Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 61 FirstFirst ... 67891011121959 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 1213
Like Tree82Likes

Thread: If the demographic fits, hope they don't acquit

  1. #161
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Well since there is a huge up-swelling to eliminate the 2nd amendment due to infrequent, isolated incidents. Why not continue with 5th, 6th, and 7th on the basis of one trial....
    Opinions are great, and the right to express it is so valuable, the very first amendment protects them.
    I disagree that "there is a huge up-swelling to eliminate the 2nd amendment". The only talk of eliminating the 2nd amendment that I've heard that hasn't come from the "pro-gun" crowd has come from people on the far edge of the "anti-gun" crowd and there hasn't been much of it. IMO, there's been far more accusations saying people want to do that than people actually saying the 2nd amendment should be eliminated.

    What I have heard a lot of is talk about "gun control". As in, limits to what types of guns civilians can own (i.e. "assault weapons") and the prevention of certain people from possessing them (i.e. criminals, mentally ill and expanded background checks). None of which actually involves eliminating the 2nd amendment.


  2. #162
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Very very minor point....but being told "we don't need you to do that" is very different from being told to stop.
    I wouldn't call that a "very very minor point" given the difference in meaning between the two.

  3. #163
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I disagree that "there is a huge up-swelling to eliminate the 2nd amendment". The only talk of eliminating the 2nd amendment that I've heard that hasn't come from the "pro-gun" crowd has come from people on the far edge of the "anti-gun" crowd and there hasn't been much of it. IMO, there's been far more accusations saying people want to do that than people actually saying the 2nd amendment should be eliminated.

    What I have heard a lot of is talk about "gun control". As in, limits to what types of guns civilians can own (i.e. "assault weapons") and the prevention of certain people from possessing them (i.e. criminals, mentally ill and expanded background checks). None of which actually involves eliminating the 2nd amendment.
    The problem is people calling for bans on assault rifles are incorrectly identifying what they believe are assault rifles as such. There are already laws in place to limit and control civilian ownership of REAL assault rifles and idiotic politicians improperly identifying what they want to ban or restrict causes credible concern amongst gun owners.

    Actually, the fact is it is already illegal for criminals, and the mentally ill, to possess firearms. They can't legally purchase them either. Background checks will do NOTHING to stop straw purchases, like the one used to arm the shooter in Webster. The issue is every new law further restricts the rights of law abiding gun owners and does nothing to reduce crime. Enforce the laws we have with mandatory, non-plea bargainable, sentences and lets see if that works before youare willing to surrender more of my rights.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  4. #164
    Forum Member GTRider245's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Augusta,GA
    Posts
    3,056

    Default

    Some of you are so far left you are about to tip over. Like most Liberals, you base your opinions on feelings and not factual info.

    Jury is out. Let it go.
    Career Firefighter
    Volunteer Captain

    -Professional in Either Role-

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    I don't mind fire rolling over my head. I just don't like it rolling UNDER my a**.

  5. #165
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Your response means that you've either completely missed the point or are choosing to ignore it and ended up reinforcing it to an extent.

    The claim was essentially that there was a big movement to eliminate the 2nd amendment, as in get rid of it. As I stated, I am not seeing any sort of big movement for this, just some people shouting about it on the fringes and lots of "pro-gun" people shouting back at them and against something that has no serious chance of happening. There simply isn't the support for a total elimination of the 2nd amendment.

    What I see the most, other than the "pro-gun" side's consistent desires for the status quo, is a desire to address a serious issue. That desire does not include elimination of the 2nd amendment or going out and rounding up all of the privately owned weapons. The desire is to find ways to stop the mass shootings that occur way too often.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    The problem is people calling for bans on assault rifles are incorrectly identifying what they believe are assault rifles as such. There are already laws in place to limit and control civilian ownership of REAL assault rifles and idiotic politicians improperly identifying what they want to ban or restrict causes credible concern amongst gun owners.

    Actually, the fact is it is already illegal for criminals, and the mentally ill, to possess firearms. They can't legally purchase them either. Background checks will do NOTHING to stop straw purchases, like the one used to arm the shooter in Webster. The issue is every new law further restricts the rights of law abiding gun owners and does nothing to reduce crime. Enforce the laws we have with mandatory, non-plea bargainable, sentences and lets see if that works before youare willing to surrender more of my rights.
    Yes, using the wrong "labels" can be an issue when 2 people (or sides of an issue) try to discuss something. However, IMO, it's an even bigger problem when one person/side of the discussion refuses to even discuss the issue because of it even though they know what the other side is referring to when using those incorrect "labels".

    My post was arguing that there wasn't a huge push to eliminate the 2nd amendment and simply mentioned 2 areas in which there is much more prevalent chatter, but no specific measures. Yet, your response was not a counter to the point I was making, it was a demonstration of the point I was making.

  6. #166
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTRider245 View Post
    Some of you are so far left you are about to tip over. Like most Liberals, you base your opinions on feelings and not factual info.

    Jury is out. Let it go.
    As opposed to the Conservatives who base their opinions on "facts" they or other Conservatives make up to support their own opinions and/or agendas?????

  7. #167
    Forum Member GTRider245's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Augusta,GA
    Posts
    3,056

    Default

    A jury could not prove that GZ was guilty of anything. None of you can prove he was guilty of anything. No one can prove TM was guilty of anything.

    LET. IT. GO.
    Career Firefighter
    Volunteer Captain

    -Professional in Either Role-

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    I don't mind fire rolling over my head. I just don't like it rolling UNDER my a**.

  8. #168
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Your response means that you've either completely missed the point or are choosing to ignore it and ended up reinforcing it to an extent.

    No, I got the point entirely and the fact that you used the term assault rifle perhaps means you are not all that well versed on firearms nomenclature.T

    The claim was essentially that there was a big movement to eliminate the 2nd amendment, as in get rid of it. As I stated, I am not seeing any sort of big movement for this, just some people shouting about it on the fringes and lots of "pro-gun" people shouting back at them and against something that has no serious chance of happening. There simply isn't the support for a total elimination of the 2nd amendment.

    There shouldn't be a push for elimination of ANY of the second ammendment. Anymore than there should be any push to eliminate any of the other rights protected by any of the other ammendments.

    What I see the most, other than the "pro-gun" side's consistent desires for the status quo, is a desire to address a serious issue. That desire does not include elimination of the 2nd amendment or going out and rounding up all of the privately owned weapons. The desire is to find ways to stop the mass shootings that occur way too often.

    No responsible gun owner wants criminals or the mentally ill to possess firearms. But continually chipping away at my rights, a law abiding gun owner, do nothing to accomplish keeping guns out of those groups hands.


    Yes, using the wrong "labels" can be an issue when 2 people (or sides of an issue) try to discuss something. However, IMO, it's an even bigger problem when one person/side of the discussion refuses to even discuss the issue because of it even though they know what the other side is referring to when using those incorrect "labels".

    Why would I want to sit down and seriously discuss an issue with someone who doesn't know enough about the topic to educate themselves to be able to even identify what they are talking about? The rhetoric from the gun control advocates, and yes, the lies, make them unreliable and untrustworthy to talk to and frankly there is nothing to negotiate. Criminals and the mentally ill are simply that and need to be treated accordingly.

    My post was arguing that there wasn't a huge push to eliminate the 2nd amendment and simply mentioned 2 areas in which there is much more prevalent chatter, but no specific measures. Yet, your response was not a counter to the point I was making, it was a demonstration of the point I was making.

    There was a huge push for it and the only reason it has died down is the 2014 mid term elections. No one wants to lose their seat over an anti-gun bill. This is a constant battle that will never be 100% won by either side.
    If you look at Webster and the Newtown shootings in both incidents laws currently in place were violated. The truth is more laws will never eliminate these type of horrific incidents. All we can hope for is to lessen the opportunities by tightening security and by using the laws already on the books. Frankly, I hope they give the lady that bought the guns for the Newtown shooter the same jail time as if she committed the murders. THAT would send a message.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  9. #169
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTRider245 View Post
    A jury could not prove that GZ was guilty of anything. None of you can prove he was guilty of anything. No one can prove TM was guilty of anything.

    LET. IT. GO.
    I believe the prosecution made a mistake in going for the murder charge, had they gone after simple manslaughter, Zimmerman would be on his way to the hoosegow.

    It has yet to be proven Martin was guilty of doing anything but walking home in the rain. Yet he's dead and the person who killed him for no real reason other than he was getting his *ss kicked by someone he was following is free.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #170
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I wouldn't call that a "very very minor point" given the difference in meaning between the two.
    Especially in the context. Zimmerman went looking for trouble. He found it and his only way out of a whooping was to shoot Martin.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #171
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I believe the prosecution made a mistake in going for the murder charge, had they gone after simple manslaughter, Zimmerman would be on his way to the hoosegow.

    It has yet to be proven Martin was guilty of doing anything but walking home in the rain. Yet he's dead and the person who killed him for no real reason other than he was getting his *ss kicked by someone he was following is free.
    In our system of justice, the prosecution in this case would have to totally disprove Zimmermans claim of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. I've yet to see anyone here claim that there's not a chance it happened as he said.

    Similarly, it seems that equating this to the OJ case again totally misses the significant differences between the two. You didn't see a lot of protests to change our legal system after the OJ verdict, because we all understood that the LA/CA prosecution team was not close to being able to withstand the close scrutiny that a decent defense team could bring to bear. In that case there was no claim to self-defense, just a homicide the prosecutor couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt was committed by the defendant.

    All of this malcontent of this verdict speaks to people wanting to change our system of justice. In this case it would appear that the only part that could change and have reversed this decision would be the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt. I bet most agree changing that standard would not be in our best interest?
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 07-22-2013 at 06:00 AM. Reason: keyboard caused misspelled words

  12. #172
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    In our system of justice, the prosecution in this case would have to totally disprove Zimmermans claim of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. I've yet to see anyone here claim that there's not a chance it happened as he said.
    Not really. In a manslaughter case, the prosecution needs to prove the party is responsible for the death of the individual. It's a much lower bar to jump over. Murder requires the prosecution prove intent.

    My comparison with the O.J. case has nothing to do with the actual trial. It is the reaction I am comparing. The reaction to someone who is believed to have caused the murder was viewed as egregious when he was acquitted. The reaction to Zimmeran's verdict is how well the system worked.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #173
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Very very minor point....but being told "we don't need you to do that" is very different from being told to stop.
    I believe this is a HUGE part of the case and has been somewhat overlooked. I can't help but to wonder what some stronger language may have accomplished. If the dispatcher had said: "We do not want you following him, do not follow him", maybe he backs off. Who knows? Of course, the dispatcher had no idea what would happen and can't be blamed. Dispatch policy everywhere should be changed to reflect this if it's not already part of existing policy.

  14. #174
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I believe the prosecution made a mistake in going for the murder charge, had they gone after simple manslaughter, Zimmerman would be on his way to the hoosegow.

    It has yet to be proven Martin was guilty of doing anything but walking home in the rain. Yet he's dead and the person who killed him for no real reason other than he was getting his *ss kicked by someone he was following is free.
    Unless you believe that when Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman, he threw the first punch, and yes, committed the first illegal act of the incident.

    Seems like that was the way jury saw it.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  15. #175
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I believe this is a HUGE part of the case and has been somewhat overlooked. I can't help but to wonder what some stronger language may have accomplished. If the dispatcher had said: "We do not want you following him, do not follow him", maybe he backs off. Who knows? Of course, the dispatcher had no idea what would happen and can't be blamed. Dispatch policy everywhere should be changed to reflect this if it's not already part of existing policy.
    I would question a civilian dispatcher's legal authority to give such orders.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  16. #176
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Not really. In a manslaughter case, the prosecution needs to prove the party is responsible for the death of the individual. It's a much lower bar to jump over. Murder requires the prosecution prove intent.
    Of course the fact that Zimmerman killed Martin was never in doubt, thus it would come back to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that said killing was not in self-defense. The jury was given the option to find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter and did not. The instructions to the jury laid out the requirements to find someone guilty of manslaughter and explains that one cannot be guilty if they've used justifiable force, which was why he wasn't guilty of murder 2. The prosecutor may not have based the case on getting a manslaughter conviction, but they still would have had the same burden of proof requiring they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not in self-defense.

    I'm sorry but it really comes down to trusting that the system of justice we have works well enough enough of the time to remain unchanged. One case compared to the billions of others does not speak to it being flawed. We of course know that sometimes guilty people go free and others times innocent people are found guilty, but over time the "beyond a reasonable doubt" protects us as innocent people and rarely protects the guilty.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 07-22-2013 at 11:33 AM. Reason: keyboard caused misspelled words

  17. #177
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I believe this is a HUGE part of the case and has been somewhat overlooked. I can't help but to wonder what some stronger language may have accomplished. If the dispatcher had said: "We do not want you following him, do not follow him", maybe he backs off. Who knows? Of course, the dispatcher had no idea what would happen and can't be blamed. Dispatch policy everywhere should be changed to reflect this if it's not already part of existing policy.
    Of course this just leads to more what ifs: but since the door has been blown off the hinges in this case:

    What if the dispatcher told him not to follow, and he listened and then Martin committed a murder? Then who'd be liable? That's the kind of lawyer what if that determines liability and why generally speaking someone must be present to give a lawful order. Anything else is to have less information to make the determination on.

  18. #178
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I would question a civilian dispatcher's legal authority to give such orders.
    I'm not saying it would be legally binding. I'm just wondering how it may have possibly changed the outcome.

    Maybe it's time to make all dispatchers some kind of limited law enforcement officer so there instructions would have some weight. With the prevalence of cell phones it is now very common for dispatchers to be talking to witnesses and victims in real time while incidents unfold. In this case it could have made all the difference.

  19. #179
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Of course this just leads to more what ifs: but since the door has been blown off the hinges in this case:

    What if the dispatcher told him not to follow, and he listened and then Martin committed a murder? Then who'd be liable? That's the kind of lawyer what if that determines liability and why generally speaking someone must be present to give a lawful order. Anything else is to have less information to make the determination on.
    I agree about the what ifs, but I think your example is a stretch. If dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow and then Martin committed murder the only one liable would be Martin. The dispatcher would have been acting in the interest of public safety and only requirement would be to get PD responding in a timely fashion.

  20. #180
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Of course this just leads to more what ifs: but since the door has been blown off the hinges in this case:

    What if the dispatcher told him not to follow, and he listened and then Martin committed a murder? Then who'd be liable? That's the kind of lawyer what if that determines liability and why generally speaking someone must be present to give a lawful order. Anything else is to have less information to make the determination on.
    Seriously, if this is the best you can come up with for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon Martin this thing has reached a point of being absolutely ludicrous. Zimmerman is under no legal obligation to follow Trayvon, no matter what he has done or may do. In fact he could just as easily have kept going on his way home and not have done a damn thing and never been legally liable for anything.

    The stretch to make the case for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon is just silly. Call the police, report what you saw, report direction of travel, and stay out of it personally. The fact is if I see someone trespassing at my neighbor's house I will call the police and stay out of any chance of contact with the trespasser(s). I have met my MORAL obligation as a good neighbor and not placed myself in the position of physical harm.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. PG soon.....we hope!?
    By arhaney in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-23-2007, 10:39 AM
  2. Not Exactly Fire Related, But It Fits.
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-28-2004, 10:48 AM
  3. Might there be hope?!!
    By BC79er_OLDDELETE in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-09-2004, 11:04 AM
  4. Any Hope?
    By Kiernan in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-26-2003, 08:48 PM
  5. Hope for the best?
    By Bones42 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-15-2003, 08:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts