dawgdoc

I believe at one point they postulated that it was a virus causing the initial infection, but they needed antibiotics for the secondary bacterial infections.  Or at least that was the impression that I got.     They could plausibly explain the whole sickness as a flu strain that allows a secondary bacterial pneumonia to take hold, and the deaths occur from the bacterial infection.  Thus, those who hung on until the antibiotics arrived get saved.  They could even explain why no one else gets sick by saying that the virus burned itself out--it ran out of hosts before Hershel, Maggie, Tyrese, etc have a chance to get infected.  In other words, by the time they entered the ward, the immune systems of the patients had already responded to the virus, and they were now just dealing with bacteria, which would be less infectious.  They could even explain that Hershel has previous immunity since he appears to be one of the oldest people (just like how the elderly were less likely to be affected by the recent swine flu because they had already lived through it once).   The problem is that to adequately explain it all this way, they would have to introduce a fully staffed epidemiological lab to ferret out the particulars.  In its absence, we are left with a vague infectious respiratory disease that responds to antibiotics, which is about all the explanation we are going to get.   Oh Shoot--my theory/suspension of disbelief defense for why only the zombie bites are deadly:  Zombies, being dead, have tons of horrible bacteria in their mouth from decay, and a single bite is eventually deadly, much in the same way that a komodo dragon's bite causes a deadly infection.  We know that everyone is infected with Walker disease, so the bites are just one way that hastens death.  That could adequately explain why being drenched in guts and blood doesn't seem to be toxic (or at least adequate enough in a fictional world with the living dead), but just one bite is deadly.      My only really "huh?" moment for this episode was the barrel of rifles stored outside.  Have I been doing things wrong my whole life?

I must admit that I am the one who led to this influx of Georgians, but only because I saw a lot of wrong information and assumptions.  I wanted Falls to know so that he could clear things up, and obviously some of my colleagues followed the link to here.  They, like me, had been an audience to the whole incident since day 1, and felt a need to share their opinions also.  I wasn't trying to stir the pot; I was trying to clarify the situation.   I think the reason that we have such a strong opinion about Falls' situation is because it could have happened to anyone of us.  The fact that a man was arrested mainly due to the bleeting of a sheep is chilling.  Even those of us who mainly carry concealed could have an accidental exposure that could lead to the same situation.  And I suspect that we have all heard more than one story where a gun toter did cooperate and still got the ride.

He was actually just walking on a walking track (using it for its intended purpose).  He wasn't wandering around, acting weird.  He was literally minding his own business.  The only thing that made him any different from anyone else was that he had holstered firearm.   His was not lurking around a playground; the walking path goes near a playground.   You may have a mis-impression from the article.  He was not a lurker.  He was not baiting a cop.  Carrying a gun is not reasonable suspicion in Georgia.  The security guard lied in his report that he asked him to leave.  Also, the carrier had called the office in charge of the park to make sure it was not illegal, even though he knew Georgia law pre-empted any ordinances they may have had, because he did not want to be hassled for exercising his rights.     So in summary, he was walking on a walking trail for the sole purpose of exercising, and he happened to be carrying a firearm, which he does on a daily basis.  He was not acting suspicious; the security guard's report states that the guard initiated the contact solely because he saw the gun, and he did not think people were allowed to have a gun in the park.  He even called the local authorities to see if there was an ordinance.  All the "suspicious behavior" that was subsequently reported was after the authorities (security guard and LEOs) started questioning him, and they did not like that a person was refusing to have his rights trampled.  He made some flippant responses, but I suspect that the longer they detained him with no actual RAS, the less cooperative he became.     He tried to leave when confronted, even though he did not have to do so.  He presented his weapons license when asked, even though he did not have to do so.  The LEO got hung up on the fact that he didn't have a driver's license with him (he leaves it in his car), but there is no law in Georgia that you have to carry or present a picture i.d. to a cop.  The encounter should have never have happened, but it should have ended as soon as they saw that he was legal to carry.  Instead, they didn't like that he was not cooperative enough, so they arrested him based on an incorrect statement from the guard (that he had been asked to leave and wouldn't, so he wanted to trespass him).

Since I may have just dropped a bomb in another thread, I guess I ought to introduce myself.   I actually live in northwest Georgia, but I work in East Ridge, and I go to Chattanooga frequently.  I originally only registered so that I could continue browsing the forum.   I especially use the Prohibited Places section because I really don't like seeing the little gun buster sign as I leave a store (may have happened once or twice).  I guess you could argue that if it wasn't noticeable walking in, then it wasn't properly posted, but I don't want to be a test case.     Frequenting the Hamilton county area, I get the unique experience of dealing with the multiple "pre-victimization zones" that are the local parks, yet I have no political voice to do anything about it.  I find that I just don't choose to visit some the wonderful greenspaces in the area because of this.     One of my co-workers, who is an East Ridge resident, tried to discuss the fact that she would like to legally protect herself while at Camp Jordan Park; her concerns were ignored by the council member who said that women shouldn't carry guns anyway.

Hi, new here (been lurking for a while), but I thought that I would post because I followed this story from the day it happened.  The man in question posts on GeorgiaPacking.org, and freely shared the entire story the day after being released from jail.   The basic facts are that a security guard, who was contracted by a private company, mistakenly thought carrying in a park was illegal (Georgia pre-empts local municipalities) and confronted the man.  He badgered him into leaving and argued that carrying was illegal.  He also falsely claimed to the responding officers that he had asked the man to leave.  The LEO's also did not know Georgia law either.  He was eventually arrested for "felony trespass" (which doesn't exist in Georgia) and spent a night in jail.  The case was "nolle prosequi" due to lack of evidence, the private security company settled a lawsuit, and the lawsuit against the officers wound up being what this article is about.   Beside losing the lawsuit, the other important point is that the judge decided that quite contrary to Georgia law, the mere presence of a gun allows a LEO to detain, demand identification, and perform a warrantless search (running the serial number).  The law is quite unlike Tennessee in that having a Georgia Weapons License is an element of the crime, rather than being an affirmative defense like in Tennessee.  When it comes down to it, this ruling is as much about the 4th amendment as the 2nd amendment.   Some of you might have visualized a cop baiter who dresses all in camo and carrying an AR in public, trying to win a lawsuit.  From what I can see based on his side of the story and reading the court documents and recordings, this was a case of a guy who really did not want all the attention that he got.  The picture that I saw showed him in very normal clothing (I don't remember any camo).  In other words, even though he eventually sued, he did not leave his house that morning intending to cause trouble or make a scene.  Once he was detained, he did not roll over and urinate in submission, either.   If you want to read it for yourself, here's a link: http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?t=237726