DU lost its mind after the Zimmerman verdict

[Bake]

We have a seeming prevailing sentiment to:

Eliminate the jury system;

Eliminate self-defense laws;

Eliminate gun ownership (not surprising).

We used to believe it was better for 100 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to go to prison. Apparently notably more.

This place has lost it's mind.

Did the jury get it wrong? Hell yes. But drawing too many general conclusions from one case is equally wrong.

If my wife gets attacked on a dark street, be advised, she's armed. If its him or her, or if its submit to rape, it's going to be him who suffers the consequence. If I'm attacked or my family is attacked, and its him or me, I can tell you right now with no hesitation it's going to be him. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.

What's the difference? I'm not getting out of the car or truck and going looking for trouble.

Bake

[naaman fletcher]

1. Its pretty embarassing actually

The criminal justice system is stacked against the accused, and African Americans bear the brunt of that.

Yet, in memory of Trayvon, people here want to stack the criminal justice system even more against the accused.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. This. n/t

[ananda]

73. What was Trayvon ever accused of?

I thought the accused was Zimmerman.

[naaman fletcher]

78. I didn't say he was accused of anything. Nt

[Eddie Haskell]

86. Zimmerman accused him of being suspiciously black

The FL law enabled Zimmerman to act as judge, jury, and executioner. The jurors should have ignored the law and administered justice. Being American sheeples, they did as told.

[hlthe2b]

2. Nonsense.. No one is advocating against true "self defense"

But, you better be forewarned... If you or your wife goes after the much "afeared" attacker and initiates the confrontation, as I truly believe was the case with Zimmerman, you better hope this woman is not on your jury.

[Bake]

12. Is that what I said?

Hmmm, let me see ... Nope.

But we've still got calls to boycott an entire state. Eliminate private gun ownership. Eliminate self defense because by god if somebody dies there's gonna be hell to pay!

Pay attention to what I said. I don't go looking for trouble, unlike Gz.


Bake

[hlthe2b]

17. Your call out of DUers who disagree with you on the verdict and your egregious mischaracerization

of what they are saying vis-a-vis elimination of "self defense" arguments, juries, and the like, was there in your post.

So, yeah.... Better take a big step back, Bake.. I and most jurors will not be swayed by "fake" self-defense arguments promoted by someone who in a paranoid fearful or overly-self empowered state simply wanted to shoot the "other"...

[Dawgs]

64. Thank you. No one is suggesting the things stated in the OP. n/t

[woolldog]

74. +1 OP is swinging at straw men

[hfojvt]

129. double standards are funny things

you didn't mind an OP calling out others (some DUers) who disagree with them, when you recced this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3246059

It didn't bother to mischaracterize what they said though. Just called them dupes, liars, etc.

I enter that as the first exhibit in the question of "Did DU lose its mind?"

[hlthe2b]

136. No, indeed, that DUer did not mischaracterize what other DUers said.

A big FAIL for you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. Yes, it is what you said

"We have a seeming prevailing sentiment to ... Eliminate self-defense laws"

Your OP is a ridiculous mischaracterisation of DU. It's pointless. All that left is to make you see this.

[Eddie Haskell]

88. You may not look for trouble, but that doesn't stop the Zimmermans

[reusrename]

118. Actually, you said that you believe a rapist has the right to murder your wife.

If someone tries to rape your wife and she breaks his nose, he has a right to shoot her in the heart.

That is your position, isn't it?

[Hangingon]

3. +1

[trumad]

4. Broad Brush there....

So we're saying we can't self defend?

?

[Bake]

18. Are you nuts?

I'm not saying that. Many here are, or aren't you paying attention?

I'm going to defend myself. My wife is going to defend herself. And I'll sleep likes baby afterwards.

The GZ jury blew it. What I'm saying us, dear god, don't throw our everything as a result.

Bake

Bake

[premium]

5. +2,

because +1 is already taken.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Also, to unfairly broadbrush other DU members based upon differences of opinions, & get away with it

I wish Hosts had the same power and wisdom and guidance as moderators had in the past, this would be a better place.

I may not agree with people who agree with the verdict, but I'm not going to call them names.

I may not agree with people who disagree with me on gun violence reduction strategy and the second amendment, but I don't seek to intimidate or insult them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023247601

I think it's pretty damned uncivil.

[Bake]

25. Then you weren't paying attention

Multiple calls to eliminate the jury system in favor of a two or three judge panel. Calls for professional juror system.

We either believe what we profess or we don't: better for 100 guilty persons to go free than for 1 innocent person to go to jail. Clearly, DU doesn't believe that--until an innocent person is convicted!

Bake

[Nye Bevan]

7. The jury system dates back to Magna Carta.

It was a little surprising to see DUers wanting to get rid of it on the basis of a single verdict.

[hobbit709]

8. Lost it's mind? You just now noticed?

[Bake]

27. No, I waited until now to post.

But it was apparent immediately.

Bake

[ksoze]

9. And the boycott calls are insane

Huge overreaction - if everyone cares so much about the topic of minority teenage issues, get involved locally and stop trying to punish everyone.

[WCLinolVir]

61. Minority teenage issues?? Is that what you call murdering a kid? Talk about dismissive.

[ksoze]

99. Chill out mind reader

I was referencing the overarching issue here - the plight of minority teen males in society today - the police courts and others disproportionally effect them. Your gonna bust a vein trying to put words in others mouth.

[markiv]

10. and federal civil rights prosecution would be double joepardy

i believe they used civil rights prosecution in the 1960s where the state refused to prosecute for *anything* sustantial

but prosecuting for a 'wrong verdict' in a 2nd degree murder trial is something else completely - it's 'double jeopardy'

a civil lawsuit trial for damages is something else entirely, and fair game, as criminal has beyond reasonable doubt, and civil has preponderance of the evidence as standards

the exact same jury (which would never happen) could be diference criminal and vivil verdicts because of the differing evidence standards

[geek tragedy]

16. Federal prosecution would not be double jeopardy--different sovereign entity.

The state of Florida gets one bite at the apple, but the feds get another.

[markiv]

20. i know of no case where the state tried someone for something substantial

where the feds came in afterward

does ANYONE believe the feds would come in with that charge if he'd been found guilty for 2nd degree?

and i bet the DOJ mentions double jeopardy in declining to do it

[geek tragedy]

26. Your ignorance is not a defense against history.

The civil rights era is littered with such cases where racist state courts let Klansmen walk and the feds had to come in and do and prosecute the bastards.

Example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viola_Liuzzo

On May 3 an all-white jury was selected for Wilkins' trial, with Rowe the key witness. Three days later, Murphy made blatantly racist comments during his final arguments, including calling Liuzzo a "white nigger," in order to sway the jury. The tactic was successful enough to result in a mistrial the following day (10-2 in favor of conviction), and on May 10, the three accused killers were part of a Klan parade which closed with a standing ovation for them.

Before the new trial got underway, defense attorney Murphy was killed in an automobile accident, on August 20, when he fell asleep while driving and crashed into a gas tank truck. The former mayor of Birmingham, Alabama Art Hanes agreed to take over representation for all three defendants one week later. Hanes was a staunch segregationist who served as mayor during the tumultuous 1963 period in which police commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor used fire hoses on African American protesters.

After another all-white jury was selected on October 20, the end result two days later saw the panel take less than two hours to acquit Wilkins in Liuzzo's slaying.

The next phase of the lengthy process began when a federal trial charged the defendants with conspiracy to intimidate African-Americans under the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction civil rights statute. The charges did not specifically refer to Liuzzo's murder. On December 3, the trio was found guilty by an all-white, all-male jury, and were sentenced to 10 years in prison.[5]

[markiv]

30. do you believe the state failed to prosecute this case

or that there were grave errors in jury selection, or racist statements tolerated from the defense?

[geek tragedy]

31. Doesn't matter, feds can always step in if there's a violation of federal criminal law. nt

[markiv]

35. yes it does matter, what people are asking them to do, is double jeopardy, in spirit

i'll take your 'doesn't matter' to mean 'no, the state did not make grave error or fail to prosecute this case'

and yes, that DOES matter

i firmly believe if the DOJ makes a statement, they will cite at least the spirit of double jeopardy, that they're not going in after a reasonable process just because some think the jury got the verdict wrong

[geek tragedy]

37. So now you're talking lofty principles instead of the law nt

[markiv]

43. double jeopardy is more than just a 'lofty principal'

it's a constitutional right to keep the state from absolutely destroying anyone they dont like

put a person on trial 10 time for 1st degree murder, and even with 10 'not guilty's, no person would be sane or solvent at the end of it

and i firmly believe the DOJ is not going down that road, because they know they will be rightly accused of it

[geek tragedy]

48. I just proved to you that there is no right against federal prosecutions

for a crime after the state has acquitted.

This is cut and dry from a legal perspective.

[markiv]

56. perception is reality

it will be perceived as double jeopardy, right before a mid-term election

my prediction - no DOJ charges

anything anyone says in this thread, is nothing more than that - a prediction

i just made mine

civil court damages, on the other hand, are fair game and i'd predict 100 percent chance of that, and i'd give 70 percent chance of being found liable for substantial amount

[ceonupe]

114. You are wrong

In all of your cases the Feds charged a different crime a civil rights violation not murder.

[Niceguy1]

128. fbi report

Did not find evidence of a racial motive

[ceonupe]

143. Yep

And what people on DU have to know is the Feds aren't looking at racial profiling its not aginst the law for private citizens to do it even if I think it's is bad.

The problem is the Feds have to prove at the time shot was fired zim was shooting him because he was black.

That will be very hard to prove.

Many belive he followed him because he was black .... Altercation occurred in which TM ended up getting the better of GZ and GZ shot him. Even if that's the case still no fed charges. Because given that set of facts the shot could not be proven to because he was black it could be for self defense or even because of a personal beef honestly. Unless they can prove intent of the shot not getting out of car or other things.

[RockaFowler]

140. Wasn't that the case with the Rodney King police officers??

I thought they were found "not guilty" in a state trial and then found "guilty" in a Federal Probe

[anomiep]

47. They were different charges

The federal charge was different than the state charge, so that is not double jeopardy.

If they can find a federal charge for Zimmerman that doesn't violate double jeopardy, that is actually substantiated by the evidence, and they can make a good case for it, they should do that.

[geek tragedy]

51. Every federal charge is different from the state charge, since

they're based on different statutes.

[anomiep]

82. Well

The state charge was murder, and the federal charge was conspiracy to violate civil rights (If the federal charge is not exactly right please allow that I am going on memory for that)

It is not a matter of 'They were acquitted under a state statute for murder and then tried again under a federal murder statute'

[Little Star]

45. Try the Rodney King & Danziger Bridge cases.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King#Federal_trial_of_officers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings

[AnotherMcIntosh]

65. A consideration of facts is going to slow things down.

[noiretextatique]

50. this case is precisely why the feds have to step in

it's not a "wrong verdict" it is a potentially racially motivated verdict in a state known for such verdicts. typical american ahistorical myopia. white jury nullification routinely set murderers free in the south...and it is still happening today. that's why the fed have to step in.

[Pelican]

68. All of that has nothing to do with what happened in the Zimmerman trial...

There was an enormous will to prosecute. The state attorney skipped the grand jury due to fear that they wouldn't indict.

There is zero evidence that this jury, with both white and minority members, felt so strongly about the hispanic Zimmerman that they let him go based on race.

Zero...

[noiretextatique]

104. THE EVIDENCE IS AMERICAN HISTORY

which is easy for white people to ignore.

[Pelican]

107. What are you talking about?

Fine, there is a precedent and in the past the Feds have jumped in for X,Y and Z reasons (That's the history part)

Now you have to apply and see if anything resembling X, Y and Z took place in the Zimmerman trial and would require federal intervention.

What are your reasons for why the Feds should have anything to do with this other than you want another chance at a conviction?

[Little Star]

69. Yep!

[hack89]

80. The burden of proof is even harder in a Federal civil rights charge

they have to prove that racial hatred was Z's primary motivation. Following a high profile trial where the state did not emphasize racial hatred at all, that will be a pretty tall order.

[noiretextatique]

105. i don't think so

there is ample evidence of zimmerman's racial attitudes.

[hack89]

110. It was not prominent in the trial

you would think that with the importance of proving malice, the state would have emphasized it.

[noiretextatique]

113. i am not sure why they didn't

i've heard about a witness who claimed the entire zimmerman family is racist.

[hack89]

119. Claims =/= proof

and they have to prove that this specific incident was racially motivated. Not think or suspect but prove with hard evidence. What hard evidence is there?

[noiretextatique]

123. how do you prove someone is racist?

or if the the murder was racially motivated? especially when half the country is willing to excuse all the evidence away. on the other hand, some, including the jury, bought zimmerman's bs story, without any evidence whatsoever.

[hack89]

124. I can think of several

a documented history of racist comments and actions, membership in racist organizations, comments to eye witnesses along the lines of "lets go beat up a ******", a prior history of arrests for racists actions.

[mstinamotorcity2]

11. No one lost their minds.

People are speaking out of Frustration. Out of Injustice. Out of the fear of their sons, husbands, fathers losing their lives for no apparent reason other than being a person of color. And for your sake I hope nothing of this magnitude happens to you or your wife and family. You stated what would probably be the outcome, but what if the outcome changes. Don't wish a sexual assault on your wife but what if she doesn't have the opportunity to brandish her firearm. Hope she doesn't become pregnant or you will be daddy to the rapist baby. A fate just as bad.

[Bake]

33. She won't "brandish."

She will shoot. But only in response to an imminent threat. So I'd suggest if you see a beautiful blonde woman alone after dark. Don't fuck with her.

Or with me.

Bake

[mstinamotorcity2]

39. she will shoot

at what she perceives as an imminent threat. gotcha!!

[Atman]

49. Right...and the dead person will never be able to tell his/her side.

All you have to be is "afraid" in Florida. And the media is making sure EVERYONE is afraid. Now any black man walking in the dark is a threat. Just stand your ground, let him walk toward you and *BLAM*, threat eliminated. As long as there are no witnesses, you're off scot-free. At least in Florida. Wild Wild South.

I used to live there. I grew up in Florida. I'm embarrassed to admit it now. What has my old state become?

[Eddie Haskell]

92. I just read the law and you're absolutely right

In an attempt to give owners the right to protect their home, FL has put everyone outside of their own home at risk. It's ludicrous.

[Bake]

52. And if its reasonable. You're damn right

Bake

[hlthe2b]

55. If there was ever a case for expressed outrage, this is it... Yet those who can not understand that.

that claim those deeply offended at the injustice in our "Justice" system have "lost our minds"---

Telling, very telling....

[Silent3]

81. So, "speaking out of frustration" excuses crazy talk?

As if the only way to express anger and frustration is to go overboard, to propose stupid ideas (like eliminating juries) that would cause more harm than good?

We should hope for no better from our fellow DUers than emotional outbursts where the actual content of their words needs to be graded on a curve, adjusting for some expected, pre-excused lapses in sanity?

[Quixote1818]

13. Interesting, where were these posts because I never saw them

While I agree with your points I don't agree that the whole website lost it's mind. Not even close. Maybe a few people did, perhaps 10 people out of tens of thousands on DU but that is to be expected on an on-line watering hole.


Eliminate the jury system: I don't ever remember reading this. Not once but maybe I missed it.

Eliminate self-defense laws: Again, don't remember anyone saying this. I did hear people say maybe a new law could be proposes to protect people minding their own business who are profiled.

Eliminate gun ownership (not surprising): I am sure there were two or three but this was most certainly not a major point that was given much attention other than a few people arguing.

[Bake]

36. Then you missed it. All of it.

Go back and look over the weekend. Calls to eliminate the jury system. Self defense? Somebody died. You must be guilty. It was amazing.

Bake

[Quixote1818]

60. Maybe I did, I guess I just don't click on those posts

I came right out and said the jury did what they were instructed to do. I just with there was some new law to protect people who are minding their own business who are profiled then provoked and end up dead because they got the upper hand.

[Blue_Tires]

93. so did you comment on THOSE threads instead of making this all about you?

you're going to say you've never made a really, really asinine post in all of your time on this forum?

glass houses, and all...


But I'm pleased to know you're more outraged by the over-the-top reaction of some DUers than the verdict itself...

[stranger81]

94. If you honestly think this case boils down to someone is dead, therefore Z was guilty,

then you are the one who missed it (the point). All of it.

[geek tragedy]

14. The Florida rule is that a man can try to rape a woman, and if she fights back

so effectively that he breaks his nose, he can take out his gun and shoot her.

If he's white and she's black.

Yeah, that's totally what our justice system is all about.

[Lee-Lee]

22. No, it is not

not even close, actually.

Hyperbole doesn't serve anyone well when discussing these issues. And statements like this that are not at all in line with the law are the kind of bad legal advice that will make women hesitate when faced with an assault.

[geek tragedy]

29. Imagine if Trayvon Martin were a 19 year old young black woman

wearing a hoody, and that the physical confrontation with them rolling around was him trying to rape her (but of course unprovable to a jury).

Result?

[Quixote1818]

34. I agree for the most part but take a look at this case

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

If there was ever a moment for jury nullification this was it.

[Lee-Lee]

62. I am familiar with that case

You can't claim self defense if you leave the confrontation, get a weapon, voluntarily go back and use the weapon.

Additionally she had a restraining orde against him yet she went to his dwelling and was in contact with him- a violation of that order. That alone us an arrest able offense for her, protective orders work both ways.

Nothing irritated me more than to spend half a shift helping a woman get an order for protection, explaining they meant she couldn't willingly go around him also, and 2-3 days later get a call because she did and they were fighting. Again.

My policy was simple- if there was an order in place and there was a violation whoever initiated the contact was going to jail. I didn't tolerate persons the order was against ignoring them, I didn't tolerate people who took out an order acting like it was optional for them or not a big deal.

What this shows more than anything is the idiocy of mandatory sentences the remove judicial discretion in sentencing.

[Bake]

40. Not even close

My wife won't bother to break his nose, except incidentally. He'll be dead of a 9 mm.

Bake

[geek tragedy]

41. If she's armed. If he's armed and she's not, well then he's the

one who gets to kill her.

Dead people don't testify.

[JI7]

130. if she shot him she would have been charged and convicted

if she is black.

if the poster is trying to make an argument for guns, trayvon was under age . and even if he was 18 then and had shot zimmerman before zimmerman could shoot him we all know where he would be. either dead from the police shooting him or in prison.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

71. If

a 9 mm would stop an angry bear, an attacking pit bull, or animal of any size, it should be able to stop an attacker. Otherwise, ...

[jmg257]

91. Wow! And it is so nice of you to share you and your wife's guilt-free willingness

to shoot & kill other people.

The prosecution will be thrilled to come across these posts of yours in the aftermath.

[DinahMoeHum]

15. That's why I stayed away from DU yesterday. . .

. . .too emotionally upset, and I did not want to post anything I would later regret. I wanted to wait until these emotional waves receded.

[Dawgs]

67. You might want to change the "you're an idiot" part.

Last edited Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Someone that's more sensitive than myself might get you blocked from your own thread.

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. I guess I'm "more sensitive than yourself". And 5 jurors agreed with me.

[Dawgs]

95. Good.

[DinahMoeHum]

96. That was satire, right???

Sorry, not funny.

[Punkingal]

19. People are just venting...

At least I have been. This verdict made me literally sick to my stomach, and if I didn't have DU to talk to, I don't know what I would have done. I think a lot of over the top comments are coming from the emotions of these first hours/days of feeling frustrated and sad about nothing being done about what many of us see was at the least manslaughter.

Anyway, that's what I think.

[Igel]

133. Sometimes.

And it's not a problem.

But often when I see people vent it's what they really feel and believe under those circumstances.

Sometimes it's when they've finally reached a conclusion, one that they may not go back and rethink for a long time.

The venting showed a lot of things. I found it very informative. Often it was based on low or missing information--sometimes on ignored information. Misunderstandings and conflations of separate kinds of things were abundant. Their truth overwhelmed or replaced what evidence there was. They preferred hearsay to ballistic evidence. If something was possible then it was assumed to be the way it had to happen. It was often about them and not guilt or innocence; it was about justice for somebody who can't get justice, but whose name was invoked in order to punish somebody not for what was proven he did but what they assumed he did. It all nicely formed a pattern, and it wasn't a pretty one.

From what little I've seen posted here and mentioned, the other side was arguing on the same level of cognition and fact. Quite dispiriting, overall.

[Puzzledtraveller]

23. thank goodness

Glad to see this post.

[HardTimes99]

28. I must plead 'mea culpa' to at least flirting with the first particular ('Eliminate the

jury system'.) Fortunately, the voices of certain grounded DUers like Jackpine Radical and Cali have brought me back down to earth.

Since you agree that the jury 'got it wrong,' what if anything do you propose should be done in response?

[Blue_Tires]

32. I never said eliminate self-defense laws, I said revise

get it right...

and FWIW, I'd say DU lost it's mind long before Saturday, and the jury lost their collective mind to a much higher degree

At least you're right on one thing -- Next time I'm profiled it's better to shoot first and claim self-defense...

[datasuspect]

38. where's batman?

we really need batman right now.

[Lex]

44. And in the wake of big stories, this is different for DU how?

[Boom Sound 416]

46. Don't forget eliminate Florida

[Boom Sound 416]

53. You said it

"What's the difference? I'm not getting out of the car or truck and going looking for trouble."

You look for it. You will find it.

I'm with you on protecting your family as well and everything else you said.

If I could only add. That if it was me who was carrying a gun or not and I felt the presence of a threat by a person or group. The first thing I would do when I'm 400 hundred feet from home is try to get the fuck home as quickly but unassumingly as possible.

[Turbineguy]

54. If your wife resists the attack

the attacker can kill your wife under self defense. The idea is that your wife get around this by buying a gun to defend herself. The law favors the person who has a gun and shoots first. It's best if the crooks as well as the rest of us have guns. And of course lots of guns is better than just a few. She should have a handgun for close-in work and an assault rifle if there's a crowd of people. Only then will she truly know freedom.

[hlthe2b]

57. She'll need to enroll in "sniper" training post haste!...

I hear that they are working on contact lenses that improve eyesight waay beyond 20/20, and when aided by night vision goggles, hell, this horrendous threat from children of color can finally be wiped out--from the safe confines of one's own reinforced fortress.

[Tarheel_Dem]

72. !!!

[Scootaloo]

58. What's that? People say things when they get pissed?

If you for a moment think anyone here would stand by an actual effort to eliminate juries, even the people who might say so right now... you're the one who's lost it.

We're allowed to be angry. We're allowed to be hurt, we're allowed to be bewildered. I suggest you just get over it. if it bothers you, maybe take a break, it'll pass, and then we can go back to talking about whatever your pet interest is.

[Dash87]

59. I accept the jury's decision over trial-by-media.

That doesn't mean I agree, but the jury's decision ought to be respected.

[Beacool]

63. Not me, the verdict was predictable given the prosecution's

charge of murder 2. Zimmerman was not indicted by a grand jury. They brought a special prosecutor who vowed to pressure and overcharged him. The manslaughter charge was only given to the jurors as an option last week.

They should have charged Zimmerman with manslaughter from the onset. If they had, I think that the verdict would have been a different one.

[bigwillq]

66. DU always loses its mind over issues like this

That's part of the fun!

[onehandle]

70. I believe it would be better for 100 men to go without guns, than one innocent boy be shot.

Self defense with a gun is extremely rare outside of the stories that gun nuts make up.

Tens of thousands of Americans die each year.

We can fix this. See Australia.

[Android3.14]

75. Don't forget the elimination of the freedom from illegal search and seizure

It has been nuts, but in all the years I've been watching DU, I've noticed the trend to embrace a police state has become stronger by many folks here, especially those with unusually high posting numbers and a large crew of sycophants to complain about anyone who voices disagreement.

[Eddie Haskell]

97. I have too! Fear makes cowards of us all.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

76. Are you allowed to say this?

How soon will your OP or one of your responses be alerted on?

How soon will your OP or one of your responses be hidden?

[Eddie Haskell]

83. The FL law is absurd, as a juror I would have ignored the law

Visitors beware, get into an argument with your host and you could be shot. If asked to leave, don't stop to get your luggage; just get the fuck out or risk a legal execution. All your host has to say is, I asked him to leave, and he threatened me. Boom!

I won't be visiting FL anytime soon.

[HockeyMom]

87. Don't wait on a pizza line in St. Pete

Two men were standing on a line when one of them cut in front. Word were exchanged and one pulled out a gun(legal CCW) and shot the other. Self-defense against a PUSH! Oh, you never know? The other guy on line might have also had a GUN and was going to shoot me? Who can outdraw who? After all, all good guys have guns in Florida, right?

Better not tell the people boycotting Florida about this one. BTW, both men were white.

[Eddie Haskell]

100. Vigilante ville - Disney's latest theme park: long lines, heat, humidity, and guns.

Can't wait for the first incident in Disney World ... That ought to cut down on foreign visitors.

[HockeyMom]

120. Disney big fight with State of Florida

State wanted CCW people to be able to take their guns to Disney. Disney fought this using danger to CHILDREN as an argument, and that they were a private business on private property. Disney won this, but I don't know how they enforce it. I haven't been there since 1984, even after moving to Florida.

You cannot carry a gun to a baseball stadium in Florida. You are searched before you can enter. I guess Disney does this too?


As you can see with this, the State of Florida thinks "law abiding gun owners" should be able to carry their guns anywhere they want to. Apparently, if you are a business with a LOT of $$$ you can fight them, i.e, Disney World.

[Eddie Haskell]

131. A zone of sanity in a swamp full of gators

[HockeyMom]

84. Irrational fear for something that has not happened

and statistically probably won't. "IF somebody threatens my family, etc., etc." Intense anger for an hypothetical situation. "I/my wife will put a bullet, etc., etc."

Those two emotions can make for an explosive situation.

Who wants to walk around people with guns who feel like that, especially if they themselves choose NOT to be armed?

[IL Lib]

142. +1 n/t

[avebury]

85. People are so upset because, although we live in the

21st Century, parents have to worry about their children's safety just because of race of skin color.
That is just so unacceptable.

So many conservative white people are in melt down over the fact that the clock is ticking on when they (or their decendents) will find themselves moved into the minority classification and that is driving them insane (as witnessed by voter supression laws just to start with).

People are also upset with the lack of justice where one man kills a 17 year old child and walks while a black women shoots a warning shot into the ceiling of her home in self defense and gets 20 years in prison.

People are upset with the sloppy work by the Sanford Florida Police Department. There is not doubt that they did not take this case seriously from the start which resulted in the loss of a lot of evidence and mishandling of witnesses.

People are upset that his nation has de-evolved to the point where it takes social media to make police departments and prosecutors to their job. What ever happened to just doing you job because it is the right thing? What ever happend to working to get to the truth?

What ever happened to giving the lessor among us the same level of protection that is give to the greater among us? Why should race even factor into how well a police investigation is conducted?

This case is an example of how far off the track this country has gotten. And you wonder why people on DU (and elsewhere around the country) are upset? This case is just part of the disease that has infected this country. And there is no cure in sight.

[mzmolly]

89. Eliminate injustice,

is what was actually expressed.

[WinkyDink]

90. Being armed is not assurance of the ability to get and use the weapon. Bundy, e.g., incapaci-

tated his victims with a sudden blow to their heads.

[crim son]

98. When we all know the jury was wrong

then the discussion is not only warranted, but essential. There is nothing crazy about recognizing that we have a real problem.

[Eddie Haskell]

101. The law was wrong ... The jury was weak

[Blue_Tires]

103. Forget it...

This is the OP's little indirect "LOL I was right all along on the verdict and look at all the crazy things you all post in anger" -gloat thread of classiness...

[Pretzel_Warrior]

102. hi, GUN NUT!!

[treestar]

106. Agree, I used to say it re: the OJ case too

Everyone wanted to reform the system over one unusual case.

This case too was unusual - perfect storm of bad luck circumstances.

The only thing I would reform is go back to 12 people on a jury and go back to defendant burden of proof for self defense.

[G_j]

108. all I know is

just bet on the NRA, they always win.

[Rex]

109. Um...someone needs to put down the pipe

or pass me whatever you are smoking!

[DevonRex]

122. I don't think you want that stuff.

You want something that makes you dreamy and floaty and happy. I don't know what I'd call that post. I couldn't get through it. But I think I'm supposed to be upset at myself because I didn't like the verdict? And so I think he wants me to be mad at you, too. So here goes: Grrrrr. How'd I do?

I took a pain pill so I'm silly. Don't mind me.

[DainBramaged]

111. Unarmed and unharmed over 62 years

If you spend your life worrying about crime you will become a statistic.

[Lee-Lee]

116. And I avoided becoming a statistic

By being armed.

You can't say because you got lucky that everybody else's life experience will go the same way.

[DainBramaged]

117. Bravado, you have it

[Rex]

126. That is what you think keeps you from being a statistic.

Just like luck etc.. There is nothing that you have or can do from being the kind of statistic people talk about in the news.

[Lee-Lee]

132. Only partially true

Some things are out of your control, some are not.

If you take the mindset that everything is out of your control so why bother, then yes, you are at the whim of everybody and everything else.

If you accept that you have the power to change and influence what happens to you, then you can yield some influence on your situation.

This applies in lots of things in life. No just personal security, but everything. Empower yourself, take control of everything in your life that you can to make situations play out in your favor, don't sit back and just hope it works out.

In my specific situation, I am quite sure it changed the outcome. How bad the outcome would have been, no I can't say. Maybe just a carjacking, maybe much worse. But by being able to change the balance of power in the confrontation I changed the outcome for sure, I went from the little brown girl who looked like an easy target to the bitch he didn't want anything to do with simply by pointing my gun and yelling stop- I didn't even have time to finish getting my badge out before he was gone.

[Rex]

134. You feel empowered by that particular situation because

of the outcome. You got lucky. Had their been an accomplice out of sight with a gun, things might have been different.

I'm not saying lay down and take what life gives you, but the power of a gun is an illusion. Mostly if someone survives in any kind of gun confrontation, they are lucky. If both parties survive, it is a modern day miracle imo.

[Lee-Lee]

135. Your opinion

Isn't really backed up by statistics. Most of the time when a person uses a gun for self defense it is like my case, no shots are fired.

[Rex]

139. That part is true, few criminals are shot by law abiding citizens.

Still the overall study is troubling.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

[Lee-Lee]

141. Interesting page

I had to dig a bit to find the actual papers to find statistics and methodology, since they don't give you specifics, just present their interpretations of the data in a very vauge fashion.

The first one was the author simply stating that another study, one done by Gary Kleck, overstated how many people use a gun to defend themselves annually.

It is interesting to note two things about the study- first is that if you accept that the study you cited is 100% correct, and in their attempt to minimize the number of people who use guns for defense, even they admit there are 200,000 times a year people use guns defensively. Second, it was done by a researcher with a known bias and close ties to gun control advocacy groups, so it is not very impartial.

200,000 people legitimately using guns for self defense a year is not a small thing. And this figure, remember, is the LOWEST of all the studies, some put it much higher at 2+ million. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of all that- but even if you accept the lowest number from a researcher with very close ties to the gun control advocacy groups it gives a number that is sizable number and nothing to dismiss.

[closeupready]

112. Yes. This happens EVERY time some perceived injustice occurs.

In the Trayvon Martin case, his family has clearly not been served justice, nor has Zimmerman, who deserved jail time.

[Orsino]

115. Nope. Just turns out DUers are human.

And some of us have an incredible capacity for caring.

[Nine]

121. The jury didn't get it a little wrong, they got it disastrously wrong.

I don't agree with those who effectively say that the operation was a success but the patient died. This is a disaster and I would like to understand what went wrong and how to fix it. I don't think we should do anything as extreme as eliminate self defense claims, but there may be other problems that could be fixed - requiring more than 6 jurors, having better jury instructions, etc.

[DCBob]

125. Few are making those absurd claims..

Most people simply want the system tweaked a bit to help eliminate misjustice like we just saw with this case. I think simply putting the burden of proof on the person claiming self defense is not too too much to ask.

[SirRevolutionary]

127. I think if this country had less fearful gun humpers roaming around in public

we'd all be better off. Home of the brave my ass

[Iris]

137. Your wife's being armed does not guarantee a rapist or attempted rapist will suffer the consequence

And Zimmerman's gun almost wasn't a guarantee for him. But I'd bet my last dollar that if Trayvon had gotten Zimmerman's gun away from him, there would not have been a question about whether or not to prosecute him.

[pnwmom]

138. DU has been doing that a lot lately. n/t