If obama had another son...

[Codger_64]

Ah. Viginia is a Commonwealth, so they do things a bit differently. My uncle is an elected magistrate in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but he sits on the Fiscal Court, which runs the unincorporated parts of the county. In most other states that are not using the old commonwealth system, we would call him a county commissioner or councilman. The head of the Fiscal Court is called the Chief Judge, but he is more like an elected county manager or mayor. Confusing, no?

Do protection orders expire? I was under the impression that they do, here at least. And I also understood that an accusation of DV precluded one from firearm ownership and posession, as do certain prior arrest records. Aren't those questions asked on firearms purchase forms and CCW permit applications? I saw Zimmerman's police academy application where he noted his arrest for assaulting an officer.

[kronckew]

...
I've seen photos of the dead kid. He looks about 110 lbs soaking wet. I guess mall ninja Zimmerman could not handle that and probably deserved a good whooping.
...

so, you haven't read the whole thread. the photos the media are hyping are of mr. t. martin when he was thirteen, before he grew to 6ft. 3in. and played high school football, and got into a lot of trouble. little thirteen-year old 110lb'ers DO grow up. those pictures do make some people believe the hype tho. like you.

as far as all the people harping on about him being 'unarmed' he did have two arms. people have been killed by a punch before, in the throat or back of the head by a 6'3" fit football player on an overweight out of shape older man could do it...

getting hit by a swung plastic bag with a bottle of ice tea in it can also do a lot of damage.

let the police & the justice handle it and don't believe all the liberal media hype. there will be enough political pressure on the local govt. to make zimmerman a scapegoat anyway.

[mctrinket]

I have no desire to argue with anyone or engage in any internet flame wars. I was just giving my opinion on the incident based on the information I have seen. I can't speak to the ultimate truth of that information any more than anyone else on here or anyone that was not actually there that night.

But it sure seems this Zimmerman fellow is quite the hardo LEO-wannabe vigilante.

[jdm61]

Arrests do not typically result in the permanent loss of firearms rights. A felon arrest can result the suspension of some of those rights like the ability to purchase firearms in a regulated transaction, pending the outcome of the case. In some state cases, even things that qualify as a "conviction" under state law do not automatically qualify as such for purposes of Federal firearms law. In Florida, you can be "convicted without being convicted" in cases if you enter pre-trial intervention like George Zimmerman apparently did or if the court withholds adjudication. Likewise, the state that convicts you can restore those firearms rights at a later date and the Feds will accept that in most circumstances, if it meets their standards for a full restoration of said rights. Accusations do not result in loss of rights per se. Certain non-criminal court orders can result in temporary loss of rights, just like being committed to a mental facility or evidence of a drug issue. Misdemeanor convictions can also result in a temporary loss of firearms rights as one of the general conditions of probation, but that usually expires once sanctions are complete unless the offense falls under some other law that requires a period of time to pass after sanctions have been completed before the rights are restored as a matter of law, which is also the case sometimes with mental health and drug issues . The relevant law regarding permanent loss of firearms rights for DV is a Federal one passed during the Clinton years. it has been copied by many states and IIRC, you can lose your rights even for a DV misdemeanor conviction, but it still requires a conviction that meets the standards of the Feds for that law to kick in.

Do protection orders expire? I was under the impression that they do, here at least. And I also understood that an accusation of DV precluded one from firearm ownership and posession, as do certain prior arrest records. Aren't those questions asked on firearms purchase forms and CCW permit applications? I saw Zimmerman's police academy application where he noted his arrest for assaulting an officer.

[quietmike]

Will Obummer get involved in this case?

http://www.examiner.com/charleston-c...ear-sanford-fl

[Triton]

Will Obummer get involved in this case?

http://www.examiner.com/charleston-c...ear-sanford-fl

That depends, can he get any votes out of it?

[jdm61]

Mike, some people have already tried to make political hay out of that case. I did not, but it did make me think about something. We don't have any indication at this time that these two goblins beat that man out of a sense of "injustice" over the Martin incident, but it does raise the question about whether we may see an increase in activity by similar anti-social types who might think that they have some kind of license to engage in even more criminal behavior now because they are oppressed at least according to people like Al Sharpton. We have seen this in the case of some of the "flash mobs" allegedly associated with the Occupy movement looting stores, etc.

Will Obummer get involved in this case?

http://www.examiner.com/charleston-c...ear-sanford-fl

[HJK]

I appreciate the racial element of Obama's comment. Perhaps it would be hopelessly naive to expect Obama to avoid commenting and playing to his base and to some degree it may be even positive that a black man in the white house speaks up, or is perceived to be speaking up, for one of the main complaints of the black community in America regarding unequal justice. Or alleged unequal justice. But this isn't the first time that obama has either crossed or come close to crossing the line between the executive branch and the judicial branch. A sitting president should not be commenting on cases that are before the courts or crimes that are being investigated. He did it here. He did it when a cop went after his professor friend at Harvard and he did it again regarding the health care bill that is before the US Supreme Court.

I think it's clear based on what we already know that Zimmerman should be charged and tried by a jury. But the President of The United States of America shouldn't be his prosecutor.

[hostileuniverse]

I think it's clear based on what we already know that Zimmerman should be charged and tried by a jury. But the President of The United States of America shouldn't be his prosecutor.

And that first sentence makes you no better than Obama, this guy is prolly gonna go to prison now, whether he deserves it or not because of people like you...

[Preacher Man]

And that first sentence makes you no better than Obama, this guy is prolly gonna go to prison now, whether he deserves it or not because of people like you...

In here we don't discuss each other, only the issues. This is your first offense, so I'll let it pass. Consider this your warning.

Now, what in that sentence written by an experience conservative lawyer makes him a liberal, ignorant, or whatever? Think about it. Either there is enough doubt and evidence to warrant a trial or not. Period. As a lawyer, HJK thinks there is enough inormation to warrant a trial. I don't know that is the case, but I'm no lawyer. I do think there is at least enough doubt to warrant an in depth investigation. The inability of experts to concur on who's screams are heard in the recording add to this. At this stage a trial may be Zimmerman's best hope to clear his name. He is living in hiding, you know. He has been vilified, whether warranted or not, and the media has helped. But if your position is that anyone who questions any detail on Zimmerman's story, for whatever reason, is a liberal, then you have a problem is not with HJK, with our legal system.

[HJK]

And that first sentence makes you no better than Obama, this guy is prolly gonna go to prison now, whether he deserves it or not because of people like you...

First, no, you are wrong, and I will explain why in a moment. But first:
Second, there is absolutely no reason for such an ad hominem comment ( personal attack). We try to keep that to a minimum here. i.e. "people like me"? You don't know me. You don't know anything about me or my opinions and the first sentence of mine you ever read you misunderstood. Please try to address the arguments and facts, not personalities.

Back to that first issue:
I said, "...Zimmerman should be charged and tried by a jury"
That is not to say he should be found guilty or that I think he is guilty. That is for a jury and a judge applying the law to determine by due process.
I am not pre-judging his guilt; hostile universe is prejudging his innocence.
The question is whether there is enough evidence and cause for a legal charge.
There seems to be.

If he had not followed the deceased and engaged him, against the admonition of the 911 operator, nobody would have died.
It is quite a stretch to run after someone without evidence of a crime and to then claim you are "standing your ground".
Somebody was yelling for help, and it may not have been Zimmerman.
Is the man guilty? maybe yes, maybe no. I only have media reports. That isn't due process. That's why we have courts.
But, prima facie there seems to be enough evidence ( going by media reports) to warrant a charge or a grand jury looking into it.
That's all I said

But I'll go a little further here. If any one of us on this forum found themselves in a similar situation, we would almost certainly be charged. And if we were that stupid we'd deserve it. Whoever trained him, if he has had any training at all, should be ashamed.
From a tactical point of view, the guy is an idiot that gives the rest of us who protect our homes and neighbourhoods a bad name.
He discredits genuine self defence and "standing your ground", but that's my personal view.
From a legal point of view, if the president hasn't tainted every possible jury he should be charged.

I see Preacher Man posted while I was typing. He is too kind but he put it better than I did, as usual.

[Preacher Man]

From a legal point of view, if the president hasn't tainted every possible jury he should be charged.

That is my concern too, not only about the president inserting himself in this case, but the "lynching mob" started by the media coverage. All of this is going to make a fair trial very difficult.

I see Preacher Man posted while I was typing. He is too kind but he put it better than I did, as usual.

You are too kind. Thank you.

[Codger_64]

There is no question that Zimmerman committed homicide. He admitted it to police. His lawyer and family admit it. What is in contention is whether or not it was justifiable homicide. We have Zimmerman's word that it was. Does he have any reason to say that other than that it is true? We have witnesses, but their statements conflict time and again. So we are left with professional examination of the forensic evidence which includes the clothing of both, the 911 calls, crime scene evidence and Martin's autopsy results. What is plain to me, a layman, is that by his actions, he is removed from the "stand your ground" defense. The person who actually wrote that law agrees with me.

[jdm61]

But the person who wrote the law is a politician, not a lawyer involved in the case.

There is no question that Zimmerman committed homicide. He admitted it to police. His lawyer and family admit it. What is in contention is whether or not it was justifiable homicide. We have Zimmerman's word that it was. Does he have any reason to say that other than that it is true? We have witnesses, but their statements conflict time and again. So we are left with professional examination of the forensic evidence which includes the clothing of both, the 911 calls, crime scene evidence and Martin's autopsy results. What is plain to me, a layman, is that by his actions, he is removed from the "stand your ground" defense. The person who actually wrote that law agrees with me.

[Codger_64]

But the person who wrote the law is a politician, not a lawyer involved in the case.

CONAN: And again, we don't know all the details of the confrontation. What makes you think that Stand Your Ground does not apply to George Zimmerman's defense?

BAXLEY: Well, simply because if you carefully read the statute, which most of the critics have not, and read the legislative analysis, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. If anything, this law would have protected the victim in this case; it could have.

CONAN: It could have.

BAXLEY: So - and in fact, the gentleman - Mr. Zimmerman's attorney, who when he first appeared on CNN the other night, he actually said he was not going to use this statute. The governor, Jeb Bush, has said it does not apply.

CONAN: That's the previous governor.

BAXLEY: Yes, the former governor who signed it. The Senate sponsor, Senator Peaden, former senator, he's in the panhandle. He said it doesn't apply. From my review, I certainly - it certainly wasn't the intent of any of us to protect anyone who was pursuing and confronting other people. It was when an individual law-abiding citizen was the subject and the victim of a violent attack. And an investigation always has to be done to

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149404...our-ground-law
.
.
.

[hostileuniverse]

Wow, I am not lawyer, a DA, or a police officer but I did stay in a holiday inn last nite and saw on tv that Zimmerman is a racist and a murderer, therefore judging by media reports that have been retracted by THREE frickin networks, I say we should arrest, and prosecute this man in front of a jury of Obama voters and then we can claim justice was done.

I think what "some people" forget is that the police were on scene and did investigate the incident, seeing NO reason to file charges, let the man go, but now, because of falsified news reports, NOW we should arrest him? And no one sees anything wrong with that? Ug.....

[Codger_64]

The investigation was not finished. Forensic evidence was incomplete. Witnesses had not been interviewed. No matter how "some people" want Zimmerman to be made a National Hero. Ug. If the State prosecuting attorney finds enough evidence to charge him with any degree of homicide besides justified homicide, he will be charged, arrested and bailed pending his arraignment and trial. It is uncertain yet if she will call a grand jury or not.

[Preacher Man]

Wow, I am not lawyer, a DA, or a police officer but I did stay in a holiday inn last nite and saw on tv that Zimmerman is a racist and a murderer, therefore judging by media reports that have been retracted by THREE frickin networks, I say we should arrest, and prosecute this man in front of a jury of Obama voters and then we can claim justice was done.

I think what "some people" forget is that the police were on scene and did investigate the incident, seeing NO reason to file charges, let the man go, but now, because of falsified news reports, NOW we should arrest him? And no one sees anything wrong with that? Ug.....

Our system of law doesn't exist to help promote political positions. That is the problem of some of the media coverage of this unfortunate event and Obama inserting himself in this. The purposeful use of old photos (kid photos of Mr. Martin) and the now known edit of the 911 call are examples of trying to use this legal case as a platform for political activism. But some on the right are doing the same and it is a wrong for the right to do it as it is for the felt. As things stand, Mr. Zimmerman is not the best poster boy for "Stand Your Ground" laws. On the contrary, he may become the test case used to show a weakness on this type of law. The quicker conservative lawmakers clarify what the proper application of "Stand Your Ground" laws is, the better. There are better examples to show for our causes than someone who actively followed Mr. Martin, apparently without a cause. There are ways to keep an eye on someone suspicious without having to start a confrontation. Stand your ground laws are meant to protect law abiding citizens who face confrontation from possible attackers, not to promote confrontations.

What some people don't get (no quotation marks necessary since I not referring to anyone in particular) is that when the police first started the investigation is was assumed that the "Stand Your Ground" law applied. Now it seems like it does not. That changes everything.

[jdm61]

Jeb is a real estate developer, not a lawyer.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149404...our-ground-law
.
.
.

[jdm61]

How much if this "the stand your ground law does not apply" has to do with what the law says or even was intended to mean and how much has to do with the fact that a black teenager was killed and a bunch of angry people are marching around the State of Florida? In my mind, the CORRECT answer to this question is "we don't know if it applies or not. That is a factual question for a jury to decide after being given appropriate instructions by the trial judge."

Our system of law doesn't exist to help promote political positions. That is the problem of some of the media coverage of this unfortunate event and Obama inserting himself in this. The purposeful use of old photos (kid photos of Mr. Martin) and the now known edit of the 911 call are examples of trying to use this legal case as a platform for political activism. But some on the right are doing the same and it is a wrong for the right to do it as it is for the felt. As things stand, Mr. Zimmerman is not the best poster boy for "Stand Your Ground" laws. On the contrary, he may become the test case used to show a weakness on this type of law. The quicker conservative lawmakers clarify what the proper application of "Stand Your Ground" laws is, the better. There are better examples to show for our causes than someone who actively followed Mr. Martin, apparently without a cause. There are ways to keep an eye on someone suspicious without having to start a confrontation. Stand your ground laws are meant to protect law abiding citizens who face confrontation from possible attackers, not to promote confrontations.

What some people don't get (no quotation marks necessary since I not referring to anyone in particular) is that when the police first started the investigation is was assumed that the "Stand Your Ground" law applied. Now it seems like it does not. That changes everything.