That should satisfy Sarah Brady.Without proper training the odds of you actually harming someone with a gun are very low.
That should satisfy Sarah Brady.Without proper training the odds of you actually harming someone with a gun are very low.
I was not questioning your manhood, just commenting based on my experience. If you are serious about owning/using a gun for defense you should think about training.Lot's of people get killed every year by guys with guns that I am going to go out on a limb and say don't have proper training. Unless they have target ranges in the Chicago hood...
Apples and oranges...comparing a wanna-be presidential assassin to a home owner attempting to engage a target(s) in limited visibility is ludicrous.That should satisfy Sarah Brady.
The prosecution is somewhat limited by lack of witnesses and death of TM. They had to base a lot on trying to tie in the yells for help, somewhat unsuccessfully, to TM, not GZ. The prosecution will have to wait for closing arguments now to put forth their view. I dont remember if they did this in opening statements.So what is the prosecution's theory of what happened? Amazingly, I still don't know. So TM confronts him... Then what? GZ pulls out his gun and shoots him? GZ throws him to the ground, jumps on top of him, and then shoots him? Those don't seem anywhere near plausible.
About as ludicrous as advocating a dramatic change in public policy based on the actions of one madman.Apples and oranges...comparing a wanna-be presidential assassin to a home owner attempting to engage a target(s) in limited visibility is ludicrous.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
It's difficult for any rational person to conclude that, with GZ having injuries to the back of his head as well as his face, and TM's only injuries aside from the gunshot were on his knuckles, that TM was the one yelling for help. Those injuries suggest that GZ was on the ground, and TM was on top of him. Although theoretically it is possible for the aggressor to be the one on the ground, underneath the person they are attacking, it's not likely. And it's also not likely that an aggressor, on top of the person they are pummeling, would also be calling for help.The prosecution is somewhat limited by lack of witnesses and death of TM. They had to base a lot on trying to tie in the yells for help, somewhat unsuccessfully, to TM, not GZ. The prosecution will have to wait for closing arguments now to put forth their view. I dont remember if they did this in opening statements.
Lack of evidence for a charge tends to mean there's no charge. This case didn't work that way because of the media.The prosecution is somewhat limited by lack of witnesses and death of TM. They had to base a lot on trying to tie in the yells for help, somewhat unsuccessfully, to TM, not GZ. The prosecution will have to wait for closing arguments now to put forth their view. I dont remember if they did this in opening statements.
This case is about race. Let's not kid ourselves. When GZ has to go on national tv and reiterate that he's HISPANIC and NOT white tells us a lot. The media wanted him to be white so bad they could taste the salt on the cracker. Going to lengths of creating a race called "White-Hispanic" is ridiculous. But that's what the media did. Jesse, Al and the other race roadies prematurely loaded up the Shakedown Van and hit the road. Only to find out the big Debbie Downer of GZ wasn't white after all. But Hispanic. OUCH!Which is another reason this case should never have been brought. If the prosecution doesn't even have a viable theory of the case (and in murders, you never have the other guy's story), then it is almost professional misconduct to try this case.
This. And I'd also like to see Obama offer another beer summit/teaching moment on this like he did an earlier time he mouthed off on a trumped up racial incident before he knew the facts.I want to see Zimmerman walk if for no other reason than to watch the meltdown on msnbc.
I hate to say but....so do II want to see Zimmerman walk if for no other reason than to watch the meltdown on msnbc.
Having an unarmed person, who was simply walking home from a convenience store, shot and killed probably justified a trial.Which is another reason this case should never have been brought. If the prosecution doesn't even have a viable theory of the case (and in murders, you never have the other guy's story), then it is almost professional misconduct to try this case.
It certainly justified the police investigation, but it doesn't look like the trial is justified. I don't see the evidence to support that charges. This trial was a political decision.Having an unarmed person, who was simply walking home from a convenience store, shot and killed probably justified a trial.
I inserted what you clearly left out.Having an unarmed person, who was simply walking home from a convenience store, shot and killed under the assumption the person was doing no wrong and was shot for no reason probably justified a trial.
This. And I'd also like to see Obama offer another beer summit/teaching moment on this like he did an earlier time he mouthed off on a trumped up racial incident before he knew the facts.
what crime did he commit?Its odd that TM, the only person who committed a crime, is getting defended by the media.