You Sir are good...
Perfect. We're on the same page then. Will you help me start the class? We can take the class together so we can get an idea of how it will go. And maybe possibly become Certified Threat Neutralization Targeting Teachers. Are you in?
You Sir are good...
LOL. Well, in the days when those guys were around, they didn't have the technology to make guns accurate enough to do that. But now, it's pretty simple. For beginners, you could start off by putting a scope on their pistols for better accuracy. The now make scopes that magnify up to 50x. It would make the gun bulkier but the increase in accuracy should make up for it. So with my proposal, it might have gone like this:
Martin attacks Zimmerman.
Zimmerman, trained in threat neutralization targeting (level 1), unholsters his 17 caliber revolver (with 50x scope).
Zimmerman shoots Martin in the knee. (While improbable with the scope, even if Zimmerman misses, the 17 caliber bullet isn't going to kill Martin).
Assuming success, Martin backs off Zimmerman.
Zimmerman reassesses the situation.
If Martin re-attacks, Zimmerman fires the kill shot.
If Martin doesn't attack, Zimmerman calls the cops.
OK, I guess I'm done here. You guys are too short-sighted.You Sir are good...
That would be awesome…My .30 06 has a Leupold 7X which allows me to shoot accurately out to 300 yards…Imagine what Zimmerman could have done with a 50x scope on his .17 caliber assault hand gun…He probably could have just shot off the tip of the guys finger….
You don't think that's a funny scenario? Come on man. A scope longer than the pistol, mounted on some tall ass see through brackets? Then having to hold it a couple of inches from his eye, trying in vain trying to focus on something a couple of feet away. All while getting beat on.
Wait...you're not disputing the 50mm objective are you?
Or maybe you're scoffing that the extra $ paid for a 50mm over a 40mm or 42mm aren't worth it.
I really don't know what you're trying to say.
The possibilities are endless…One just needs to think outside the box….
Yes, thanks. I can see how the law is written. So since he can claim self-defense he can say it was "justifiable" manslaughter. Seem like one can pick a fight and then when they are getting their ass kicked can kill and then get off.
Funny how that works eh, Joe?
Commit an act that doesn't meet the elements of a crime and, presto - zingo, you can't be charged!
Even if the weight of an ill-informed court of public opinion is calling for your arrest.
Even if the weight of a maliciously-biased national media are misrepresenting the facts to make you look like a racist.
Even if the New Black Panther Party has called for your capture, "Dead or Alive."
And, yes, even if Al Sharpton, e Lee, Roseanne Bar, Barack Obama, and Jessie Jackson insinuate themselves in the fray, against you.
I read Florida's use of force statute that way, as well, Joe.
But, considering there is zero evidence Zimmerman "picked" a fight and zero evidence Trayvon Martin suffered any injuries -- consistent with being assaulted first -- I'd say that's probably not at issue here.
I'm pretty sure you can't initiate the violence (throw the first punch) and then claim self defense.
I'm also pretty confident that this is the special prosecutors dilemma.
It seems from the evidence that has been made public that Martin may have initiated the violence which then justifies Zimmerman's self defense claim.
if she can't find any evidence that Zimmerman initiated the violence then she is right not to charge him.
IMO…Florida law, Florida police investigation, Florida prosecutor is the least of Zimmerman's concern…The Feds will do a real investigation and IMO charge Zimmerman with "something" when they are good & ready…
I'm pretty sure you're wrong...
Zimmerman could be claiming either 2(a) or 2(b).776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
I think the idea behind the statute is to provide you with a defense should the person your "picking on" react with disproportionate force.
Yeah, If Florida no bills him Holders justice department will probably charge him with violating Martins civil rights. It's just too juicy of a political issue not to with Obama running for re-election..
He can and should claim both.
I actually have shot on both land & water with either hand but I was following cantthinkofanything lead & posting jibberish…S&W does not make a .27 or .19 caliber and I am pretty sure that Glock does not make a .19 caliber assault pistol…
Well maybe Zimmerman did assault first but just didn't land any blows that caused injuries. A person can assault first and not land any blows. And how would one tell by injuries alone who initiated the assault?
Yeah, I agree with you.
Well, if you're inferring the feds will drum up some charges after Florida authorities have exonerated him; that would be a pretty interesting twist considering there now appears to be no federal statute applicable to this incident.
As more and more media deception comes to light, the federal hate crimes law appears to be less and less a factor.
And, unless, Obama can make some strained connection to the Interstate Commerce Clause, a la Obamacare, I'm not sure under what aegis the feds could charge him.
All forms of homicide -- except those occurring in conjunction with some other federal element (terrorism, bank robbery, drug running, etc...) -- are state crimes under the purview of state law.
are you predicting the DOJ will lodge politically convenient civil rights charges before the election this year? before local justice runs its course?
I have one question for you, CC: how much you wanna bet?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions