The whole TM supporter side of the debate is laughable and was picked apart pretty well by Zimmerman's attorney. As he explained time and time again, each "what if scenario" requires evidience of which none has been presented. You are clinging on to weak scenarios with no solid evidence to support your overall position. Your emotional investment in to this sad story is blinding you. So I guess you are a qualified expert in determining whether Zimmerman was in fear for his life for an act of agression toward him? An incident that there is an eye witness witness and physical evidence to prove that actually happened. So....Explain how you PROVE Martin felt threatened enough to confront Zimmerman instead of just calling the police.
It is equally a weak argument that Martin just spontaneously decided to attack an innocent bystander. That laughable scenario also has zero evidence. What we do know is that Zimmerman decided to tail Martin because he "looked suspicious." He called 911 and ignored their advice to discontinue his pursuit. We know that he decided to carry a gun for this undertaking. This is at least circumstantial evidence that he knew there was a good chance this would lead to an easily avoided altercation.
I don't know who's being upfront or not but according to Zimmermans lawyer there actually is no proof of this. Other articles I've read that seem to reference "real" evidence also points to the case being more witch-hunt than anything. Don't get me wrong, I do think Zimmerman was in the wrong for a number of things he did... I just don't think he gets convicted... And also note that it was very likely he was being attacked by TM violently.
That's cute, but not a good analysis. Maybe it wasn't specifically this undertaking. Maybe he carried a gun every time he decided to tail somebody in the neighborhood. In any event, he failed to abide by the guidelines for neighborhood watch everywhere which generally say to not carry a gun. Another policy question Florida needs to look at is why somebody with Zimmerman's record of violence was allowed to carry a gun in the first place. His record including domestic violence would disqualify him in Texas.
Most people who carry do it all the time, not just when they are hunting down a race they are perceived to hate. He has no records. We have been over this. It was several years ago when he ran into troubles with the law. Apparently for you, people never change, even if they had troubles in the past. I don't understand this fascination you have of Zimmerman being a serious threat to society.
Your declarative statements of fact about this incident are about as reliable as your presidential election predictions.
You love to present your side of the debate with things that are not true or that you have no relevant facts to support. In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar. In August 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders’ being granted. None of the above would prohibit Zimmerman from owning a gun. Things like this are all Martin supporters have to foolishly cling to instead of admiting that they were duped by the media from Day 1.
If he hadn't plea bargained those charges down would he still have been allowed to buy a gun (serious question)?
Depends on if he was convicted of the charges involving the Police Officer. If convicted, no. Not knowing much beyond vague specifics of the case, I don't know what supporting witnesses Zimmerman had or what his chances would have been in court. Could have been a hot headed a-hole cop situation or the worst case sceanario for Zimmerman that some are suggesting. He was never charged with anything with his girfriend.
I knew the resident Democratic Dingleberry would continue to cling close to Obama's arse to once again give us all an unsolicited whiff of that "taint"ed administration.
Depends on the state law. Depends on the charge. Florida: • The physical inability to handle a firearm safely. • A felony conviction (unless civil and firearm rights have been restored by the convicting authority). • Having adjudication withheld or sentence suspended on a felony or misdemeanor crime of violence unless three years have elapsed since probation or other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled. • A conviction for a violent crime in the last three years, either misdemeanor or felony. • A conviction for violation of controlled substance laws or multiple arrests for such offenses. • A record of drug or alcohol abuse. • Two or more DUI convictions within the previous 3 years. • Being committed to a mental institution or adjudged incompetent or mentally defective. • Having been issued a domestic violence injunction or an injunction against repeat violence that is currently in force. • Renunciation of U.S. citizenship. • A dishonorable discharge from the armed forces. • Being a fugitive from justice.
The right to purchase and own a forearm is a different inquiry than applying for a permit to carry that firearm. I have never applied for a CHL, but I own guns. If I am found carrying that gun, I go to jail because I do not have a permit to carry it. The question remains, regardless of how Granville tries to obfuscate it, why was somebody who had a restraining order issued against him for domestic violence and had been arrested for assaulting a cop allowed a CHL in the first place. It's reckless.
