The trial of George Zimmerman

[BC1]

Rachel Jeantel is still in High School. She's not the only one adverse to script hand writing, I have encountered many adults who say they hate it, can't read it or won't read or use it.

Can you imagine someday you hand your worker some hand-written instructions and he can't read them? Never been taught? That's happening in NYS schools. Looking to eliminate cursive writing from elementary education as we speak.

 

[gejoslin]

Man, that's dead-on. I still have my 1962 stainless steel cap-gun action six-shooters with that little size 14 waist holster. I had cowboy boots, hat and a vest to match. We also played army with plastic helmet, M1 Carbine and 1911. Dad was always the enemy and would attack us. Scouting too! We had the standard issue Boy Scout (or Swiss Army) knife, a mess-kit with real utensils. We camped and learned to shoot pellet guns. Then there was the boys club. Run by a group of volunteer fathers, it had dodge-ball, basketball, indoor archery and an indoor range for .22 shorts. All of these things are gone. Except for my Godsons. Their dad, my best friend, who buys the kids Airsoft, slingshots, pellet guns and video games. I bought the 12-year-old a Henry Golden Boy .22 for his recent 12th birthday. They are on the dean's list every semester for good grades.

You left out Racoon hats, flintlock rifles and pistols. Daniel Boone Fan Club, Howdy Doody, Roy Rogers and Trigger, Lone Ranger, Rin Tin Tin, Lassie and The Hardy Boys, those were the days! All adults were Yes Sir and Mam, Thank you and Please are Dad got the belt off. Things were very different in the 50's.

 

[mappow]

As of this writing, there is zero evidence to support that conclusion. His story is that he was still out of his vehicle looking for an address to give the cops to go to when Martin confronted him after Zimmerman thought he was long gone.



Yep, also in his own neighborhood that a SPD records-keeper testified today had been plagued by burglaries in recent weeks/months. He was not patrolling as the Neighborhood Watch member, but on his way to (or maybe coming back from) the grocery store when he saw someone he didn't recognize walking around on a rainy night. It is not illegal to observe or follow anyone, whether licensed to CC or not, though he denies that he continued to follow the subject after being told "we don't need you to do that" in any case.



Wrong. He was on a grocery run for his ol' lady.



Even if he was the one who could be heard screaming for help on the neighbor's 911 tape, and who the only witness to the fight says he was, indeed, the one screaming for help? Around 40 seconds of the altercation is caught on that 911 tape. Presumably it lasted longer than that or the neighbor would've had no reason to call. No matter what you believe, even if Zimmerman did confront Martin verbally, or even if he actually started the fight, once he tried to disengage and made that clear by screaming for help, he had no obligation to continue having his head beat against the concrete according to the law. That has nothing to do with whether I, you, or anyone else thinks that he was in error for ever getting out of his vehicle, the law says that if he was in grave danger after trying to disengage, he was justified in shooting.



This case has absolutely nothing to do with laws regulating armed security guards. Nothing whatsoever.



Your opinion(s) are meaningless when they are contradicted by the law, and in this case, they are.



The law I cited above, 776.041, concerning use of force by aggressor, was revised in 2012.



Wrong again. You're lumping together laws concerning the regulation of armed security guards with the acts of citizens observing the goings-on in their own neighborhoods. The only presumptions here are those that are supported by statute, and decided as having been abided by or violated by Zimmerman based only on evidence, witness testimony and the jury's conclusions about the strength and credibility of same.



Only if it was, and can be proven to a reasonable doubt, actual aggression. Asking someone what they're doing here is not aggression according to the law, and today's "star" witness said that is all she heard Zimmerman say before she could hear the phone rustling around in the grass and then losing the connection, suggesting that the fight was on immediately after Zimmerman's question. There is still zero evidence that Zimmerman was aggressive in any way that would fall under any FL statute that he is charged with violating.



It sounds as though you are saying he should voluntarily take responsibility for murdering someone whom he says he justifiably defended himself against with deadly force. Could I possibly be reading that right? If so, I have to ask, have you ever heard of a little piece of sheepskin parchment called "The Constitution?"



And again, your opinions are contradicted by the law.

Blues

Thanks for all the background info. I really appreciate the diligence you've shown. BUT I still say, IMHO, that this could have been completely averted. Again, JMHO!
Do you engage or not? It's each an individual choice. As always, IT's up to you to decide. Hope most have a CDA on retainer. You'll need it.

 

[BC1]

You left out Racoon hats, flintlock rifles and pistols. Daniel Boone Fan Club, Howdy Doody, Roy Rogers and Trigger, Lone Ranger, Rin Tin Tin, Lassie and The Hardy Boys, those were the days! All adults were Yes Sir and Mam, Thank you and Please are Dad got the belt off. Things were very different in the 50's.

Yeah, but now they have Lil' Wayne, JayZ and that other guy... ahh Enema? No, wait, Eminem. That's it.
.
They got carpel-tunnel syndrome from the video controller and 892 channels. We had nine. Man, when nothing was on... nothing was on. There wasn't any flipping around nine channels. Plus, you had to keep gettin' up. When I was a kid my father would have me stand next to the TV and flip around a few times. I was his remote control. But they're banging that TV remote until they get tendonitis of the radial collateral ligament. Fulfill that addiction to spontaneous entertainment. They're banging out texts with lightening speed as they take Adderall for ADHD. If we brought them home a Howdy Doody doll they'd go upstairs and tweet what schmucks we are.

 

[Rhino]

Thanks for all the background info. I really appreciate the diligence you've shown. BUT I still say, IMHO, that this could have been completely averted. Again, JMHO!
Do you engage or not? It's each an individual choice. As always, IT's up to you to decide. Hope most have a CDA on retainer. You'll need it.

All confrontations could probably be avoided if we never left our houses, or at least drastically avoided anyway. Are you to some extent guilty if you venture out of your house and insert yourself into situations that, although perfectly leagal, are more likely to result in a physical confrontation with a criminal? That's basically the premise some are arguing, that some guilt must be laid at Zimmerman's feet if he committed any action that he didn't need to commit, that may have put himself on a path to confrontation. You could take that argument to any extreme. And yes, the legal principle, once established, can apply to any and all actions. Maybe Zimmerman should be convicted for joining the neighborhood watch. Obviously that was a step that led to his confrontation with Martin. Maybe he should be convicted for buying the vehicle he was in. Maybe we should blame rape victims for venturing into dark parking lots at night. Why does no one seem to grasp the incredible absurdity of blaming an innocent person for engaging in legal behavior? Zimmerman did nothing to instigate the confrontation. He was completely surprised to be confronted by Martin. All he was doing was trying to observe. You know, to "watch", as in Neighborhood WATCH? He did nothing illegal, nothing wrong and he wasn't looking for a confrontation. And the more willing we are to throw our fellow citizens under the bus for exercising their rights and doing nothing wrong, or for being scared to exercise our own rights for fear of an overzealous and power hungry government, then the less deserving we are of those rights in the first place. You can cower in fear of big bother government if you want, with your lawyer waiting in the wings in case you accidentally offend the righteous and all powerful. I'd rather be an American citizen and exercise my rights in freedom. We aren't supposed to fear our government. They're supposed to fear us, not because we threaten them, but because they work for us instead of the other way around. As soon as we start fearing them as you seem to be advising, then our rights are gone.

 

[Kasper]

Rachel Jeantel is still in High School. She's not the only one adverse to script hand writing, I have encountered many adults who say they hate it, can't read it or won't read or use it.

So then how do they write a check or sign their name?

 

[BluesStringer]

Thanks for all the background info. I really appreciate the diligence you've shown. BUT I still say, IMHO, that this could have been completely averted. Again, JMHO!

The bold part I agree with wholeheartedly, mappow, and I've said the same thing many times on this forum, just using slightly different words. I don't know if you're miunderstanding me, or I'm misunderstanding you, but the way I see it, the #1 way to have avoided the confrontation was for Zimmerman to have stayed in his vehicle. I always agree with anyone who says the whole thing could've been avoided if he'd had the wisdom to make that wise tactical decision. But flawed tactical decisions require a different kind of scrutiny than flawed legal decisions, and in discussing the trial, and everything leading up to it after Zimmerman was charged, my focus has remained on scrutinizing and evaluating the legal case. Tactically, getting out of the car was a bad decision, but was it illegal in any way? If not, then that bad tactical decision cannot be held against him in a court of law, and I won't hold it against him when discussing the legal case either when commenting on the trial, which is what we're discussing in this thread.

Do you engage or not?

I guess if we want to understand each other, you need to define your understanding of the word "engage." Is it engaging someone to open your car door after they've moved beyond your field of vision? Is it engaging someone to walk past where you last saw someone to try to find the closest address to that location to tell the cops where you last saw the subject? Is it engaging someone to turn around and head back towards your car after completing making arrangements for how/where cops can contact you? All of those things are part of GZ's chronolgy of events that took place after he'd lost sight of Martin. So far, there are three interviews with two different cops plus a whole reenactment video with both of those same cops where Zimmerman doesn't deviate at all from that chronology, all on the court record now. The "conventional wisdom" is that the interview with Hannity will come in this week too, and that interview is likewise 100% consistent with that chronolgy up to that point.

After that point, there are very minor inconsistencies in what GZ says, but both SPD investigators handling the investigation said on the stand today that they were so minor, that they thought (literally) nothing of them. But also, that is the point at which GZ says TM emerged from behind bushes or out of the darkness (one of the minor inconsistencies), asked him if he had a problem, and when GZ said he didn't have a problem, he replied with something to the effect of, "Well you have a problem now" and punched him in the nose, breaking it. I don't think anyone would disagree that engagement was taking place from then on until the shot was fired, and I have no problem agreeing that, but for Zimmerman exiting his vehicle, nothing that started at that point would've happened at all, but at the point he thought there was a possibility that he could lose consciousness from the beating he was taking, he still had the legal right to defend himself with force strong enough to stop that threat, and he did.

It's each an individual choice.

Zimmerman's only individual choice at the time at which he fired his weapon was to lay on his back and take it while a mounted Martin rained "ground and pound MMA-style" blows down on him, or fire his weapon. That is the legal question in the trial, whether or not the eye-witness told the truth about who he saw doing what and in which position. Zimmerman's poor judgment in getting out of his vehicle has no bearing on that legal question unless and until prosecutors can show that he actually attacked Martin, as opposed to just observing him. In other words, if the law means anything, GZ had no choice in whether or not to engage if he wanted to stay alive or avoid grave bodily injury.

As always, IT's up to you to decide.

I strongly disagree. The overwhelming majority of us would never "decide" to fire our weapons unless we had a good faith belief that our attacker took the choice out of our hands. I believe that's exactly what Martin did.

Hope most have a CDA on retainer. You'll need it.

That's probably decent advice for anyone who carries a weapon after having made the decision that if/when the time comes, they are prepared to take another human being's life to defend themselves or others. Whether good advice or not though, or whether or not anyone who thinks it is good advice would ever follow it, it has nothing to do with the legal questions surrounding the George Zimmerman trial. And if the jury believes Zimmerman's version of events, "engagement" in a legal sense of the word, began with Martin. If prosecutors hadn't succumbed to outside pressure from Sharpton, Jackson, the NAACP and others, GZ would've never needed a CDA because FL law provides immunity from both civil and criminal penalties when cops and prosecutors deem it a legitimate case of self defense, which they both did at first.

Blues

 

[Rhino]

Rachel Jeantel is still in High School. She's not the only one adverse to script hand writing, I have encountered many adults who say they hate it, can't read it or won't read or use it.

So then how do they write a check or sign their name?

A check? That's so 1990s, man. They use their debit cards for everything now. God help the current generation if technology ever fails them. They'll be completely lost.

 

[Firefighterchen]

A check? That's so 1990s, man. They use their debit cards for everything now. God help the current generation if technology ever fails them. They'll be completely lost.

Technology is the future...And the older generations are all ready lost. The blind is leading the blind.

 

[Sir Diealotz]

Based on all the evidence so far and the lead detectives testimony; this trial is a complete waste if time and money.

Where's the race baiters Sharpton and Jackson now?

I'll bet the Home Owners Association are regretting paying that $1 Million guilt fee to Little Skittles parents

 

[recithree]

i think the defense could of spent more than a passing moment on the fact the george made the shot and that stopped the aggression towards him and reholstered and restrained him instead of continuing to shoot.the state made a opposite point saying that why would you reholster if someone was a threat.

i thought the defense was going to pounce on that one and show george did not intend to kill but to stop the threat and it showed that he stopped using deadly force when deadly force stopped being used against him.

 

[The_Outlaw]

All confrontations could probably be avoided if we never left our houses, or at least drastically avoided anyway. Are you to some extent guilty if you venture out of your house and insert yourself into situations that, although perfectly leagal, are more likely to result in a physical confrontation with a criminal? That's basically the premise some are arguing, that some guilt must be laid at Zimmerman's feet if he committed any action that he didn't need to commit, that may have put himself on a path to confrontation. You could take that argument to any extreme. And yes, the legal principle, once established, can apply to any and all actions. Maybe Zimmerman should be convicted for joining the neighborhood watch. Obviously that was a step that led to his confrontation with Martin. Maybe he should be convicted for buying the vehicle he was in. Maybe we should blame rape victims for venturing into dark parking lots at night. Why does no one seem to grasp the incredible absurdity of blaming an innocent person for engaging in legal behavior? Zimmerman did nothing to instigate the confrontation. He was completely surprised to be confronted by Martin. All he was doing was trying to observe. You know, to "watch", as in Neighborhood WATCH? He did nothing illegal, nothing wrong and he wasn't looking for a confrontation. And the more willing we are to throw our fellow citizens under the bus for exercising their rights and doing nothing wrong, or for being scared to exercise our own rights for fear of an overzealous and power hungry government, then the less deserving we are of those rights in the first place. You can cower in fear of big bother government if you want, with your lawyer waiting in the wings in case you accidentally offend the righteous and all powerful. I'd rather be an American citizen and exercise my rights in freedom. We aren't supposed to fear our government. They're supposed to fear us, not because we threaten them, but because they work for us instead of the other way around. As soon as we start fearing them as you seem to be advising, then our rights are gone.

Exactly right on! The best post on this entire thread so far imvho.

 

[Sir Diealotz]

^ I agree
Excellent post!

 

[BC1]

All confrontations could probably be avoided if we never left our houses, or at least drastically avoided anyway. Are you to some extent guilty if you venture out of your house and insert yourself into situations that, although perfectly leagal, are more likely to result in a physical confrontation with a criminal? That's basically the premise some are arguing, that some guilt must be laid at Zimmerman's feet if he committed any action that he didn't need to commit, that may have put himself on a path to confrontation. You could take that argument to any extreme. And yes, the legal principle, once established, can apply to any and all actions. Maybe Zimmerman should be convicted for joining the neighborhood watch. Obviously that was a step that led to his confrontation with Martin. Maybe he should be convicted for buying the vehicle he was in. Maybe we should blame rape victims for venturing into dark parking lots at night. Why does no one seem to grasp the incredible absurdity of blaming an innocent person for engaging in legal behavior? Zimmerman did nothing to instigate the confrontation. He was completely surprised to be confronted by Martin. All he was doing was trying to observe. You know, to "watch", as in Neighborhood WATCH? He did nothing illegal, nothing wrong and he wasn't looking for a confrontation. And the more willing we are to throw our fellow citizens under the bus for exercising their rights and doing nothing wrong, or for being scared to exercise our own rights for fear of an overzealous and power hungry government, then the less deserving we are of those rights in the first place. You can cower in fear of big bother government if you want, with your lawyer waiting in the wings in case you accidentally offend the righteous and all powerful. I'd rather be an American citizen and exercise my rights in freedom. We aren't supposed to fear our government. They're supposed to fear us, not because we threaten them, but because they work for us instead of the other way around. As soon as we start fearing them as you seem to be advising, then our rights are gone.

While your statements are true this situation hits a grey area. This is precisely why most intro-level PP courses teach the first responses are avoidance, deterrence, de-escalation an retreat. Every community policing program I've ever seen teaches DO NOT FOLLOW anyone (avoidance). Watch means watch... and call. Most communities have some literature on how to create a watch program. But not everything legal is smart to do. Stupidity, while legal, can have devastating consequences for all. Both parties could have avoided this incident by simply communicating. When he met with TM, GZ could have de-escalated the confrontation by stating who he was and what he was doing. That's part of any neighborhood watch program - IDENTIFY YOURSELF. And most recommend having I.D. or perhaps even a windbreaker denoting "Community Watch." Lastly he could have just waited for the police in his car as they suggested (retreat). His job is not to pinch (collar) the perp.
.
Now some compare this to blaming rape on a victim and other unrelated issues. This is also very wrong. While no woman should be raped, any woman who willingly chooses to walk down a known bad, dark area, wrought with crime, at night in the rain is surely not behaving in a prudent manner and yes, she has contributed to her own peril. In doing so she violates the first rule of "avoidance." This is not the same as blaming the victim. Under civil law there are such things as comparative negligence or contributory negligence. Now I think GZ is probably not guilty, but if this were my neighborhood he would not have been on the watch program. Too overzealous. I can't imagine anyone following my guests and not meeting with my objection. The HOA would be directly addressed. And if following my guests persisted I would have obtained a court injunction stopping it.
.
Once again, I tell people to run this by an attorney before joining a watch program. Tell him you're starting a neighborhood watch program. You will actively follow people, carry a gun, have no armed security training, no security license, no insurance, no HOA identification card, are not indemnified by the HOA and are not bonded. If your lawyer tells you to go ahead find a new lawyer. In fact, I challenge anyone to produce neighborhood watch guidelines from any municipality that tells untrained/unlicensed persons to pro-actively follow a suspect.
.
So, "innocent" does not equal "not responsible." He'll be found not guilty of a crime. And I do honestly believe he's not guilty after seeing the prosecution case. I don't even need to see the defense case. I told my wife last night "this thing is already over and the defense hasn't even started their case yet." She intimated her belief that following someone and scaring them justifies getting punched out. She even brought-up how many times I did it in a bar fight during our younger/wilder days. If I thought a confrontation was going to go bad I opened-up on you first. And there are times when a pre-emptive strike is legal. But I tried to make her understand that following someone in a public or private place is perfectly legal unless the purpose is to cause fear or annoyance, in which case it's a form of harassment. The charges should never have been brought against GZ. But his actions were the major contributing factor to the incident.
.
I think this thing is headed to federal court on a civil rights suit, something the FL statutes cannot stop. State stand-your-ground civil provisions are not withstanding federal civil rights law. thus a suit is possible and this thing is possibly far from over. If GZ loses this case he'll be sued in FL Civil Supreme for wrongful death. If he's found not guilty he'll be sued in federal court for a federal civil rights violation. Consider how the Klan was shutdown despite no guilty verdicts for decades.
.
Has anyone learned anything from this case? Was the cost to Zimmerman worth protecting some stranger's property from burglary? Would any of you have willingly traded places with him and incurred that six-figure legal bill, jail time, a looming lawsuit and the ruination of their life?

 

[tricolordad]

So then how do they write a check or sign their name?

They don't. They swipe a debit card until they are so far in the hole their bank cuts them off. Then they open another account at another bank and do it again. I was watching my 18 yo sister in law check out at walmart, she writes her name in capitals. Sad. She doesn't know how to read cursif. And it looks exactly the same!

 

[mappow]

Has anyone learned anything from this case? Was the cost to Zimmerman worth protecting some stranger's property from burglary? Would any of you have willingly traded places with him and incurred that six-figure legal bill, jail time, a looming lawsuit and the ruination of their life?

My point exactly. But even though his empowerment was a positional authority, I do think, as stated before, that he was to observe and report not to engage. He exited his car for the intent purpose to follow and to continue to observe. He decision to do that meant he escalated the event. Again, JMHO. I'm sure there are many.

 

[mappow]

All confrontations could probably be avoided if we never left our houses, or at least drastically avoided anyway. Are you to some extent guilty if you venture out of your house and insert yourself into situations that, although perfectly leagal, are more likely to result in a physical confrontation with a criminal? That's basically the premise some are arguing, that some guilt must be laid at Zimmerman's feet if he committed any action that he didn't need to commit, that may have put himself on a path to confrontation. You could take that argument to any extreme. And yes, the legal principle, once established, can apply to any and all actions. Maybe Zimmerman should be convicted for joining the neighborhood watch. Obviously that was a step that led to his confrontation with Martin. Maybe he should be convicted for buying the vehicle he was in. Maybe we should blame rape victims for venturing into dark parking lots at night. Why does no one seem to grasp the incredible absurdity of blaming an innocent person for engaging in legal behavior? Zimmerman did nothing to instigate the confrontation. He was completely surprised to be confronted by Martin. All he was doing was trying to observe. You know, to "watch", as in Neighborhood WATCH? He did nothing illegal, nothing wrong and he wasn't looking for a confrontation. And the more willing we are to throw our fellow citizens under the bus for exercising their rights and doing nothing wrong, or for being scared to exercise our own rights for fear of an overzealous and power hungry government, then the less deserving we are of those rights in the first place. You can cower in fear of big bother government if you want, with your lawyer waiting in the wings in case you accidentally offend the righteous and all powerful. I'd rather be an American citizen and exercise my rights in freedom. We aren't supposed to fear our government. They're supposed to fear us, not because we threaten them, but because they work for us instead of the other way around. As soon as we start fearing them as you seem to be advising, then our rights are gone.

I never stated that I fear "them", but the rest of your statement "then our rights are gone" has almost come to fruition.

My earlier posts concerning this event has been merely my opinion. I would not ever throw anyone under anyone's bus to satisfy some bastardized version of the Bill of Rights. That's whether it's at a local, state or Federal level.
=
My input is that I feel he could have avoided this by staying in his car. All the other what ifs and maybes your reference is absurd and down right demeaning.
" Are you to some extent guilty if you venture out of your house and insert yourself into situations that, although perfectly legal, are more likely to result in a physical confrontation with a criminal? That's basically the premise some are arguing?"
Friggin ludicrous, REALLY? Either your shorts are too tight, you don't have enough ruffage in your diet or ya need to put down the pipe. NEVER in any of my posts would I have ever inferred that nor is it my beliefs.
=
If your above post made ya feel good, then I'm happy for ya. Anyone with anytime on this site knows my stance on most issues. I just take exception to this thread as George had a way out, IF HE CHOOSE TO.

 

[Rhino]

Technology is the future...And the older generations are all ready lost. The blind is leading the blind.

Until the power goes out. I'm probably what you'd consider an older generation, but I'm quite familiar with technology. I make my living working with it. But unlike the newest generation, I also make my living by knowing what to do when the technology stops working. So keep relying solely on all that new technology, and we'll see who's blind when the lights go out.

 

[Rhino]

While your statements are true this situation hits a grey area. This is precisely why most intro-level PP courses teach the first responses are avoidance, deterrence, de-escalation an retreat.

Absolutely. That's the first response to a THREAT. That's not a response to observing a suspicious person.

Every community policing program I've ever seen teaches DO NOT FOLLOW anyone (avoidance). Watch means watch... and call.

I'm not quoting the rest, not because I'm ignoring it, but just for brevity. Watch does mean watch, and that's exactly what George was trying to do. He was trying to maintain visual contact only. He wasn't trying to approach Martin. He wasn't trying to follow him, at least not in the sense of going to the same location Martin was going. Zimmerman had just gotten off the 911 call. The last part of that conversation involved where he was going to meet the cops so he could point out the suspicious person. To do that, he needed to be able to see him. Not follow him. Just see him. He simply tried to maintain sight of Martin. He had no idea Martin had hidden in the bushes and was waiting for him. Some say he should have anticipated that, but that's the common mantra of the Monday morning quarterback. There are millions of violent crime victims who would love to give these Monday morning quarterbacks a piece of their mind about what they should have had ESP about so they could have anticipated. The average American doesn't go around anticipating violent attack around every corner, even while watching someone in a neighborhood at night. Even the bloviating Monday morning quarterbacks don't do that, as much as they may claim to.

Zimmerman wasn't carrying a gun as part of his watch program, so it's disingenious to try and tie that in where there is no connection. Every person with a concealed carry license who also happens to be in a neighborhood watch program is not carrying a gun as part of his neighborhood watch function, unless you're an overzealous prosecutor trying to railroad an innocent man into prison.

And identifying yourself is not part of any neighborhood watch program. I used to run a neighborhood watch. We were supposed to make no contact with those observed at all, so identification would never be an issue. Zimmerman never intended any contact either. You just assume he did because you're confusing observation with following someone.

Has anyone learned anything from this case?

I've learned that it's amazing how many concealed carriers are willing to abandon a man who defends himself against a deadly thgreat.

Was the cost to Zimmerman worth protecting some stranger's property from burglary?

Are you serious? You actually think Zimmerman was trying to defend someone's property when he shot Martin? Or do you think it wasn't worth it for him to save his own life?

Would any of you have willingly traded places with him and incurred that six-figure legal bill, jail time, a looming lawsuit and the ruination of their life?

When my head is getting bashed in? You're da&n right! Maybe your head is hard enough that you'd just ignore the attack. I'm not that stupid.

 

[Rhino]

I never stated that I fear "them", but the rest of your statement "then our rights are gone" has almost come to fruition.

My earlier posts concerning this event has been merely my opinion. I would not ever throw anyone under anyone's bus to satisfy some bastardized version of the Bill of Rights. That's whether it's at a local, state or Federal level.
=
My input is that I feel he could have avoided this by staying in his car. All the other what ifs and maybes your reference is absurd and down right demeaning.

Point taken, and I should have worded it differently. I made it personal when it was really the concept of indifference and defeatism itself that had my dander up. I apologize for directing it at you personally. I hope you can see past my poor choice of wording and understand the concept itself that I was trying to get across.