do the right thing for one's country and it's people is to act against that government.

DaveS,   Again you're confusing the facts...  The onlooker who saw GZ after the shooting is NOT witness #6, I'm not exactly sure which witness # is assigned to that witness, but it's 2 different people.   I quoted you the statement witness #6 John gave to the police on the night of the shooting...  That he came out and saw two men fighting, the one wearing the red sweater was on the ground yelling help, while the other man was on top of him swinging punches.  GZ was wearing a red sweater that night.  Witness #6 then turned and went back into his house to call E911.   Then I took the time to find the RAW video of GZ's statement to the police, in which he describes witness #6 coming out of his house, and GZ pleading for help from witness #6.  We go to the E911 'help' call and this confirms both of the statements given by witness #6 and GZ...  that clearly somebody is screaming desperately for help, GZ and witness $6 statements clearly link these screams for help to GZ.   So ignoring all of those facts, because they don't fit your narrative, you jump to another witness statement from AFTER the shooting...  Which has ZERO bearing on if the shooting was justified or not...     Did GZ have a legal obligation to provide medical care to TM after shooting him?  No.  So what does that have to do with whether the shooting was justified or not?  Absolutely nothing.   DaveS, I honestly don't know if you're just trolling for kicks, or if you just don't believe in logic, reason, and facts as a cornerstone of debate but either way back on ignore you go.  

  Careful. That's a good way to get your cookin' show cancelled :)

Yup, it was an attempted "gotcha!" move that backfired, well except in the eyes of the true J4T fans like Dave who'll cling to anything that will make Z look guilty of something..

Except being on one of the old birds in the sky.

Actually, the ship you saw was the Liberty Belle. The plane was painted up as the Memphis Belle for promotional use and air shows. And this was the ship used in the movie Memphis Belle. It was at Smyrna Airfield this past weekend for open to the public flights. AND I was on it Sunday afternoon for one of the flights. It was awesome. That's the short story. Maybe I'll attempt to tell the whole story later.

Wow. Quite possibly the most... Just wow.

Well said Spots. I wish courthouse hangings would could back in style it would solve alot of the crime problems in the US.

Or just shoot the son of a *****. A dead thief is the only kind of thief I can tolerate. I know some here see more value in a human life than in material, but I bust my ass everyday for anything I have. Any man that makes the decision to take it has made his choice, and if you've made the choice to steal then you staying above ground and breathing doesn't matter to me. Maybe if more thieves were shoot or hung we wouldn't have these problems. Sorry about your things OP, I hate a damn thief. sent from the backwoods

I have evidence that Zimmerman is not a reliable source of information. Taking his story at face value is not something most folks here would normally do considering his history of lying in a courtroom to a judge and being caught in the lie. The point is, no one here has any actual "facts". We have evidence, statements but no facts.

I fail to see how following someone acting suspicious is "starting a confrontation" one which the followee' is justified in assaulting the follower, for comitting the act of following. Granted people don't like to be followed, but there are literally dozens of benign reasons one person might follow another. In this particular case a volunteer neighborhood watchman became suspicious of a person (unknown to him as being a resident), dressed in dark clothing, acting as if they were on drugs, sneaking around his neighborhood afterdark which had experienced a recent rash of break-ins & burglaries, this is IMHO what should happen in every neighborhood. Trayvon's recent history included being caught at school with burglary tools & a small pirate's horde of presumably stolen womens jewelry, he could have very well had been the one responsible for the recent rash of break-ins in Zimmerman's neighborhood. In fact I'd be very interested in examining the date of which Trayvon moved into the area & the date that the break-ins began.

  I agree with you on this.  I don't like the fact I can't carry in our local parks, but I don't show up in protest with a sidearm on each hip.

Negative. If you start a fight and end it with your pistol you will go to jail. Self defense goes out the window if you caused the events. There is so much precedent on this I refuse to believe that you don't know that.

Again ROBERT< you throw my name in....ATTACK ATTACK!!!!! GET OFF MY BACK!!!!! Are you serious? When you voice your opinion, you should probably expect a possible debate. If you aren't up for the debate, you can always choose to leave the thread...for the umteenth time. I'm sure there are other forums that are more pro-Martin friendly, and they'll probably stroke your opinion until you're all warm and fuzzy inside. Many of us have found ourselves on the unpopular side of debate, so you're hardly the only one.

So who else is watching the streaming video of the trial.  So far i think the defense has had a much better opening argument.

Robert, what you're describing is the EXACT definition of authoritarian!  Some group of people take away some part of your property rights without your consent!  You had the right have uncut grass on your property one day, and the next even though you're totally opposed to it you no longer have that right....   How can you keep saying the community hasn't taken something away?  Hasn't taken a liberty (aka property rights) away?  How?  Your contention is that nothing has been taken, no liberty infringed, isn't logical.   And your entire premise that if I don't like my rights being taken away against my will is to leave my property and move...  that is the definition of tyranny.   Stop hiding and embrace your statist beliefs just say what you really mean...  you want other persons to conform to your vision of what society should do, and you're happy to use violence and the threats of violence to make them do what you want.  At least that argument would be logically valid!    

Laws being passed whether they be from elected representatives, or passed as a ballot item doesn't change the tyranny of the majority.  The government is violating the property rights whenever they pass a law that restricts the owners property rights without providing just compensation.  There is no way to square that circle... you can dress it up in a fancy dress and put makeup on it, but it's still a pig.   Lets pretend that a person is causing you damage by not cutting your grass..  we already have a method to deal with that outside of zoning restrictions...  you just file a lawsuit and prove harm by the landowners negligence and bingo the problem is solved.  Oh wait that would require you to prove actual damages, probably not something you could do over the lack of cut grass huh?   So instead you want to force through the threat of violence that somebody cut their grass because you think it *might* cause you some financial damage some point in the future?  But that isn't a form of tyranny?  Please.    

Agreed. I don't think anyone is disputing the validity of a voluntarily entered into contract such as an HOA. Some of us just don't like them, so we won't enter into those contracts. You need a new dictionary as the definition of words like "libertarian" in yours seems to have fallen from an inter-dimensional portal from Bizarro Land. :lol: What you described is quite the authoritarian position. What about the person who owned their property prior to their neighbors electing some busybodies who then enacted a law requiring action by that landowner in regards to their property? Your right to use the government to control your neighbors begins and ends at YOUR property line, just as their right to do the same ends at their property line.

While working as a LEO I have always stopped if possible. Obviously being very cautious of legal repercussions. I have bought people many gallons of gas, let them make calls from my cell phone, or given them a ride.

"To steer it through its bankruptcy reorganization, Hostess hired restructuring expert Greg Rayburn as its CEO. But Rayburn ultimately failed to reach a contract agreement with its second largest union. In November, he blamed striking workers for crippling the company's ability to maintain normal production and announced that Hostess would liquidate.   About 15,000 unionized workers lost their jobs in the aftermath.   The trimmed-down Hostess Brands LLC has a far less costly operating structure than the predecessor company. Some of the previous workers were hired back, but they're no longer unionized."   Negotiate this! Obama must have wept.   - OS

I'm still laughing about those retards that were paying $75/box for them on ebay  :rofl:

Maybe Obama was as close as it could get to blah blah blah.

Just finished my AR build, Here are some pictures Thanks guys i have it figured out.

Based on your overview, the dispatcher's testimony shed some light into Zimmerman's state of mind during the incident. If, as a trained professional, he didn't get the impression that Zimmerman was overly angry, who am I to argue? I am guilty of using what many would probably consider too much foul language. The "F" word is one of my favorites. While I use it for many different occasions, you can (or should be able to) clearly tell my state of mind. If I am as angry as many would like us to believe Zimmerman was, the "F" word is most likely going to be preceded and/or followed by a few more four letter words. In fairness, my girlfriend of 8 years continues to sometimes have a difficult time noticing the difference. Thanks again for the updates.

Nope, you might scare someone who's afraid of firearms or commit a criminal act or something, so an individual's Constitutional Right "to bear arms" has been voided. If you want to legally carry a gun around you have to first get the State's permission & then pay a hefty fine before you can do so.

Get rid of the buffer if you have one in the rear of the receiver. I have seen some guns that the buffer was thick enough to affect ejection. Other than that then it probably is the ejector.

I think I've said before that my opinion and the court of law are two separate things. I don't know why we can't get past that. Because some of us are trying to focus on the evidence while discussing this COURT case. Others insist on discussing their feelings and what they would or wouldn't have done in the situation. At this point, I am doing my best to put myself in the shoes of the jury. The jury is told to base their decisions on the law and evidence presented to them. That's exactly what I'd like them to do if I were in Zimmerman's position. As long as you continue to push opinion of guilt based on feelings, I'm going to continue to push my opinion based on evidence and the law.

I don't believe anyone posting on this forum or in this thread was there but if you have actual evidence that shows Zimmerman started the fight I'm sure we would all be happy to see it.

You were there?

As a former LEO you should be familiar with the use of force continuum.

No offense, but there is so much case law you should know better...  The ONE exception to that rule is when you get involved in a fight and the other person escalates the fight by using force that could cause serious bodily injury or death then self defense can come back on the table.   I'd suggest you re-read 39-11-611e1 + e2   A perfect example of this is if you consent to a fist fight, and while you're down on the ground and the person winning goes and gets a baseball bat and attempts to attack you with it...  You're allowed to use deadly force even though you consented to a fist fight.   But again, I contend GZ never committed a crime, never consented to a fist fight, and therefore the stand your ground law was clearly in effect.    

Yuup...and not just the average person.   Most police forces, as a matter of policy, won't question an officer who is involved in a shooting until two-three days after the event (Officer-Involved Shooting Guidelines, 2009; IACP Police Psychological Services Section).   Studies have shown that after such an event with adrenalin and other chemicals being pumped into your system that the brain simply isn't "working" properly.  That's one of the reasons why an attorney will tell you to NOT give a detailed statement to the police just hours after defending yourself.

That's not surprising. I suspect being forced to defend your life with deadly force could be traumatic for the average person. It could take some time to regain your ability to think clearly.

I'm just gonna leave this here as this conversation is representative of the point the image is making.

Yes, because two sound experts listening to a recording that was made through a handset from a significant distance are better witnesses than the man (witness #6) who walked outside and saw TM and GZ on the ground...  With TM on top of GZ swinging punches, and GZ yelling help, help.   Dave, lets me honest you just want to pick and choose the facts you want to believe...  And no amount of evidence is going to change your mind...   An eyewitness places TM on top of GZ throwing punches...  Now why exactly would TM be screaming help at that exact point in time?  That 'theory' doesn't match the witness statements, or basic logic that the guy getting on the bottom receiving the punches would most likely be the one screaming for help.   But since these witness statements (and GZ's own video statement to the police) doesn't fit the narrative in your head, you just ignore it?  

Yep. Roll crimp on the seating die set way too low. I've made some of those myself :)

Life is better when it's only ni**ers being ignorant, right?

  His point is to make sure people understand what its like to be on the other side of someone who is intent on killing you. It normally isn't a knife fight, as much as its a slash and hack and stab against an unarmed person. Its not really about the skill of your opponent, its more about the ferocity and determination of them. We always trained to deal with an NFL linebacker on PCP, so anything less than that would be a break. Just one point of view, and I will always stand by the fact that I believe a 12 ga shotgun is the best weapon to bring to a knife fight

If I have to use lethal force Im not going to use a knife. If I have to use a knife Im screwed anyway.

It was unfortunate that you had equipment problems, I hate to see that happen to anybody. The next stage we shot after you left I had a complete mental breakdown. It was a easy stage, my brain just wasn't prepared for my hand to reach down and find empty magazine holders, cost me about 20 seconds. It took me about 30 minutes and 2 bottles of water before I figured out just where I'd messed up. lol

It doesn't matter if he was up to something or not...  I'd argue that a reasonable person in that situation could believe he might be up to something, but even that doesn't matter...   It's not a crime to think somebody *might* be up to no good, it's not a crime to call the police because you think a person is acting suspicious, it's not a crime to follow in your vehicle a person you think my be up to no good while on the phone with E911, and it's also not illegal to follow somebody on foot who you believe is acting suspicious in your neighborhood.   We know for a fact that before hanging up with E911, Zimmerman had not committed a crime, and was legally in the commons area of his neighborhood.  We know this because of the E911 call that has been released in it's entirety to the public, and it's clear no criminal act on the part of Zimmerman had taken place up until that point in time.   I've listened to that call a number of time, and it appears to me that Zimmerman exited his vehicle to keep TM in sight so that the police who were being dispatched to his neighborhood could question the teen.  I never get the impression that at anytime was Zimmerman attempting to 'arrest' or physically come in contact with TM.  Also, it's clear that whatever his motive, he had stopped 'following' the teen before the E911 call had ended, and was focused on getting an address to help the police meet up with him.   So, the 'hand picked DA' would like us to believe that after doing nothing illegally up until the point the E911 call ended, that sudden Zimmerman went into 'criminal' mode and somehow started a physical altercation with TM, then when overwhelmed by TM's physical force needlessly shot the teen?   That 'line of thinking' doesn't match the fair solid interview that Zimmerman gave the police (without an attorney present) the next day on video at the scene.  Nor does it match any eye witness statements the police collected.   Don't get me wrong, Zimmerman made a ton of mistakes, and was a piss poor neighborhood watch captain...  He should have had a map of the neighborhood with street names and addresses listed so he could give a clear address to E911...  he should have stayed in his car, nothing that teen was going to do that night was worth placing himself in physical danger over.   But, none of that is criminal behavior...  at the end of the day, it appears as if Zimmerman was assaulted by TM, and during that assault he (and I believe any of us) felt threatened with serious injury or death by having their head smacked into the ground/concrete...  At the point TM had him on the ground, on top of Zimmerman, and was beating his head against the ground, TM had lost any self defense status he might have had under any crazy theories anybody can come up with...  So on the face of it, it appears to be a justified shooting.   BTW, lets all be honest here...  Zimmerman isn't the sharpest knife in the draw...  how does he bumble into a fight with a teen and ends up on the ground getting his head bashed it...  yet somehow is smart enough to come up with a story that completely matches the physical evidence and all other eyewitness accounts...  You can't have it both ways, he can't be an idiot who got himself in over his head, yet a genius who in less than 24 hours with no help from an attorney came up with a perfectly fitting 'story'.    

Actually ownership means just that. If I own 10k acres and wanna plant it all in posion ivy and kudzu then its my right. Thats why I will never live anywhere with an HOA or anyone else who tells me what I can and ca 't do with my land. I guess having the desire to tell those people to go do an impossible act to themselves comes from growing up way out in the country were we were the onlynones wh9 had a say on our land. sent from the backwoods

So does anyone else see the point that this clown was trying to make?  Granted, he made it as awkwardly as humanly possible and all people heard was the word "terrorism" but it seems that what he was trying to say is that if you incite panic by spreading false claims of danger with the public water supply, you are in essence terrorizing the public. And he'd be right.   But the hubub it caused sure does make good press.

And God help you if you release a balloon into the air while complaining about the quality of your tap water, SWAT will kick your door, drag you out into the street & put 2 into the back of your head.

yeah it gets tricky when dealing with non trained civilians who have their own reasons for doing things .. where as the green berets are highly trained and have been molded into a "for the greater good of the group" mindset, too many civilians would look out for number 1 and not risk their neck to have your back .. not saying it's not a good idea but i would have to know someone pretty well to trust them at my back if we were deep into a SHTF scenario 

My Walmart has a A Colt 6920, A Magpul 6920, a Colt SOCOM and a Sig 716 for over two weeks now.

Congrats on the ar. I have Troy buis on mine and love them.

Get on with the trial; let a jury decide. It's been beat to death here.