Illinois: Phelps files to override Quinn's amendatory veto of concealed carry bill.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

Rep. Phelps (D-Harrisberg) filed to override the Governor's amendatory veto.

If the override passes, Gov. Quinn looks like an idiot, and the bill becomes law without his changes.

If the override fails, the bill does not become law, Illinois gets open and concealed carry without a permit (the so-called Constitutional Carry), and Gov. Quinn looks like an idiot.

“We’re just going to make him irrelevant again,” Phelps said. “For the life of me, I don’t know why he would want to be irrelevant.”

[premium]

1. This is just too funny.

I really wonder if he really thought this out? Now, not only does he look like the idiot he is, but he's also brought down the wrath of the most powerful Dem. in the state, Mike Madigan, whose daughter, Lisa, just happens to want his Governorship next year.

Not smart Gov. not very smart at all.
Can't wait for JtO to show up and tell us how we're wrong.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Watch any baseball?

"The sacrifice bunt is most often used to advance a runner from first to second base, although the runner may also be advanced from second to third base, or from third to home."

Lisa Madigan gets the nomination and, probably the Governorship. Mike Madigan remains the most powerful D in the state. Gov Quinn remains a hero with the pro-control groups and goes on to speaking engagements, etc. Regardless if the veto is overridden, crime and violence will continue and Gov Quinn can point to those occurrences as due to loose gun laws.

[CokeMachine]

4. Maybe closer to a suicide squeeze play. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Baseball is so much...

...more civilized than politics.

[CokeMachine]

8. Unless your sitting next to a Dodgers fan!!

Sorry Dodgers fans!!

[ileus]

9. H88er

[CokeMachine]

18. We have fune with it.

At the local pub the bartender and one of his friends are Dodgers fans while everyone else are SF fans. He only works 4 days a week so things happen to the Dodgers fan club stuff. Nothing destructive, just fun stuff. I don't take sports seriously.

Go Giants!!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. I have my own team...

...and try not to say anything if can't something good.

[CokeMachine]

11. The giants gave up a no hitter -- ouch!!

I did win my pool games tonight though. I'm 7 of 8 and it is luck -- probably mostly/entirely luck!!

Take Care!!

[DonP]

5. Lisa, Daley and Quinn will split the Cook County and chicago primary vote

Maybe not in thirds, but split it none the less. In the last general election Quinn only won 3 counties out of 102, just enogh to get him in office with nothing to spare. If even a little of Cook County votes go away he's in big trouble.

Mike Madigan is always thinking 3 or 4 steps ahead of any issue. He's counting on a lot of support from the Downstate Dems for Lisa's campaign. That's why he made a deal with Brandon Phelps to support his amended CCW bill in the house and twisted Cullerton's arm behind the scene in the Senate.

Now Phelps will get his CCW bill and be a hero, Quinn will look like a weak weasel and Daley, now "supported by his good friend" Bloomberg, will quickly become less and less relevant and possibly just drop out.

Meanwhile ... Lisa sits back and does her crossword puzzle for today and keeps her hands clean of all this.

Quinn is deluded and actually thinks the majority of people think like he does, all gun owners are just thugs in waiting. Kind of like some folks here that can't tell the difference between a gang member shooting up a public park and a pharmacist from Bonfield that wants to protect his business and family. They're all the same to Quinn.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Sounds about on the money

[appal_jack]

2. Nice to see a Democrat taking the lead here on behalf of IL citizens' rights. n/t

[BainsBane]

12. Why is the only right that matters here

the right to be armed? I'd love to see you all once care about abortion, the First Amendment, or the rights of the rest of us to actually LIVE.

I realize it's completely ridiculous of me to suggest such a thing, but I can't help by notice the glaring contradiction in this so-called "rights" movement. That right to bear arms is completely secure. My rights, not so much.

[appal_jack]

13. Why do you only know Jack & Shit?

Hey VainsPain,

You haven't even bothered to look at my Journal, have you? If you had, you would find plenty of posts (going back years) standing up for privacy, for free speech, for women's control of their bodies, for LGBTQ freedom, for transparency in governance, for limits on corporate power, etc., etc. But you don't have time for that, do you? There are pettyinsults to be hurled, and baseless accusations to be made. Well, good for you; I'm sure all this trivial nonsense makes you feel oh-so-much tougher.

I could tell you many stories about standing up for these same rights and progressive causes in the real world. Yes, I've been an activist since a few years before the world wide web was even in existence. But I'm not going to bother trying to convince you. Your opinion means nothing to me. And as an NC citizen, I need to support my wife and female neighbors in standing up for choice right now. Maybe you ought to do the same on behalf of NC (or nearly any other state for that matter: choice is endangered virtually everywhere right now), rather than harassing people in your own party about a right that you oppose.

Pathetic.

-app

[BainsBane]

14. I was not referring to you in particular

but the gun rights people overall.

Evidently it is terribly "vain" of me to think I have any rights, particularly a right to life. The right to play with guns is way more important than my right to live.

[Jenoch]

20. Who is attempting to take

away your right to live? If you live in an area with a lot of gun crime, I suggest you move. Or, you can lobby on behalf of crime control. Control the criminals with guns and the public will be much safer. It would be easier to concentrate on the criminal behavior than the behavior of those who have zero effect on on your safety.

[BainsBane]

21. The NRA is actively undermining First Amendment rights

and members here defend them.

Where should I move? Shoreview? Edina? Perhaps I should pick a McMansion near the country club where I can get in a quick round of golf after work? Should I move in my Jaguar? You really don't have a clue about live outside of the your privileged world. Keep blaming the poor and people of color for the violence that results from the policies gun activists advocate for. It shows exactly what you are. I really don't like people who look down on those less fortunate that themselves, so I will forgo further conversation with you.

[Jenoch]

23. There are many affordable areas

to live that are apparently safer than where you live. I am not privileged. Anything I have I worked for. My dad grew up in the Depression in NE Minneapolis.

If you wish your neighborhood to be more safe, why don't you get together with your neighbors and do something about it?

[BainsBane]

25. How about you mind your own business instead of telling other people

Where they should live? You have a lot of nerve. It costs about $1500 or more to move. My moving won't change the fact that people are subject to gun violence. It just means you won't hear about it, which seems to be your only concern. So you have a simple solution: Don't read my posts. Keep your head in the sand so you can pretend guns have nothing to do with homicide.

[BainsBane]

22. "Control the criminals with guns"

is an absurd NRA talking point. I can't believe anyone is actually believes that crap, but evidently those multi-million dollar propaganda campaigns influence some. How sad for you. Yes, the problem with people in the city is we don't have enough guns to shoot at the criminals. More gun fire would make life so much better.

[Jenoch]

24. I did not say anything about

you arming yourself. In fact, I susgested against it. If you are nit willing to attempt to do something to help safeguard yourself and your neighbors, who do you xpect to do it for you?

[Eleanors38]

19. I worked diligently for Sarah Weddington's election to the Texas House

some 40 yrs. ago, and gearing up for the same damned battle again! Tomorrow I will contact W. Davis' office and pass on some intel I overheard from some RW blowholes sitting next to me in a S Austin TexMex. Boy, the GOPers are losing continence over her.

[calimary]

26. I hope they are, Eleanors38!

I hope they're shitting through both ends over her. I hope every damn one of 'em wakes up every morning reaching for the Maalox bottle because of her. I hope they lose sleep. Followed in short order by their jobs. I sent Davis a donation during all the fundraising deadlines at the end of June. SHE was my choice.

[Eleanors38]

27. Thanks for the moral support!

[calimary]

71. Absolutely! We need people with your perspective here!

More important than EVER! I see far too much of the younger generation, young snot-nosed whipper-snappers like paul ryan and eric cantor who aren't old enough to remember (and they probably slept through the later American History class sessions covering the first half of the 20th Century) WHY we need the regulations and protections that were implemented - with the New Deal, for example. They DEFINITELY don't have any sense of WHY Roe v Wade was so essential to women's rights later on, and how many women died from back alley abortions back in the day. They have NO idea. Not a damn clue. All they want to do is tear down, tear up, and tear apart.

You're fighting the good fight on all of our behalf. And you deserve all our gratitude! (And a few million people following in your footsteps!)

[hack89]

15. Fellow Dems are not trying to take those rights away from us.

We all agree on those issues.

[BainsBane]

29. Well, if we count gun folk as "fellow Dems"

the First Amendment is clearly under attack by the gun lobby. They have sought to impose gag rules in states criminalizing speech against gun rights, they have criminalized doctor patient conversations about guns, and included a provision in ACA that makes it illegal to to document any information about guns.
The Democratic Party went along with the last of those measures.
Then there is the fact people here defend special legal protections for the corporate gun lobby industry above your fellow citizens.

Lastly, while you may consider it inconsequential, I take my right to live seriously. When the rights for the gun lobby overstep the rest of our right to survive, things have gotten badly out of wack.

[hack89]

31. There you are with the hyperbole again.

not agreeing 100% with you on gun control is not overstepping your right to survive. That is merely you accepting defeat with extraordinary poor grace.

And yes - some of those gun folks are Dems. Until you accept that fact you will continue to fail. You cannot achieve your goals without us. You give us no reason to actively support you.

[BainsBane]

33. You ignored my point about the First Amendment

The right to life is not hyperbole. The entire rights argument centers around the right to bear any and all arms any and everywhere. No right is absolute. Rights must be balanced against each other. People here fail to acknowledge that basic principal and insist the right to guns trumps every other right.

Quite obviously my point assumed that gunners were fellow Dems. Now, will you answer the question or continue to evade?

[hack89]

35. Hardly anyone here says that there such be no limits on the 2A

I support most gun control laws - the only ones I emphatically reject is an AWB and registration. I do not believe in the "right to bear any and all arms any and everywhere."


I just assume that support for abortion, the 1A and the right to for you to live is a given - I can't imagine any Dem being against them. Because there is no one at DU vocally advocating against those rights, I don't see the need to post about them. Because some here are vocally advocating against gun rights, I feel obligated to post about it. See how that works?

[BainsBane]

39. Unfortunately, not every gunner agrees with you

There are some who oppose background checks, several--if not most--who support the gun lobby's restrictions on free speech, and as far as I can see no one is working to do anything to counteract the gun lobby's efforts to suppress research and speech.
I have even been told that I have no right to life, whereas the right to bear arms is inviolate.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. "People here...insist the right to guns trumps every other right." No, they don't.

You'd have to twist someone's post out of all recognition to make that claim, and
bluntly- I don't think you can.

I agree that you have the right to feel with every fiber of your being that someone else carrying a gun
violates your civil rights- but you can't demonstrate such a violation, and unless and until you do
your claim can be ignored. If someone has a gun legally, and does nothing to you with it, you've nothing to
complain about. In fact, what you've been saying here is in fact an example of Robert Bork's theory
of 'moral harm':

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=335504#335606

43. Strange seeing Robert Bork's theory of moral harm espoused at DU

For those unfamiliar with it, Dan Baum's recent article in Harper's related this to the objection to open carry:


".....My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe..."

Which brings up (a) question for you:

1. What harm is had by someone carrying a handgun near you? "It bothers me" hardly qualifies- I'm bothered by overcooked vegetables, but I don't get into a snit if someone else eats them near me.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is

[BainsBane]

40. Pretending guns don't harm is absurd

They are designed to kill and they do so very efficiently, resulting in 32,000 human fatalities a year. Your inability to deal with reality is astounding.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Until some *human* uses one to harm another, guns just sit there doing nothing.

Misuse requires human input.

[BainsBane]

56. Usually

Which is why gun control seeks to limit access to guns for dangerous humans, and access to guns with which these dangerous humans inflict maximum casualties.

As we know, there are cases where dogs or toddlers discharge guns. Those shooters are not inherently dangerous, but the gun owners are clearly irresponsible. The problem is there seems to be an awful lot of those irresponsible gun owners, so much so that more Americans have been killed by toddlers this year than terrorists. Ever hear of a war on toddlers? It is the gun that makes the toddler dangerous, not some sort of malevolent baby rage.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. Dangerous humans don't seem to care about gun control laws.

Shooting up a neighborhood is illegal pretty much everywhere outside of Somalia.
You're also conflating the need to keep guns away from criminals with safe-storage laws

[BainsBane]

64. Dangerous humans like George Zimmerman?

and the other 505 CCW holders who committed murder?

The reason for the gun lobby's opposition to gun control is precisely because they fear criminals will not submit to background checks and that will cut into their profits. Drug cartels and other criminals are big business. What's your excuse for repeating that NRA talking point?

You have just justified a CCW's right to kill and now claim only criminals kill, meaning everyone who kills has a prior felony. I'm guessing those CCW holders did not have a prior felony, yet they killed, and you apparently think that's completely fine, since you compared them to police. What about the dangerous toddlers. What felonies did they commit that explains their murderous impulses?

Your argument is falling apart.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. Looks like *someone* is conflating 'number' with 'rate'- and throwing in an associational fallacy...

...along with an obvious attempt at guilt-tripping. Unfortunately, you do not get to have your
own facts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117255264

Texas CHL holders 16x less likely to be convicted of crime



The rate of conviction for CHL holders has hit an all-time low- 23 per 100,000, with ~520,000 active CHL holders. The rate among the general public over 21 years old? 362 per 100,000

Conviction Data: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
Number of Licensees: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/demographics.htm
Population Data: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/popdat/detailX.shtm

Once again, research is shown to be an effective treatment for factose intolerance...

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. And there's that incantation again: "NRA talking point"

It's the "Deus vult!" of gun control advocacy.

[Jenoch]

59. Terroist attacks are EXTREMELY rare.

That is not a valid comparison. It is only done for shock value. It's like comparing automobile deaths to drownings.

Or maybe auto deaths to deaths by lightning strikes.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

16. It's not the only right that matters

I don't care about abortion, but that is because I'm male and it doesn't affect me.

I care deeply about the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments.

I don't care about the Third because I don't see troops being quartered in people's homes, and the Ninth & Tenth are catch-alls.

The Second Amendment protects your right to live. It gives you a choice. You can choose to protect yourself and your family or you can depend on others to do that. What you actually want is for people to give up that right and depend on luck.

[premium]

17. If you don't like what we talk about,

there's a simple solution, DON'T READ IT! See how easy that is.

[BainsBane]

30. Just pointing out yet another contradiction

You don't care about constitutional rights. You care about YOUR rights over everyone else's.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

34. That's incorrect

We do care about your Constitutional rights.

We are pro-choice. We want you to be able to choose to either arm yourself and be able to protect yourself and your family, or to choose not to arm yourself and to depend on others for that protection.

I don't think anyone here wants to force you to have to keep arms. We do object to others who wish to infringe on everyone's rights.

I feel the same way about the First Amendment. You can choose to speak or not. You can choose your own religious beliefs, or not believe at all. You can choose to assemble or not.

It's all about choices.

[BainsBane]

37. Evidently free speech is not among those rights gunners care about

as evident by the ongoing defense of the gun lobby's suppression of research and documentation about gun violence and the failure of gun activists to denounce gag rules. What have you done to fight against the gun lobby's encroachment on free speech.

Then there is the issue of the right to life. You have determined the right to bear arms is more important than my right to life, and gun activists refuse to take ANY measures that might keep guns out of the hands of criminals or mitigate the lethality of the most dangerous guns. They ridicule victims of violent crime. They show time and time again that the lives of others is completely meaningless to them. The ongoing defense of CCW holders who kill like Zimmerman illustrates that.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

38. Gee, I guess you didn't read the post that you are replying to.

Since I specifically referred to your right to speak, I can only conclude that either: 1) you didn't read it, or 2) you don't care about the truth unless it suits your agenda.

As to the right to life. What gives you the right to deny me the right to life? Don't I have the right to live? Why does your fear of guns translate into abridging my right to life?

[BainsBane]

42. I read it

What I'm saying is people here contradict your assertions everyday, including today.

Clearly it's about choices. Gun activists choose guns over the rest of our rights. Making a claim here is meaningless when people turn around and defend the gun lobby's efforts to undermine free speech, and when gunners systematically refuse to address the clear imbalance between the right to bear arms and concerns for public safety and the preservation of human life.

Claiming you support our rights means nothing when gunners systematically work to erode them everyday.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

43. OK

Of course, the same thing happens over at CastleBansALot.

Some of it is just human nature.

As far as I'm concerned you can talk about whatever you want.

[gejohnston]

41. CCW holders who kill like Zimmerman

I'm guessing you haven't been following the case? Talk Left is a legal blog, left of center, that has been doing a good job of covering it.
http://www.talkleft.com/

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-30/news/ct-oped-0630-zorn-20130630_1_zimmerman-trial-george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin

[BainsBane]

44. Do you have a point?

Are you alleging Zimmerman didn't kill Martin? Not even the defense claims that? Or is your point he had the right to kill a young African-American teenager armed with Skittles?

There are over 506 documented cases of CCW holders killing someone.

[gejohnston]

45. Actually I did.

and no, I am alleging no such thing. Neither are Talk Left and the Trib writer. One thing I know for certain, based on the ME's testimony today and the DNA guy earlier is that if the CSI franchise decided to start a CSI Orlando, (Sanford is part of Orlando's metro area) it would be a sit com.

[premium]

46. That ME's testimony today was a clusterfuck for the prosecution,

at this point, IMO, Zimmerman is either going to be acquitted or get a hung jury.

[gejohnston]

48. the jury can vote on manslaughter

He was actually one of the better ones for them. The cops and an eye witness destroyed them. My favorite was the African American college professor who said Z got straight As and was one of his best students. The State's star witness was a complete train wreck, including admitting to lying under oath on two other occasions.
No, the defense didn't bother to impeach them. The prosecutors tried to on redirect.
I give these odds: murder 2, nonexistent. Corey always over charges even if the evidence doesn't warrant it.
Manslaughter: 10 percent
Chances of walking if convicted because of withholding exculpatory evidence (discovery is still going on. Florida sunshine laws require evidence be turned over and be made public.) or some other prosecutoral misconduct: 70 percent. Remember, this is Angela Corey we are talking about. Remember the thread about the African American lady that got 20 years for firing a warning shot in her home at her abusing POS husband? That was Corey's handiwork.

The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. They failed miserably.

[premium]

49. I'll go with that,

the bottom line is that the state totally botched the case from start to......

[gejohnston]

52. The State brought it only because of political pressure

and Corey wanting higher office. You have to have a case before you can botch it. That is from watching it and reading the liberal legal blog I linked to.
My view is this, I have no tolerance for ideologues on the right or the left that that mindlessly believe whatever Free Republic or Raw Story tells them and can't accept the reality of the situation. If that makes me a poor progressive, so be it.

[premium]

54. I've said all along that the state caved to public and political pressure. nt.

[gejohnston]

72. what I find interesting

is that while partisan sites like Red State and Raw Story push their own agenda, the legal ones haven't been. Out of curiosity I found a couple of legal websites, one liberal and one conservative, are saying basically the same thing.
http://www.talkleft.com
http://legalinsurrection.com/

[NaturalHigh]

70. As a friend says...

it made a clusterfuck look like a marine close order drill.

[BainsBane]

47. Expecting me to read two articles is to discern your point

is not making one. Whatever the jury decides in this case, it is clear that Martin would be alive if Zimmerman didn't have a gun. In fact, Zimmerman would almost certainly not have followed Martin in the first place if he weren't armed with a gun. It's a clear example of a CCW acting recklessly. Another example is the FL lunatic who shot the black kid because his music was too loud. There is a reason the Civil Rights Office is investigating Stand Your Ground laws.

[gejohnston]

51. two things

then you didn't read them.

is not making one. Whatever the jury decides in this case, it is clear that Martin would be alive if Zimmerman didn't have a gun.

that we agree on, but according to eye witnesses and medical experts, Zimmerman might be dead.

In fact, Zimmerman would almost certainly not have followed Martin in the first place if he weren't armed with a gun. It's a clear example of a CCW acting recklessly.

Actually there isn't any evidence to support that.

There is a reason the Civil Rights Office is investigating Stand Your Ground laws.

I sincerely doubt it since SYG has been a part of US self defense law since at least the Progressive era. The kid with the stereo was murder, and was proven as such, which has nothing to do with SYG.

[BainsBane]

58. okay

The Civil Rights office is defending stand your ground laws. That is a fact. http://www.bet.com/news/national/2013/06/03/u-s-commission-launches-investigation-into-stand-your-ground-law.html If they have indeed existed since the Progressive era, that is hardly a defense. That was a period of Jim Crow and high numbers of lynchings. The difference is we now have an African-American President and Attorney General. However, we both know those laws have proliferated in recent years.

There is no evidence Zimmerman sustained life-threatening injuries or was in danger of doing so. The ME and physicians assistant who examined Zimmerman have both described the wounds as superficial. There is no conclusive evidence as to who was beating whom in the fight. Witnesses have given different accounts. The tie naturally goes to the defendant because the prosecution bears the burden of proof. That, however, does not mean there is clear evidence Zimmerman's life was in danger. It may mean there is not conclusive evidence that it was not in danger.

I submit there is evidence Zimmerman behaved recklessly, evidence even the defense admits to. The 911 operator explicitly told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon, but Zimmerman did. He claims he just happened to be walking in the same direction, which makes no sense if he feared Trayvon. I submit that if Zimmerman had not had a gun, he would have let police handle the problem, as normal, non-aggressive people do. As you may know, I have had the occasion to call the police a few times in the past couple of years because I have heard gun shots. I did not run out there with a gun and try to play superhero. Carrying a gun enabled Zimmerman to behave differently. He knew he could not lose in a confrontation with Trayvon. In my personal view, there is evidence of manslaughter but not 2nd degree murder. Regardless, Zimmerman needlessly took a young man's life BECAUSE he was a CCW holder.

[gejohnston]

60. strange,

none of that matches what I'm watching in person. I'm here. I am have been watching word for word, live stream in my office and I actually managed to take a day to attend in person.
The article is wrong on two things: Under every self defense law, even common law states like Wyoming and California, the threshold is "having a reasonable belief that one is about to suffer death or grave bodily injury."
The ME never examines Zimmerman's wounds and was fired for incompetence and unsanitary conditions in another county. The article writer misrepresented the PA's testimony at best.
Like I said, I watched it person. I really don't care what some blogger did not report from first hand, did not bother to research the relevant law. Given the power of Google, it quite easy to do. This is the very thing the Trib article talks about.
Here are the exact words:
O’Mara: “Medically speaking, would you say that whatever he did to stop the attack allowed him to survive it?” Folgate: “It could have, yes.”
The only eye witness, John Good, testified that he saw Martin straddling Zimmerman beating the shit out of him.

You can submit all you want. The State presented no such evidence in court, nor did it attempt to. That is the only thing it matters.
BTW, can you accurately describe "stand your ground" and how it differs from "duty to retreat"? Do you know the difference? It actually sounds like you are philosophically opposed to people defending themselves be it with a gun or switchblade.

[BainsBane]

62. I cited that article only for evidence that the Civil Rights Office

Is investigating stand your ground because you seemed to doubt that point of fact. The rest of the points are not at issue in this discussion.

You went from WY to Florida just to see that trial? WTF?

Everything I recounted has been argued by the state and some of it even by Zimmerman's lawyers. What evidence do you have that Zimmerman's injuries were serious? He didn't even get a CT-scan or MRI, which doctors order for me regularly.
The defense attorney has gotten nearly every witness to say something may have been possible. That doesn't mean it was true, and that most certainly is not evidence Zimmerman's injuries were serious.

The idea that an armed men has reasonable belief to fear an unarmed teenager that the gunman chooses to follow is absurd. That and your justification of this supposed fear does suggest that CCW holders are more fearful and paranoid than the general population, which is likely why they carry guns in the first place.

Many white people always fear black people. Fear alone is not a justification for homicide, or there would be no African Americans left in America. The fear must be reasonable. The idea of paranoid people running around with guns killing people of color because they frighten them is highly problematic, and even more troublesome is that you would justify it.

I'm concerned about how this conversation with both you and Friendly Iconclast is evolving. I know that you this group promotes shall issue concealed carry because you argue it is not subject to the arbitrary decisions that you say characterize may issue. Now I see arguments that those with CCW are justified in killing others. That only points out just how dangerous concealed weapons holders are, and that people here think sticking one's nose where it doesn't belong and then killing someone is acceptable. You and Friendly Iconoclast have just provided clear evidence CCW holders are a danger to the public.

[gejohnston]

63. what?

Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 11:21 PM - Edit history (1)

You went from WY to Florida just to see that trial? WTF?

I live in both places. It is a comprise I have with the wife. I don't do the "snowbird thing". I like the snow and hate the heat. I'm heading back for the National High School Rodeo Finals in my hometown. Have to hit that. I love self employed telecommuting/retirement. My new goal in life is to be the world's most interesting guy.
I know a retired Marine that has a similar deal with his, they spend five years in the US and five years in Japan.

Everything I recounted has been argued by the state and some of it even by Zimmerman's lawyers. What evidence do you have that Zimmerman's injuries were serious? He didn't even get a CT-scan or MRI, which doctors order for me regularly.

Doesn't matter, the law does not depend on severity of injury. That is the law.

The defense attorney has gotten nearly every witness to say something may have been possible. That doesn't mean it was true, and that most certainly is not evidence Zimmerman's injuries were serious.

So you you are accusing the State's witnesses of a felony? You are accusing Zimmerman's lawyer of suborning perjury. As for the extent of the injury, it is irrelevant.

The idea that an armed men has reasonable belief to fear an unarmed teenager that the gunman chooses to follow is absurd. That and your justification of this supposed fear does suggest that CCW holders are more fearful and paranoid than the general population, which is likely why they carry guns in the first place.

Getting your head pounded in the sidewalk does. Would it matter if Zimmerman had switchblade?

Many white people always fear black people. Fear alone is not a justification for homicide, or there would be no African Americans left in America. The fear must be reasonable. The idea of paranoid people running around with guns killing people of color because they frighten them is highly problematic, and even more troublesome is that you would justify it.

Zimmerman isn't white. He is Hispanic, as the DNA tech testified. Is he afraid of his own grandmother? Was he so afraid of his black college professor that he got straight As and worked to be "one of my best students"?

I'm concerned about how this conversation with both you and Friendly Iconclast is evolving. I know that you this group promotes shall issue concealed carry because you argue it is not subject to the arbitrary decisions that you say characterize may issue. Now I see arguments that those with CCW are justified in killing others. That only points out just how dangerous concealed weapons holders are, and that people here think sticking one's nose where it doesn't belong and then killing someone is acceptable. You and Friendly Iconoclast have just provided clear evidence CCW holders are a danger to the public.

I'm sorry, you are not grasping the issue. Reread everything, including looking up self defense law, and get back with me when you can carry on a serious conversation.

[BainsBane]

68. One by one

How nice you get to travel. I'm glad you didn't go down just for the trial. That would have been creepy.

What counts for legal conviction is not the same as evidence for an argument on a discussion board. I do not have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt because I do not hold a man's life in the balance. I already stipulated that for legal purposes a tie goes to the defense. Even if Zimmerman is acquitted it does not mean he was morally justified and it doesn't mean Trayvon isn't dead. Zimmerman killed him.

I'm not going to debate the points of the trial. That is being done in Florida. I do find it disturbing you go out of your way to justify the killing of an unarmed boy. I find it horrifying actually.

Again, Hispanic is not a race. It is a classification of linguistic origin (Hispania, meaning Spain, Spanish). Hispanics are comprised of many races. Whatever you call Zimmerman racially, he was not African-American. One does not need to be "white" to be racist toward African-Americans. Listening to Zimmerman's father, it's clear the man is a full-blown racist. I have no doubt he passed that down to his son. Even people not raised in hateful homes are conditioned to fear African-American men. Unless you live with many African Americans, you cannot help but have been indoctrinated with that fear. Even then it is still imprinted on us. If you reflect honestly on yourself you know that to be true.

You focus on the law. I focus on what is just. The law has a much greater burden of proof, but that does no mean a killing is morally justified. If someone like Zimmerman had minded his own business, Trayvon would not be dead and Zimmerman would be none the worse for it. Any altercation occurred only because Zimmerman ignored the advice of the 911 operator and followed Trayvon. Your citing that as an appropriate use of a concealed weapon tells me that the policies you promote and what you intend CCW holders to do with those weapons is exceeding dangerous to public safety. If you kill someone, it makes no difference to me if you deal drugs or sell real estate. You're still a killer. Someone who goes looking for trouble is morally culpable, regardless of what the law says.

And how is it that losing a fight is justification to kill someone? People get in fist fights all the time. Only the nut jobs and homicidal killers pull out guns. I used to get in fights with a couple of boys in my grade school (okay, I know you're not surprised). I certainly never pulled out a gun. The fact the boy was six inches taller and 30 lbs heavier than me meant I had my hands full, but it wouldn't have justified my killing him.

[gejohnston]

69. To put it very simple

"unarmed" is often a misnomer. The equivalent of 29.7 Sandy Hooks every year are with bare hands.
If you kill in the defense of your life and/or physical safety, you are morally justified. That is a natural right, and a human right.

And how is it that losing a fight is justification to kill someone? People get in fist fights all the time. Only the nut jobs and homicidal killers pull out guns. I used to get in fights with a couple of boys in my grade school (okay, I know you're not surprised). I certainly never pulled out a gun. The fact the boy was six inches taller and 30 lbs heavier than me meant I had my hands full, but it wouldn't have justified my killing him.

It was not a fist fight, it was a "ground and pound". Once again, the reasonable fear of grave bodily harm or death, there is every moral right to pull the trigger. No exceptions.
If this guy
attacks this guy with his bare fists, there is a disparity of force. Meaning, the fact that Matt does not have an artifact in his hand is irrelevant. The disparity of force is enough to give Chris a reasonable fear for his personal safety. Mr. Hayes has every legal and moral right to do whatever it takes to survive including blowing his redneck ass away with a .357. Why is that so hard to grasp? Under every law in North American recognizes that. Most likely every law in the world recognizes that. The Dali Lama agrees with that. You might be a complete pacifist, but Chris Hayes nor anyone else has no moral obligation to die for something you believe in. I find that morally repugnant and disgusting.
I don't care about speculation and myth that is assumed to be fact. This is the reality:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=127220
It has nothing to with justice for Trayvon or anyone else. It has some to do with ideology like I said before

My view is this, I have no tolerance for ideologues on the right or the left that that mindlessly believe whatever Free Republic or Raw Story tells them and can't accept the reality of the situation. If that makes me a poor progressive, so be it.

That is my bottom line. Unless you have proof that John Good or any of the other witnesses lied, Angela Corey would be more than happy to have it. Until then, spare me.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. "There are over 506 documented cases of CCW holders killing someone" Which proves they're...

...actually more trustworthy with guns than cops.

[BainsBane]

61. Is that what that tells you?

It tells me they are killers. You apparently think carrying a gun gives someone the right to kill, which is frightening in itself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. Frankly, you're safer around CCW holders than non-CCW holders

(As an aside, I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth:

You apparently think carrying a gun gives someone the right to kill

I hate to break the news to you, but as a point of fact most adults are physically
(if not mentally) able to kill someone. Personally, I see no moral imperative to engage in
hand-to-hand combat with someone that means to do me harm.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

Texas CHL holders 16x less likely to be convicted of crime



The rate of conviction for CHL holders has hit an all-time low- 23 per 100,000, with ~520,000 active CHL holders. The rate among the general public over 21 years old? 362 per 100,000

Conviction Data: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
Number of Licensees: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/demographics.htm
Population Data: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/popdat/detailX.shtm

You have every right to feel as you do. You do not have the right to your own facts, nor
do you have the right to falsely accuse other DUers of condoning murder.

[premium]

55. I don't care about constitutional rights?

Where do you get that?

[GreenStormCloud]

28. Please be advised that this group IS "Gun Control & RKBA".

So here we talk about guns. There are other groups for the other topics.

[NaturalHigh]

32. Quinn is really cutting off his own nose over this.

Oh well, his career, I suppose.