Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[FlamesAddiction]

The problem is, if they charge him with the more severe charge and there is no plea, they run the risk of him getting off completely. Even though I think the guy is guilty of 2nd degree murder, the evidence may not be enough for a conviction.

One thing is for sure, this guy won't last 1 year in a Floridia prison. The black gangs will want to kill him, the hispanic gangs won't want a narc/cop wannabe, and he isn't white enough to be a white supremecist. If he goes to jail, he better get a big boyfirend.

[Hack&Lube]

Do they even know where the guy is right now? I thought his legal team dropped him because he disappeared.

[Senator Clay Davis]

They have him in jail as we speak, bond hearing is tomorrow I thought I heard. Also this stat mentioned about "Stand your Ground" in Florida: 19 out of 130 times it has been invoked it has resulted in a guilty plea. Obviously not a very good rate.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The problem is, if they charge him with the more severe charge and there is no plea, they run the risk of him getting off completely. Even though I think the guy is guilty of 2nd degree murder, the evidence may not be enough for a conviction.

One thing is for sure, this guy won't last 1 year in a Floridia prison. The black gangs will want to kill him, the hispanic gangs won't want a narc/cop wannabe, and he isn't white enough to be a white supremecist. If he goes to jail, he better get a big boyfirend.

He will never see general population. Especially not with the race issues in prison.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by Gozer

"The media" has become far too easy of a target.

It depends if your expectations of the media include accurate, unbiased, and factual. If you don't expect any of that, then I suppose you are right.

If you ever watch/read any news relating to items you know the facts of, it is incredible how inaccurate they almost always are. The problem is there are lots of people that believe in the accuracy of the media, so they carry tremendous power in our society.

[troutman]

The bigger question, is how can private citizens be allowed to carry guns and pretend to be law enforcers, in a civilized society? How is this possibly a good idea?

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by troutman

The bigger question, is how can private citizens be allowed to carry guns and pretend to be law enforcers, in a civilized society? How is this possibly a good idea?

Because no matter how many laws you have the thugs will always have guns. The police can't be attached to their hip when something happens.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Because no matter how many laws you have the thugs will always have guns. The police can't be attached to their hip when something happens.

Still, you can't just have random people going around questioning and trying to detain people because they "think" some might be planning to commit a crime. These powers should be carefully handed to people based on training, education and individual assessments. Otherwise you run the risk of having groups of people enforcing laws based on their own interpretations and not in conjuction with the rights of the people. If you want to see an extreme example of what happens, look no further than Afghanistan.

People have the right to walk down the street without being questioned or challenged by armed vigilantes.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Because no matter how many laws you have the thugs will always have guns. The police can't be attached to their hip when something happens.

And the mass quantities of publicly owned guns in the US have been oh so effective in preventing crime, right?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Its just having sit in a jury-duty session (thankfully not chosen), they ask you tons of questions about "Are you aware of so and so's blah blah blah" and related. As soon as you answer yes you are usually disqualified by either the prosecution or the defense because they believe your patiallity has been effected. It may actually not, but the legal system is the way it is.

Originally Posted by valo403

Unless you're in some bizarre jurisdiction where the parties are afforded an unlimited number of preemptory challenges that's simply not true. If jurors could be excluded solely on the basis of their knowledge of a media report on a matter we'd never have a jury seated in a high profile case again.

I prefer this method when I'm subject to questions as a potential juror.

I couldn't find a video to transcript will have to do.

George Carlin: Some people try to get out of jury duty by lying. You don't have to lie. Tell the judge the truth. Tell him you'd make a terrific juror because you can spot guilty people
[snaps fingers]
George Carlin: Just like that!

[kirant]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The problem is, if they charge him with the more severe charge and there is no plea, they run the risk of him getting off completely. Even though I think the guy is guilty of 2nd degree murder, the evidence may not be enough for a conviction.

I wasn't following the Anthony events completely, but I think this case shows a lot of similarities of the Casey Anthony trial...lots of evidence that would make sense in context, fairly good basic knowledge of what happened, and completely guilty by public eye, but no smoking gun evidence in a court system that prefers false negatives over false positives.

Getting him on 2nd degree murder might be tough.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Still, you can't just have random people going around questioning and trying to detain people because they "think" some might be planning to commit a crime. These powers should be carefully handed to people based on training, education and individual assessments. Otherwise you run the risk of having groups of people enforcing laws based on their own interpretations and not in conjuction with the rights of the people. If you want to see an extreme example of what happens, look no further than Afghanistan.

People have the right to walk down the street without being questioned or challenged by armed vigilantes.

That doesn't happen, it happened here, but it's not like everyone walks around like a billy bad ass looking to kill someone.

Let me ask you this, If your neighborhood has had a few break ins and a recent rash of crime do you think that you would be suspicious of someone walking around in your neighborhood that you don't know?

The U.S. and Canada are not alike. We have a real big gang issue here and it's a different culture.

I have my conceal carry permit and carry my pistol with me everywhere. Tuscaloosa has had numerous shootings and violence recently. At the movie theater a thug decided to shoot into a crowd of people. Two thugs in plain daylight went into an arby's on one of the main streets in town with shotguns. The beat up two customers with the weapons and robbed the store. Violence here isn't what it is in Canada. Hell half the police force is scared to deal with this anyways.

Like I said, I have my permit and I carry. I don't go around looking for a fight so I can shoot someone. Look at the statistics, the legal ccw owner doesn't commit crimes. Thugs will commit crimes and adding more laws wont stop them, it doesn't stop them now.

Here is a good read on ccw

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/articl...over-criminals

I think Zimmerman murdered the kid, he should be in jail for it. However trying to paste all gun owners as "vigilante police" is just wrong.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by valo403

And the mass quantities of publicly owned guns in the US have been oh so effective in preventing crime, right?

look at the school shootings for instance. Those are "gun free zones" so the law abiding citizen leaves his gun at home. Well these thugs know this is a rich environment that they know that they have little to no chance of being shot back.

* "Right-to-carry" states allow individuals to carry firearms for protection against crime. In these states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol....ples.asp#times

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PIMking

That doesn't happen, it happened here, but it's not like everyone walks around like a billy bad ass looking to kill someone.

Let me ask you this, If your neighborhood has had a few break ins and a recent rash of crime do you think that you would be suspicious of someone walking around in your neighborhood that you don't know?

The U.S. and Canada are not alike. We have a real big gang issue here and it's a different culture.

I have my conceal carry permit and carry my pistol with me everywhere. Tuscaloosa has had numerous shootings and violence recently. At the movie theater a thug decided to shoot into a crowd of people. Two thugs in plain daylight went into an arby's on one of the main streets in town with shotguns. The beat up two customers with the weapons and robbed the store. Violence here isn't what it is in Canada. Hell half the police force is scared to deal with this anyways.

Like I said, I have my permit and I carry. I don't go around looking for a fight so I can shoot someone. Look at the statistics, the legal ccw owner doesn't commit crimes. Thugs will commit crimes and adding more laws wont stop them, it doesn't stop them now.

Here is a good read on ccw

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/articl...over-criminals

I think Zimmerman murdered the kid, he should be in jail for it. However trying to paste all gun owners as "vigilante police" is just wrong.

That's correct, and why do you think that is? Adding more lethal weapons to nation with issues of violence is like adding more boiling water to an already overflowing pot.

Honestly, the attitude you display is a prime reason why I have little desire to ever go anywhere near the South.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PIMking

look at the school shootings for instance. Those are "gun free zones" so the law abiding citizen leaves his gun at home. Well these thugs know this is a rich environment that they know that they have little to no chance of being shot back.



http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol....ples.asp#times

Please direct me to a school shooting carried out by "thugs"

[tussery]

You people realize that the average police officer only qualifies with a handgun when required and very rarely, if ever, practice force on force drills. Quite frankly law enforcement are about as inept with firearms as the general public.

Like PIMking I too have a Concealed Carry Permit and carry a handgun with me everywhere I can. I also don't go looking for a reason to start trouble, I never have and never will, but it is easy to judge when you live in Canada, and not Corpus Christi, which has the highest rate of violent crime per capita in Texas.

I guess that high crime rate is all because of me carrying a handgun for all of 10 months...

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by valo403

And the mass quantities of publicly owned guns in the US have been oh so effective in preventing crime, right?

Yes.

Look up gun defense statistics.

If a criminal is on your property, brandishing a firearm is a good deterrent.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Yes.

Look up gun defense statistics.

If a criminal is on your property, brandishing a firearm is a good deterrent.

If you cherry pick stats, yes. A nuclear weapon would be a better deterrent

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

If you cherry pick stats, yes. A nuclear weapon would be a better deterrent

Here:

http://gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

Even the anti-gun Clinton administration estimated 1.5 million/year gun defense acts while other sources peg it closer to 2.5 million.

Somehow I doubt you would ever know these figures by watching the big news networks.

[PIMking]

Not that this will change any one's mind since all people with guns "have a license to kill for reason"


This is what you typically know about a person who has a CCW in many states:


They've never been convicted of "any felony offense punishable for a term exceeding one (1) year".
They've never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
They've never been convicted of the offense of stalking.
They were not under indictment at the time they applied for a CCW.
They were not the subject of an order of protection at the time they applied for a CCW.
They haven't had a DUI in the past five years or two or more DUIs in the past 10 years
They haven't been under treatment for or hospitalized for addiction to drugs or alcohol in the past 10 years.
They've never been adjudicated as mentally defective.
They've never been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions ("dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or other than honorable discharge Chapter 1340-2-5-.02 (5)").
They've never renounced their U.S. citizenship.
They've never received social security disability benefits "by reason of alcohol dependence, drug dependence or mental disability."


Besides, most CCW holders know exactly what the law is, and the responsibility of carrying and the serious implications of using a CCW inappropriately, so many holders tend to AVOID more situations that may be inclined to lead to trouble.