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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uvkf2a1kyI

WOW.... 

Yes.

Looked like a stall/spin to me.

Saw it yesterday and I liked it.  Was able to overlook the liberal UN overtones, lol including some references to not being green enough may have caused it...Like BigK, I like most all zombie movies.  Fast moving zombies are way scarier than the slow ones.

  I don't think there is an easy answer to this question, but I am certain it should not be a city ordinance prohibiting guns in city parks that has apparently been superseded by state law. As the Founders said:     I fully understand the frustration people feel towards the government.  I share in that frustration at a very deep level of my core values and personal beliefs.  I am very concerned with the condition of our nation and the seemingly out-of-control power of the federal government.     EDIT:  Sorry, my 2 year old decided it was time for me to play with cars and closed my laptop before I was done with my thought.   As I was saying, I understand the frustration, but all of these self-proclaimed revolutionaries and their groupies need to think long and hard about what they are calling for.  Do we REALLY want a war?  Think about what that means for a minute.  Think about the death and devastation.  Think about what it would mean for the revolutionaries if they lost.  Think about what that would mean for our Constitution and how it is interpreted.  I don't give a crap if only 3 percent of the American population was actively supportive of the Revolutionary War.  This is not 1775 and the US is very different politically, culturally, and demographically.  The chances of a similar revolt being successful in today's world is virtually zero and the outcome would likely be catastrophic politically for those who support libertarian or conservative views.  The absolute last thing we need is a bunch of wanna-be George Washingtons who are ignorant of history and delusional about reality to stir up armed revolution.  I will say it here and I will say it to your face: if you are one of these people, you are NOT a friend of liberty.  You are dangerous and do much more harm than good.   The political system, as imperfect as it may be, is still a viable and legitimate means for addressing issues.  Proof of this lies in the failure of anti-gun politicians to pass legislation at the federal level.  Instead of alienating people through belligerent rhetoric and giving opponents the ammunition they need to win the public debate by living up to their claims that gun owners are dangerous and delusional, harness that passion for educating the public, teaching gun safety classes, etc.  I personally know of one pro-gun organization that is alienating supporters through this sort of inflammatory rhetoric and have spoken to people who are active in the organization who share my concerns.  One member in particular told me of multiple incidents they witnessed where elected officials came to speak with the group and were shouted out of the room for not parroting their absolutist rhetoric or left voluntarily due to the violent tone of the comments made by members.  Mark my words; if this sort of activity becomes more mainstream, there WILL be negative repercussions for gun owners.  

[quote data-cid='988509' name='TMF' timestamp='1372103635' post='988509'][quote data-cid='988502' name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1372103079'] The point is, no one here has any actual "facts". We have evidence, statements but no facts. [/quote] Sir on this issue you are wrong ... I've been allowed to review top secret NSA and FBI drone footage of the attack that evening and can tell you exactly what happened ... but reading everyone's conjecture and opinions is much more entertaining than the truth so I'll keep it to myself.

Just scout your shooting lanes because I know the fmj rounds will go though a 14"hickory tree at 50+yards.

Unlike you who has apparently done so quite willingly.  I understand that can be hard for you to understand this, but as the calf was unwilling, so was the person minding his own business before his neighbors decided to be busybodies and dictate how he/she was to make use of their own property. Neighbors who then believe it is appropriate to use the government threat of violence to enforce their will. I do find it quite amusing that when defending your position you slip into phrasing the issue in terms of the "democratic process" in the same manner the left defends their attack on the 2A. No "democratic process" may legitimately infringe upon the fundamental liberties of the individual, those things most succinctly described by three words, "life, liberty, property".   As far as why I keep going on with it, I just like to argue. I especially like to argue with folks who claim to believers in the constitution and its foundational principles of individual freedom with the rights of the individual to direct their own life, liberty and property but in reality are nothing more than authoritarian statists whose only real and substantial difference from the brand of marxist/socialist/communist statist they purport to stand against is in the details that they wish to control in the lives of others.    If you live under an HOA, have no fear, I will never be your neighbor. Otherwise, I will ignore illegitimate diktats from petty tyrants and busybodies.

  They've been disagreeing their asses off :). You should pop in more often.

You sure waited a while to go there.  :shrug:   I'm purposely ignoring DAVES at this point...nevertheless, I think what he claimed was his ultimate "hope" for Zimmerman was, at best, damn irresponsible.

I believe if you check that both TN and FL law requires a significant level of aggression from someone (Zimmerman) in this case before he would lose the right to defend his life with deadly force from the other person (Martin).  In other words, Zimmerman would have had to do something specifically illegal or something so overt/threatening that Martin's attack against Zimmerman was justified.   There is no evidence known so far that shows that Zimmerman did anything illegal...following someone is not illegal...asking someone that is unfamiliar to you why they are in your neighborhood (if Zimmerman did that) is also not illegal. It may have made Martin nervous..it may have made Martin mad...if might make me or you mad or nervous...but being nervous or mad is not sufficient legal justification to violently attack someone.   We can say all day long that Zimmerman "shouldn't have" followed Martin but there is a long way from "shouldn't have" to being "illegal to do" and unless someone can definitively show that what Zimmerman did was illegal or was sufficiently threatening to Martin that Martin's attack was justified then Zimmerman is guilty of neither murder or manslaughter.

As secure as the calf was in its pen before it became my dinner last night.

Plenty of Civil War Battlefields if you're into that. There are also a lot of State Parks that are worth revisiting.

How can the "white dudette" judge be a racist when she ruled in favor of the "white dude" by not allowing evidence? Dave S Which means she ruled against the black side.

  They weren't allowed to testify because their methods were BS. You're not an "expert" if nobody agrees with your conclusions.

  I just think it's cute you said jokey poo... :wave:

I concede that you won the Internet today, sir.

After watching/listening to Zimmerman's defense attorney I believe that he'll get a fair trial; at least unless the judge let's the prosecution walk all over the rules of evidence and/or loses control of the courtroom.   Six women or six men or three and three of any color, sex, etc....our system of justice and the courtroom, far from perfect, seem to have a way of getting to the truth and making the right decision.   Many cite the O.J. trial as an example where that didn't happen but I think it was an example of the system working correctly...O.J. was acquitted because the prosecution was incompetent and the judge more worried about being on TV than running the court room; under those circumstances any defendant should have been acquitted. ;)

  I'll pass that on. They'll be glad to hear it.

Well, since none of us are the six females on the jury we'll all just have to sit back and see how this thing plays out.

Kudos to him. Hopefully karma will be kind.

  Terrorist! :rofl:

My water sucks!! sent barefoot from the hills of Tennessee

Impossible! There is no way this kid could be involved in that stuff

let's call up his family and see if they have any ammo/guns to sell to raise bail money  :rofl:

  There are so may incorrect statements in your post that I must reply.   - Anyone old enough to remember the DCM?  Me   - It was actually set up to teach civilians who could legally own firearms how to shoot and allowed them to purchase military surplus firearms.  Still is. Read the mission statement on the CMP home page.  http://www.odcmp.com/    - Kinda like keeping our folks knowledgeable about shooting skills.   That is why I am a CMP Master Instructor.  We instruct at No Charge to the shooter.   - Let's not go there right now because the real issue is all they do now is take in surplus rifles, run a safety check on them and then pretty much sell them to the highest bidder.  Only on the auction site for rare examples.   http://cmpauction.thecmp.org/   - I remember you could go to a DCM shoot, qualify with a Garand and walk away with one new in the box for $200.  Yup, back in the 1980s.  Mail orders took up to a year to two years.   - If the rifles were meant for U.S. folks then they should ALL be put up for sale on a first come, first served basis with a set price and no auctions along with 1 per customer. Still selling direct, go to the rifle sales section and send in your order.    http://www.odcmp.com/sales.htm