RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE

RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 6:03:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin fine fine, no matter what anyone says you are right, no one else including people who deal with this on a daily basis know anything, we are all just dumb redneck republicans and should shut up! as for whether STL PD requires them I'd say NO cause the ones the officers I spoke to one has a simple snap and the other had a velcro closure, so if they are required by STL PD then they were clearly in violation. I am curious though as to why you'd want to know it they are required? are you possibly implying they resent being told they are required to have them and thats why they badmouthed them? Do you really think the holsters would get made and be required by many major police departments and other law enforcement agencies if they didn't work? I wanted to know if they were required because if they weren't why did you think the cops had any experience with them?

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 6:07:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave 1. You are making an excellent point against wearing one in the first place. Had Zimmerman been wearing one Trayvon could have beaten him senseless; and, having seen the gun, he could then have used it to kill the owner. 2. The seemingly complex moves I described would have had to be performed by Martin, yet you post about how difficult those moves would have been for Zimmerman to perform. Your post is a mirror image of understanding. Huh? 1) A poorly trained person shouldn't be carrying at all and the evidence still seems to show Zimmerman had no business carrying at all. 2)?

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 6:11:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: A lot of police dislike them based on what amounts to fairy tales. So we are to disregard the beliefs of uniformed officers regarding the suitability of their own gear. And, we are to treat a mild statement of fact made by a police dispatcher far removed from the scene of an actual, ongoing incident, as a command imbued with the wisdom of the ages and the authority of God himself. What insensible hypocritical drivel we are offered. These same cops hated wearing bullet resistant vests and had all sorts of nonsense stories about how unsafe they were (the only really true complaint was they are awfully hot on a hot day). So yes the fairy tales told be cops who don't like using a secure holster should be discounted, specially in the case of those like the ones Bityakin encountered, who have no or little experience with them. You a fire arms instructor, do you care about the opinion of people who have never spent any time on a range?

BitYakin -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 6:16:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin fine fine, no matter what anyone says you are right, no one else including people who deal with this on a daily basis know anything, we are all just dumb redneck republicans and should shut up! as for whether STL PD requires them I'd say NO cause the ones the officers I spoke to one has a simple snap and the other had a velcro closure, so if they are required by STL PD then they were clearly in violation. I am curious though as to why you'd want to know it they are required? are you possibly implying they resent being told they are required to have them and thats why they badmouthed them? Do you really think the holsters would get made and be required by many major police departments and other law enforcement agencies if they didn't work? I wanted to know if they were required because if they weren't why did you think the cops had any experience with them? I think alot of things get made and sold that prey on the fears of uninformed people alll the time... ever heard of a company called RONCO? look em up they make millions a year selling absolute JUNK! and why I would think they would have accurate intormation on them? because they wear holsters all day every day and probably keep up to date on new equipment information. I also think they would be more likely to be up to date on recent studies and statistics regarding such equipment as a plumber I am always interested in any new or inovative tools that make my work easier and safer.

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 6:20:45 PM)
quote: A poorly trained person shouldn't be carrying at all I've encountered various opinions on this; I'm very much on the egalitarian side. But, for the sake of conversation: What is "proper training"? What does it consist of?

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 6:22:19 PM)
quote: You a fire arms instructor, do you care about the opinion of people who have never spent any time on a range? I have many times talked to such people here <ahem>

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 6:24:54 PM)
Well to be blunt most cops are not experts on firearms use or safety. most practice with their weapons only enough to stay qualified. The real experts think very highly of secure holsters. http://www.tactical-life.com/tactical-weapons/life-saving-security-holsters/ http://www.gunblast.com/WBell_PoliceHolsterHist.htm http://www.safariland.com/DutyGear/info/retention/Levels%20of%20Retention%20Details.pdf

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 6:28:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: A poorly trained person shouldn't be carrying at all I've encountered various opinions on this; I'm very much on the egalitarian side. But, for the sake of conversation: What is "proper training"? What does it consist of? For concealed carry it should be extensive including tactical training. I'd want anyone carrying in public to have at least a basic understanding of the realities of firing a weapon in a chaotic situation with definite friendlies in the area. I'd also like to see something like what is done in drivers ed, let them see what the actual results of gunshots are.

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 6:35:51 PM)
fine fine, no matter what anyone says you are right, no one else including people who deal with this on a daily basis know anything, we are all just dumb redneck republicans and should shut up! Finally you get it

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 6:36:52 PM)
I am not surprised that people who make retention holsters, or sell them advertising space, think highly of them. I'm sure somewhere there are stories of cops killed while trying to draw their firearm from a retention holster that was just too slow, or that malfunctioned, but what's the point? You are going to sign on to anything that makes a gun more difficult to use, from trigger locks to gun safes to retention holsters to unloaded chambers to whatever. And I am not. Have you posted anything describing your idea of proper training to carry a firearm?

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 6:42:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Well to be blunt most cops are not experts on firearms use or safety. most practice with their weapons only enough to stay qualified. The real experts think very highly of secure holsters. http://www.tactical-life.com/tactical-weapons/life-saving-security-holsters/ http://www.gunblast.com/WBell_PoliceHolsterHist.htm http://www.safariland.com/DutyGear/info/retention/Levels%20of%20Retention%20Details.pdf And you are and practice constantly. Clearly you feel that a ccw holder should be held to a higher standard than cops.

truckinslave -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 6:45:44 PM)
quote: it should be extensive including tactical training. Can you offer any sort of specifics? It's interesting, really, that I always touched on this even though it was hardly mentioned in the NRA textbook from which I was supposed to teach. I would never tell someone that they have to commit suicide- that is, that they cannot shoot in a crowded situation even though they are taking fire. But I did talk about the practical and moral considerations of such, and offered a possible tactical solution. I also brought it back to advice I had offered regarding proper ammo and weapons choices (Zimmerman, by the way, was carrying a round considered very safe for urban carry).

calamitysandra -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (6/30/2013 11:48:44 PM)
Short question: can sombody enlighten me as to how long the trial is expected to last?

Edwynn -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 12:09:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven It's gonna be an acquittal. *No proof that Martin wasn't* pounding Zimmerman, or that Martin didn't throw the first punch. Zimmerman's story has been consistent throughout. Unless the prosecution can punch holes in it, he won't be convicted. Based on Martin's fighting training, testimony, and the fact that he was in a lot better shape, I assume that he was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman pulled the gun and fired. There certainly is the possibility of an acquittal. But if the logic you propose should be grounds for it, then it's good to know that I could just walk up to anybody and put a hole in him as long as there is -no proof- that the guy I shot wasn't** pounding on me. BTW, even for this fiasco of 'justification', it would still need to be proven by the defense that Martin threw the first punch, not that the prosecutors need to prove that he didn't. I think it's safe to say in such event that nothing in my testimony would likely go towards providing any proof that he wasn't pounding on me. This proposed standpoint goes even 100 times beyond SYG, I hope you realize.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 12:20:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: You also forget that she admitted to multiple lies and that the police interviewed her with Martins mother and his mothers lawyer present in the mothers home. That should be enough to have her testimony thrown out. I think that's a little strong. She's a juvenile (I think), and she wanted a friendly adult present? She probably has the right to a the presence of an attorney. Her lies, her demeanor, and the very timing of here testimony are sufficient to impeach her testimony in the mind of any reasonable jury. She is 19.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 12:27:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD That's not the law anywhere You and others insist that Zimmerman wasn't injured enough to justify self defense if I'm wrong you have been pushing a known false position. No. What we're saying is his injuries do not support his claim that Martin was bashing his head into the sidewalk so hard he felt an imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Actually a medical expert just testified under oath on Friday that the lacerations and many bumps on his head was consistent with it being smacked on concrete and that what George did to stop the attack could have saved his life. And she was a state witness too.

Edwynn -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 12:38:41 AM)
There are witness statements of GZ waiting by his truck for four minutes? and witness testimony of Martin confronting Zimmerman at his truck at end of those four minutes? Are there witnesses that saw Martin drag Zimmerman all that distance from Zimmerman's truck to the place where the shooting occurred? Witness testimony that said Martin chased Zimmerman from his truck, who saw this chase through all those turns, to the place where the shooting occurred? Best insurance against insult is to quit being silly when discussing a serious subject.

Extravagasm -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 1:59:25 AM)
quote: DomKen post 463: in not insane states those trivial injuries from a fist fight would not be enough to justify a claim of reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm which is the standard for lethal self defense. When a strong experienced fighter straddles you and is going both ways with fists, the injuries you can sustain will NOT BE TRIVIAL. They will be GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM. The ground, pavement etc are opportunistic weapons of the upper aggressor. Beyond the surface damage, will be brain injury, concussion, eyesight, retinal detachment, to name some. GZ would have sustained these if it had not ended. Worse still, the lower recipient can loose consciousness. Then the upper aggressor could do anything, procure a rock, knife, key, grab the neck and beat the recipient's head onto the surface material. Its irresponsible for your post 463 to talk otherwise. GZ did not have to first yell 'get off' multiple times. Though he did. The Florida statute that you speak derisively about in this post 463, is the same you cited to me, glowingly several pages back, with a weaker understanding of. Either way, both then and here, you're pretending to ignore the standard of grievous bodily harm.

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 2:11:02 AM)
What makes you think T was stronger or more experienced? I guess I didnt make my post clear enough, Extravagasm. Zimmerman was taking MMA clases in 2011, according to his physicians testimony today. So, again, how is it determined that Z was stronger or more experienced than T?

Edwynn -> RE: Zimmerman Trial - LIVE (7/1/2013 2:23:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Actually a medical expert just testified under oath on Friday that the lacerations and many bumps on his head was consistent with it being smacked on concrete and that what George did to stop the attack could have saved his life. Staying in his truck and letting professionals do their job could have saved his life too. No medical expert testimony needed to figure that one out, for a sane person.

Page: << < prev 38 39 [40] 41 42 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125