Thread: Another Florida case! What's your take?

sixty8 - 7/25/2013 at 02:39 PM

Now this guy really took a real life threatening beating. Shows how small George Zimmerman's wounds actually were. This guy deserved a beat down but that beating may have been a bit excessive. Good thing the peeper wasn't packing because by Florida standards if the peeping tom had a licensed, concealed hand gun he could have shot the home owner dead legally and walked away with nothing more than peeping tom or trespassing charges the same way Zimmerman walked free. At least in this case I would say that the beating the guy took was actually life threatening and the peeping tom had to be hospitalized with major injuries.

http://www.examiner.com/article/father-finds-man-peeping-15-year-old-daught er-s-window-beats-him-bloody

So what are people's take on this one??? Do you think the peeper and trespasser would have had the right to shoot the home owner dead had he been legally carrying a concealed gun when he was taking that beating???

[Edited on 7/25/2013 by sixty8]


alanwoods - 7/25/2013 at 03:53 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSgGCOHuO1U


LUKE - 7/25/2013 at 07:55 PM

quote:
Now this guy really took a real life threatening beating. Shows how small George Zimmerman's wounds actually were. This guy deserved a beat down but that beating may have been a bit excessive. Good thing the peeper wasn't packing because by Florida standards if the peeping tom had a licensed, concealed hand gun he could have shot the home owner dead legally and walked away with nothing more than peeping tom or trespassing charges the same way Zimmerman walked free. At least in this case I would say that the beating the guy took was actually life threatening and the peeping tom had to be hospitalized with major injuries.

http://www.examiner.com/article/father-finds-man-peeping-15-year-old-daught er-s-window-beats-him-bloody

So what are people's take on this one??? Do you think the peeper and trespasser would have had the right to shoot the home owner dead had he been legally carrying a concealed gun when he was taking that beating???

[Edited on 7/25/2013 by sixty8]




Man why don't ya go join the Sharpton/Jackson club.I mean you could tour round the country sportin Justice For Trayvon shirts.Sheet ,i betcha they'd even hook ya up with a different one for each day of the week.Add to that ya could pass out bumper sticker's,carry sign's,& maybe even get on the evening new's.
Just think about for a minute.Man you'd travel the country.And each town you'd have a new putry shirt to wear while fannin the flames.I'd be willin to bet by the end of the tour Jessie & Al would even pose with ya for an autographed color glossy 8x10.
Might oughta check into it man.Getta lot more ground covered than here in the WP.Wishin ya all the best.


sixty8 - 7/25/2013 at 11:00 PM

quote:
quote:
Now this guy really took a real life threatening beating. Shows how small George Zimmerman's wounds actually were. This guy deserved a beat down but that beating may have been a bit excessive. Good thing the peeper wasn't packing because by Florida standards if the peeping tom had a licensed, concealed hand gun he could have shot the home owner dead legally and walked away with nothing more than peeping tom or trespassing charges the same way Zimmerman walked free. At least in this case I would say that the beating the guy took was actually life threatening and the peeping tom had to be hospitalized with major injuries.

http://www.examiner.com/article/father-finds-man-peeping-15-year-old-daught er-s-window-beats-him-bloody

So what are people's take on this one??? Do you think the peeper and trespasser would have had the right to shoot the home owner dead had he been legally carrying a concealed gun when he was taking that beating???

[Edited on 7/25/2013 by sixty8]




Man why don't ya go join the Sharpton/Jackson club.I mean you could tour round the country sportin Justice For Trayvon shirts.Sheet ,i betcha they'd even hook ya up with a different one for each day of the week.Add to that ya could pass out bumper sticker's,carry sign's,& maybe even get on the evening new's.
Just think about for a minute.Man you'd travel the country.And each town you'd have a new putry shirt to wear while fannin the flames.I'd be willin to bet by the end of the tour Jessie & Al would even pose with ya for an autographed color glossy 8x10.
Might oughta check into it man.Getta lot more ground covered than here in the WP.Wishin ya all the best.



If you don't like my threads don't read them you illiterate fool. This is about a whole different case and has nothing to do with Sharpton or Jackson. Both men were white in this case. Can you read or did you even bother clicking the link. Go ask your mother or father how many times they accidentally dropped you on your head when you were a baby. Then stop reading anything I post if it's gonna get you into such a tizzy.

One more thing, how about trying to use some proper spelling and punctuation??? Your posts are dizzying to read.


DougMacKenzie - 7/26/2013 at 02:20 AM

Vigilantism is the next step to anarchy.


dougrhon - 7/26/2013 at 02:43 AM

No the guy did not "deserve" the beat down. Yes if he was killed the homeowner would be guilty of murder. As for whether he would have a right of self defense similar to Zimmerman it would obviously depend on whether he was in fear of his life due to either his weapon being taken away or whether he was in a position from which he could not escape that could lead to life threatening injury End of discussion.

Why you insist on taking into account how badly injured Zimmerman was I don't know. I think you are operating from the premise that the right to use deadly force is kind of a revenge thing. If you are beaten badly enough then maybe its justifiable. In actuality what matters is whether you REASONABLY believe your life to be in jeopardy. It is not necessary to have any injury at all. The entire encounter between Zimmerman and Martin took 40 seconds. How long did the one in this case last? How injured would Zimmerman have been if his fight lasted another 2or 3 minutes?


Carol - 7/26/2013 at 01:12 PM

Racism alive and well in Florida, here's another pig-

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article -1.1209345


OriginalGoober - 7/26/2013 at 02:45 PM


My take is to stay the he11 out of florida, other than select tourist areas. Too many weirdos and gun totin' imbeciles walking around.


alloak41 - 7/26/2013 at 03:00 PM

quote:
Racism alive and well in Florida, here's another pig-

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article -1.1209345


Although I don't automatically assign a racial motivation to the incident, I'd say this fellow is going away for a long time.


dougrhon - 7/26/2013 at 06:56 PM

quote:
quote:
Racism alive and well in Florida, here's another pig-

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article -1.1209345


Although I don't automatically assign a racial motivation to the incident, I'd say this fellow is going away for a long time.


But note how he is equated with Zimmerman. No nuance at all. No recognition of the fact that Zimmerman was being beaten and this freak was not.


Jerry - 7/27/2013 at 05:11 PM

quote:
So what are people's take on this one??? Do you think the peeper and trespasser would have had the right to shoot the home owner dead had he been legally carrying a concealed gun when he was taking that beating???

[Edited on 7/25/2013 by sixty8]


No, he wouldn't. He was (allegedly) in the commission of a crime. He would have been charged with felony murder, along with armed robbery if it could be proven that he was trying to gain access into the house.


Dannyspell - 7/27/2013 at 05:44 PM

That is right on the money, Jerry. If you are in the process of commiting a crime you have tossed your rights out the window...


bigann - 7/27/2013 at 10:25 PM

I've fallen and worse injuries that Zimmerman at the hands of Martin so I'm getting weary of hearing about that beat down he got. What a wimp. As for the peeping tom....it used to be a law in Alabama that you had to wait until someone was actually all the way inside your house before you could defend yourself and then you could only meet force with force....like if the guy was only armed with a knife you couldn't shoot him. Glad they changed that one.


BoytonBrother - 7/27/2013 at 11:54 PM

Shocking responses here. People accuse Zimmerman of "vigilantilism" but yet it's ok for the home owner to take the law into his own hands instead of call the cops? A man guilty of trespassing does not deserve a physical beating. He is guilty of trespassing only, according to the article....not breaking and entering. The homeowner shouldn't be charged but he surely crossed the line - he should've called the cops, period. This notion that Trayvon and the homeowner have the right to assault is asinine. Neither Zimmerman nor the trespasser were assaulting and trapping anyone.


dougrhon - 7/30/2013 at 04:50 PM

quote:
Shocking responses here. People accuse Zimmerman of "vigilantilism" but yet it's ok for the home owner to take the law into his own hands instead of call the cops? A man guilty of trespassing does not deserve a physical beating. He is guilty of trespassing only, according to the article....not breaking and entering. The homeowner shouldn't be charged but he surely crossed the line - he should've called the cops, period. This notion that Trayvon and the homeowner have the right to assault is asinine. Neither Zimmerman nor the trespasser were assaulting and trapping anyone.


It's funny isn't it how all of a sudden liberals want to live in a wild west where people can beat each other for offense taken. I wonder if these are the same types of liberals who condemned "Deathwish" in the 70's and were so horrified by the actions of Bernard Goetz in the 80's.


bigann - 7/30/2013 at 05:41 PM

I don't know any liberals who condemned 'Death Wish' or who didn't think Goetz wasn't justified in his actions. When someone isn't a 'liberal' they tend to try to speak authoritatively about their beliefs and usually they're really wrong.


Bhawk - 7/30/2013 at 06:28 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Racism alive and well in Florida, here's another pig-

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article -1.1209345


Although I don't automatically assign a racial motivation to the incident, I'd say this fellow is going away for a long time.


But note how he is equated with Zimmerman. No nuance at all. No recognition of the fact that Zimmerman was being beaten and this freak was not.


Actually, no one here equated this guy with Zimmerman. His lawyer did.


sixty8 - 7/30/2013 at 11:40 PM

quote:
I've fallen and worse injuries that Zimmerman at the hands of Martin so I'm getting weary of hearing about that beat down he got. What a wimp. As for the peeping tom....it used to be a law in Alabama that you had to wait until someone was actually all the way inside your house before you could defend yourself and then you could only meet force with force....like if the guy was only armed with a knife you couldn't shoot him. Glad they changed that one.


I have gotten much worse injuries in fights that I won. That is part of the reason I don't believe his story and why I think his so called beat down didn't rise to the level of being able to use deadly physical force. I guess someone who is a wimp can claim that just about anything had them fearing for their lives. He probably would have shot Martin if Martin slapped him in the face instead of punching him.


sixty8 - 7/30/2013 at 11:46 PM

quote:
quote:
Shocking responses here. People accuse Zimmerman of "vigilantilism" but yet it's ok for the home owner to take the law into his own hands instead of call the cops? A man guilty of trespassing does not deserve a physical beating. He is guilty of trespassing only, according to the article....not breaking and entering. The homeowner shouldn't be charged but he surely crossed the line - he should've called the cops, period. This notion that Trayvon and the homeowner have the right to assault is asinine. Neither Zimmerman nor the trespasser were assaulting and trapping anyone.


It's funny isn't it how all of a sudden liberals want to live in a wild west where people can beat each other for offense taken. I wonder if these are the same types of liberals who condemned "Deathwish" in the 70's and were so horrified by the actions of Bernard Goetz in the 80's.


Goetz went far beyond what was needed to stop his attackers. Shooting someone who is retreating in the back should have been a crime that landed Goetz in jail. Should have thrown him in the same jail tier as the scum bags that were trying to rob him. One thing to pull out a licensed gun and defend yourself and stop the attackers but once they retreat you have no right to shoot them or do people here claim that he felt his life was in danger at that point???


sixty8 - 7/30/2013 at 11:52 PM

quote:
quote:
Shocking responses here. People accuse Zimmerman of "vigilantilism" but yet it's ok for the home owner to take the law into his own hands instead of call the cops? A man guilty of trespassing does not deserve a physical beating. He is guilty of trespassing only, according to the article....not breaking and entering. The homeowner shouldn't be charged but he surely crossed the line - he should've called the cops, period. This notion that Trayvon and the homeowner have the right to assault is asinine. Neither Zimmerman nor the trespasser were assaulting and trapping anyone.


It's funny isn't it how all of a sudden liberals want to live in a wild west where people can beat each other for offense taken. I wonder if these are the same types of liberals who condemned "Deathwish" in the 70's and were so horrified by the actions of Bernard Goetz in the 80's.


The only ones living in the wild west are people like Zimmerman walking around with loaded handguns. The fact that someone like that weird coward Zimmerman can obtain and legally walk around in public with a loaded handgun is about as scary as it gets.


dougrhon - 7/31/2013 at 04:33 PM

quote:
I don't know any liberals who condemned 'Death Wish' or who didn't think Goetz wasn't justified in his actions. When someone isn't a 'liberal' they tend to try to speak authoritatively about their beliefs and usually they're really wrong.


Really? I certainly do. Maybe you are not around enough liberals down in Alabama. You'd better believe the liberal establishment tried to do to Goetz in the 80's what they did to Zimmerman. And the intelligencia called Deathwish and Dirty Harry "facist films". I'm sure you could find said articles if you Google it.


dougrhon - 7/31/2013 at 04:35 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Shocking responses here. People accuse Zimmerman of "vigilantilism" but yet it's ok for the home owner to take the law into his own hands instead of call the cops? A man guilty of trespassing does not deserve a physical beating. He is guilty of trespassing only, according to the article....not breaking and entering. The homeowner shouldn't be charged but he surely crossed the line - he should've called the cops, period. This notion that Trayvon and the homeowner have the right to assault is asinine. Neither Zimmerman nor the trespasser were assaulting and trapping anyone.




It's funny isn't it how all of a sudden liberals want to live in a wild west where people can beat each other for offense taken. I wonder if these are the same types of liberals who condemned "Deathwish" in the 70's and were so horrified by the actions of Bernard Goetz in the 80's.


Goetz went far beyond what was needed to stop his attackers. Shooting someone who is retreating in the back should have been a crime that landed Goetz in jail. Should have thrown him in the same jail tier as the scum bags that were trying to rob him. One thing to pull out a licensed gun and defend yourself and stop the attackers but once they retreat you have no right to shoot them or do people here claim that he felt his life was in danger at that point???


But Big Ann says no liberals think Goetz wasn't justified in what he did.

[Edited on 7/31/2013 by dougrhon]


dougrhon - 7/31/2013 at 04:38 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Shocking responses here. People accuse Zimmerman of "vigilantilism" but yet it's ok for the home owner to take the law into his own hands instead of call the cops? A man guilty of trespassing does not deserve a physical beating. He is guilty of trespassing only, according to the article....not breaking and entering. The homeowner shouldn't be charged but he surely crossed the line - he should've called the cops, period. This notion that Trayvon and the homeowner have the right to assault is asinine. Neither Zimmerman nor the trespasser were assaulting and trapping anyone.


It's funny isn't it how all of a sudden liberals want to live in a wild west where people can beat each other for offense taken. I wonder if these are the same types of liberals who condemned "Deathwish" in the 70's and were so horrified by the actions of Bernard Goetz in the 80's.


The only ones living in the wild west are people like Zimmerman walking around with loaded handguns. The fact that someone like that weird coward Zimmerman can obtain and legally walk around in public with a loaded handgun is about as scary as it gets.


What makes it a wild west is the idea that people who feel their pride has been hurt or are otherwise offended can beat the crap out of someone. You and others here have essentially said as much. That is not the world we live in. Recall the case of the man who heard someone say the "N" word and popped him. The guy fell backwards hit his head and is in a coma. If he dies the offended African American is guilty of either murder or at the least voluntary manslaughter.


[Edited on 7/31/2013 by dougrhon]


Dannyspell - 7/31/2013 at 07:07 PM

My plants need watering...


BigDaveOnBass - 7/31/2013 at 08:15 PM

quote:
I have gotten much worse injuries in fights that I won. That is part of the reason I don't believe his story and why I think his so called beat down didn't rise to the level of being able to use deadly physical force. I guess someone who is a wimp can claim that just about anything had them fearing for their lives. He probably would have shot Martin if Martin slapped him in the face instead of punching him.
Well Pete, the fact is, it wasn't you who got sucker punched in the face. It wasn't you who was getting his head slammed against the concrete. It wasn't you who had your mouth and nose covered while you tried to scream for help. It wasn't you who was told, "You're gonna die tonight, mother **** er." It wasn't you who wasn't getting the help you were crying out for from the neighbors who heard your screams as you struggled against your attacker. It wasn't you that was about to have your weapon taken away from you and used on you.

The truth is, Trayvon Martin was looking for trouble when he attacked George Zimmerman. He could have just stood and hid in the shadows of that pathway until Zimmerman walked away back to his truck, but he chose to confront him. And it ended badly for Trayvon.

I initially thought Zimmerman deserved at least a manslaughter charge until I got familiar with some of the facts, evidence and testimony of the case, and that was after the verdict was announced. After reviewing them, and a jury of Zimmerman's peers weighing the evidence based on law, they came to the right verdict. I hate that a boy died, but he brought on his own death by acting they way he did. If I had been in Zimmerman's shoes, and I felt like there was a real possibility I was going to die, or if someone had told me I was going to die right then, I would take that threat seriously and do whatever it took to preserve my own life, no ifs, ands or buts.

Life can change, or end, in the blink of an eye. It's easy to arm chair quarterback everything that we don't like the outcome of. This is a very unfortunate set of circumstances that resulted in loss of life. But in the end, I believe our justice system worked.

Watch this video starting at @ 9:50, and take into consideration that Zimmerman took a polygraph test and passed. I believe he was telling the truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c

[Edited on 7/31/2013 by BigDaveOnBass]


dougrhon - 7/31/2013 at 09:46 PM

quote:
quote:
I have gotten much worse injuries in fights that I won. That is part of the reason I don't believe his story and why I think his so called beat down didn't rise to the level of being able to use deadly physical force. I guess someone who is a wimp can claim that just about anything had them fearing for their lives. He probably would have shot Martin if Martin slapped him in the face instead of punching him.
Well Pete, the fact is, it wasn't you who got sucker punched in the face. It wasn't you who was getting his head slammed against the concrete. It wasn't you who had your mouth and nose covered while you tried to scream for help. It wasn't you who was told, "You're gonna die tonight, mother **** er." It wasn't you who wasn't getting the help you were crying out for from the neighbors who heard your screams as you struggled against your attacker. It wasn't you that was about to have your weapon taken away from you and used on you.

The truth is, Trayvon Martin was looking for trouble when he attacked George Zimmerman. He could have just stood and hid in the shadows of that pathway until Zimmerman walked away back to his truck, but he chose to confront him. And it ended badly for Trayvon.

I initially thought Zimmerman deserved at least a manslaughter charge until I got familiar with some of the facts, evidence and testimony of the case, and that was after the verdict was announced. After reviewing them, and a jury of Zimmerman's peers weighing the evidence based on law, they came to the right verdict. I hate that a boy died, but he brought on his own death by acting they way he did. If I had been in Zimmerman's shoes, and I felt like there was a real possibility I was going to die, or if someone had told me I was going to die right then, I would take that threat seriously and do whatever it took to preserve my own life, no ifs, ands or buts.

Life can change, or end, in the blink of an eye. It's easy to arm chair quarterback everything that we don't like the outcome of. This is a very unfortunate set of circumstances that resulted in loss of life. But in the end, I believe our justice system worked.

Watch this video starting at @ 9:50, and take into consideration that Zimmerman took a polygraph test and passed. I believe he was telling the truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c

[Edited on 7/31/2013 by BigDaveOnBass]


You're late to the party Dave. We've been hashing these same points for over a month now. Suffice to say I agree with every word you wrote but you will never convince the unconvincable.


bigann - 7/31/2013 at 09:53 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Shocking responses here. People accuse Zimmerman of "vigilantilism" but yet it's ok for the home owner to take the law into his own hands instead of call the cops? A man guilty of trespassing does not deserve a physical beating. He is guilty of trespassing only, according to the article....not breaking and entering. The homeowner shouldn't be charged but he surely crossed the line - he should've called the cops, period. This notion that Trayvon and the homeowner have the right to assault is asinine. Neither Zimmerman nor the trespasser were assaulting and trapping anyone.




It's funny isn't it how all of a sudden liberals want to live in a wild west where people can beat each other for offense taken. I wonder if these are the same types of liberals who condemned "Deathwish" in the 70's and were so horrified by the actions of Bernard Goetz in the 80's.


Goetz went far beyond what was needed to stop his attackers. Shooting someone who is retreating in the back should have been a crime that landed Goetz in jail. Should have thrown him in the same jail tier as the scum bags that were trying to rob him. One thing to pull out a licensed gun and defend yourself and stop the attackers but once they retreat you have no right to shoot them or do people here claim that he felt his life was in danger at that point???


But Big Ann says no liberals think Goetz wasn't justified in what he did.

[Edited on 7/31/2013 by dougrhon]


This is what usually happens when you make statements without thinking them through. I said I didn't know any liberals....but please don't allow accuracy to stop you while you're on a roll.


bigann - 7/31/2013 at 09:55 PM

quote:
quote:
I don't know any liberals who condemned 'Death Wish' or who didn't think Goetz wasn't justified in his actions. When someone isn't a 'liberal' they tend to try to speak authoritatively about their beliefs and usually they're really wrong.


Really? I certainly do. Maybe you are not around enough liberals down in Alabama. You'd better believe the liberal establishment tried to do to Goetz in the 80's what they did to Zimmerman. And the intelligencia called Deathwish and Dirty Harry "facist films". I'm sure you could find said articles if you Google it.



Perhaps the liberal establishment in the area where you lived but you can't speak as to what all liberals thought about the incident because believe it or not, I have a lot of liberal friends down here who just don't think the way you think they do.


sixty8 - 8/1/2013 at 12:42 AM

quote:
quote:
I have gotten much worse injuries in fights that I won. That is part of the reason I don't believe his story and why I think his so called beat down didn't rise to the level of being able to use deadly physical force. I guess someone who is a wimp can claim that just about anything had them fearing for their lives. He probably would have shot Martin if Martin slapped him in the face instead of punching him.
Well Pete, the fact is, it wasn't you who got sucker punched in the face. It wasn't you who was getting his head slammed against the concrete. It wasn't you who had your mouth and nose covered while you tried to scream for help. It wasn't you who was told, "You're gonna die tonight, mother **** er." It wasn't you who wasn't getting the help you were crying out for from the neighbors who heard your screams as you struggled against your attacker. It wasn't you that was about to have your weapon taken away from you and used on you.

The truth is, Trayvon Martin was looking for trouble when he attacked George Zimmerman. He could have just stood and hid in the shadows of that pathway until Zimmerman walked away back to his truck, but he chose to confront him. And it ended badly for Trayvon.

I initially thought Zimmerman deserved at least a manslaughter charge until I got familiar with some of the facts, evidence and testimony of the case, and that was after the verdict was announced. After reviewing them, and a jury of Zimmerman's peers weighing the evidence based on law, they came to the right verdict. I hate that a boy died, but he brought on his own death by acting they way he did. If I had been in Zimmerman's shoes, and I felt like there was a real possibility I was going to die, or if someone had told me I was going to die right then, I would take that threat seriously and do whatever it took to preserve my own life, no ifs, ands or buts.

Life can change, or end, in the blink of an eye. It's easy to arm chair quarterback everything that we don't like the outcome of. This is a very unfortunate set of circumstances that resulted in loss of life. But in the end, I believe our justice system worked.

Watch this video starting at @ 9:50, and take into consideration that Zimmerman took a polygraph test and passed. I believe he was telling the truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c

[Edited on 7/31/2013 by BigDaveOnBass]


I don't believe you would have been dumb enough to keep following Zimmerman nor do I even think you would have even called the cops on Martin in the first place. I don't see you as being a paranoid and over zealous person so if it were you or me it would have never happened because we wouldn't have even called the cops unless we saw Martin doing something wrong.

Secondly, you take Zimmerman's word as to what happened when the physical confrontation started. You weren't there, I wasn't there, Doug wasn't there, and no other witnesses were there when it started so nobody knows who punched or who tried to punch first or who grabbed who or whatever happened. It all comes down to Zimmerman's account since the other witness is dead. You happen to believe Zimmerman, I do not and part of that is his injuries that I can compare with injuries I have seen in the past. I can assure you this. No way in the world Zimmerman was getting beat down MMA style for 40 seconds as contended and walked away with such small injuries. He would have been either dead, in a coma, or at the very very least would have had a major concussion that would have needed immediate hospital care.

Bottom line is if you believe Zimmerman's story you believe he is innocent. If you don't believe him and I don't you think he was responsible if not guilty by the exact word of the law. He was the mature 27 year old man. Martin was the barely 17 year old kid.

I can't say for sure because I am not you Dave but you look like a pretty bad @ss dude and at 17 I bet you were pretty bad @ss and like me at that age I bet you made more than your share of 17 year old mistakes. Would you have run away from that weird looking dude following you first in a car and then by foot or would you have stood your ground when he caught up to you???? I am betting that you would have confronted Zimmerman. I am pretty sure me and most of my friends would have.

That is why I said that new neighborhood watch laws should be passed after this incident so any future over zealous neighborhood watch people know exactly what to do and what not to do when they see something they deem to be suspicious. That means call the cops, give them a description and take your concealed gun and stand down. Period!!!


BoytonBrother - 8/1/2013 at 03:48 AM

quote:
I have gotten much worse injuries in fights that I won.


This statement indicates that you've been in many fights. Shows your true character. Seems like you believe in resorting to violence to solve your conflicts.

quote:
Secondly, you take Zimmerman's word as to what happened when the physical confrontation started. You weren't there, I wasn't there, Doug wasn't there, and no other witnesses were there when it started so nobody knows who punched or who tried to punch first or who grabbed who or whatever happened.


So then why are you so against Zimmerman if you don't know who threw the first punch?

quote:
I am betting that you would have confronted Zimmerman. I am pretty sure me and most of my friends would have.


Then by law, you and your friends would be guilty of aggravated assault, and your opinion about it doesn't matter, as I've learned in court. And don't lump others here as aggressors just because you are one.

quote:
That means call the cops, give them a description and take your concealed gun and stand down. Period!!!


But in your original post here, you say the trespasser "deserved a beat down". So which is it?


sixty8 - 8/1/2013 at 04:03 AM

quote:
This statement indicates that you've been in many fights. Shows your true character. Seems like you believe in resorting to violence to solve your conflicts.
quote:


Anyone who knows me will vouch for my character and I could care less what you think. When I was a teenager fights happened all of the time. Not saying I was out fighting every weekend but if the need ever arose me and my friends weren't the types to back down. Nobody ever got shot dead or beaten to death back then either.


sixty8 - 8/1/2013 at 04:05 AM

I am against him for being over zealous, profiling that kid to be a criminal without good reason, and then stalking him even after being told indirectly not to. That is why I am against him and for no other reason.


sixty8 - 8/1/2013 at 04:10 AM


quote:
But in your original post here, you say the trespasser "deserved a beat down". So which is it?
quote:



Apples and oranges. That peeping Tom was on the other guy's property watching his daughter undress or whatever she was doing. In that situation I don't think there is any way I would be able to hold myself back whether I called the cops or not. I don't know how someone could hold their temper for something like that. I did say though that the beating he took which was 20 times worse than the one Zimmerman took was excessive.


alloak41 - 8/1/2013 at 04:29 AM

quote:
That is why I said that new neighborhood watch laws should be passed after this incident so any future over zealous neighborhood watch people know exactly what to do and what not to do when they see something they deem to be suspicious. That means call the cops, give them a description and take your concealed gun and stand down. Period!!!


then, in the language it should be written that the person under suspicion should also "stand down" until the police arrive, which Treyvon Martin didn't.


BigDaveOnBass - 8/1/2013 at 01:03 PM

quote:
I can't say for sure because I am not you Dave but you look like a pretty bad @ss dude and at 17 I bet you were pretty bad @ss and like me at that age I bet you made more than your share of 17 year old mistakes. Would you have run away from that weird looking dude following you first in a car and then by foot or would you have stood your ground when he caught up to you???? I am betting that you would have confronted Zimmerman. I am pretty sure me and most of my friends would have.
Believe it or not, when I was 17, I was pretty timid and non-confrontational. I was 6'1" but barely weighed 170 pounds. I never conducted myself in a manner that would have been considered as aggressive. But then again, when I was 17, I was still in school, I held a job at night that kept me off the streets, and if I was running the streets, I was riding around in a car I bought with my own money. I didn't need to walk anywhere. I was fairly self reliant at 17. So, no, I probably wouldn't have chosen to confront a grown man who was simply following me. If I had, I would have simply stopped and asked him, "Why are you following me? **** off!!" I sure wouldn't have thrown a punch. Nowadays? Not so sure...


alanwoods - 8/1/2013 at 04:35 PM

I bet my last dollar if Dave caught someone peeking through his windows, that sumbitch would really get his ass whupped. Or much worse, depending on the circumstances.

Dave is a really laid back dude with a huge heart, but his family is #1 (as should be), and he is a good friend to have, too.

"Don't cross him, don't boss him..."


sixty8 - 8/1/2013 at 04:41 PM

quote:
quote:
That is why I said that new neighborhood watch laws should be passed after this incident so any future over zealous neighborhood watch people know exactly what to do and what not to do when they see something they deem to be suspicious. That means call the cops, give them a description and take your concealed gun and stand down. Period!!!


then, in the language it should be written that the person under suspicion should also "stand down" until the police arrive, which Treyvon Martin didn't.


First of all it was Zimmerman who was on neighborhood watch and who called the cops. How was Martin to even know Zimmerman called the cops on him???? He was just walking up the road. Secondly Martin would have had no reason to stand down. If Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the operator told him to Martin would have just kept walking home. If Zimmerman wasn't such an over zealous and paranoid person he would have just followed Martin from a distance in his car until Martin was safe in his home instead of calling the cops on someone who was doing nothing wrong.


alloak41 - 8/1/2013 at 04:53 PM

quote:
If Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the operator told him to Martin would have just kept walking home.


How do you know that? He didn't seem in much of hurry to get home. My grandmother could have covered the distances Treyvon Martin was moving faster.


dougrhon - 8/1/2013 at 05:17 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I don't know any liberals who condemned 'Death Wish' or who didn't think Goetz wasn't justified in his actions. When someone isn't a 'liberal' they tend to try to speak authoritatively about their beliefs and usually they're really wrong.


Really? I certainly do. Maybe you are not around enough liberals down in Alabama. You'd better believe the liberal establishment tried to do to Goetz in the 80's what they did to Zimmerman. And the intelligencia called Deathwish and Dirty Harry "facist films". I'm sure you could find said articles if you Google it.



Perhaps the liberal establishment in the area where you lived but you can't speak as to what all liberals thought about the incident because believe it or not, I have a lot of liberal friends down here who just don't think the way you think they do.


Perhaps. But I live in New York where the incident happened so I have a pretty good pulse on how the establishment reacted to it.


dougrhon - 8/1/2013 at 05:20 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
That is why I said that new neighborhood watch laws should be passed after this incident so any future over zealous neighborhood watch people know exactly what to do and what not to do when they see something they deem to be suspicious. That means call the cops, give them a description and take your concealed gun and stand down. Period!!!


then, in the language it should be written that the person under suspicion should also "stand down" until the police arrive, which Treyvon Martin didn't.


First of all it was Zimmerman who was on neighborhood watch and who called the cops. How was Martin to even know Zimmerman called the cops on him???? He was just walking up the road. Secondly Martin would have had no reason to stand down. If Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the operator told him to Martin would have just kept walking home. If Zimmerman wasn't such an over zealous and paranoid person he would have just followed Martin from a distance in his car until Martin was safe in his home instead of calling the cops on someone who was doing nothing wrong.


No reason to stand down? He had no reason to attack Zimmerman.


BigDaveOnBass - 8/1/2013 at 06:45 PM

quote:
I bet my last dollar if Dave caught someone peeking through his windows, that sumbitch would really get his ass whupped. Or much worse, depending on the circumstances.

Dave is a really laid back dude with a huge heart, but his family is #1 (as should be), and he is a good friend to have, too.

"Don't cross him, don't boss him..."
Shucks, Alan.

Actually, with me, it's more along the lines of, "Don't start no sh!+, won't be no sh!+."


sixty8 - 8/1/2013 at 08:26 PM

quote:
quote:
If Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the operator told him to Martin would have just kept walking home.


How do you know that? He didn't seem in much of hurry to get home. My grandmother could have covered the distances Treyvon Martin was moving faster.


How do you know how fast Martin was walking and what difference does that make???? Unless he was walking up and looking in houses or looking in cars there was no reason for him to be suspected for doing anything!!!! Not against the law to walk slowly and walking somewhere slowly doesn't make you suspicious and if Martin didn't think this creep was following him he would have had no reason to stop.


sixty8 - 8/1/2013 at 08:35 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
That is why I said that new neighborhood watch laws should be passed after this incident so any future over zealous neighborhood watch people know exactly what to do and what not to do when they see something they deem to be suspicious. That means call the cops, give them a description and take your concealed gun and stand down. Period!!!


then, in the language it should be written that the person under suspicion should also "stand down" until the police arrive, which Treyvon Martin didn't.


First of all it was Zimmerman who was on neighborhood watch and who called the cops. How was Martin to even know Zimmerman called the cops on him???? He was just walking up the road. Secondly Martin would have had no reason to stand down. If Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the operator told him to Martin would have just kept walking home. If Zimmerman wasn't such an over zealous and paranoid person he would have just followed Martin from a distance in his car until Martin was safe in his home instead of calling the cops on someone who was doing nothing wrong.


No reason to stand down? He had no reason to attack Zimmerman.



NO REASON TO STAND DOWN????????? After the operator told him to?????? OK, so you are trying to say that Zimmerman was right to continue to follow Martin and you think if he did the same thing again under the same circumstances that he would be in the right????? All I can say is WOW!!!!!! Maybe teenagers in Florida should start packing if they plan on walking to the store.

You say Martin had no reason to attack Zimmerman. Well, in mine and many other's opinions Zimmerman had no right to follow Martin for no reason both on in his car and by foot. Zimmerman is the one who sparked fear in Martin. Zimmerman is the one who was doing something out of the ordinary stalking someone.


sixty8 - 8/1/2013 at 08:38 PM

quote:
quote:
I bet my last dollar if Dave caught someone peeking through his windows, that sumbitch would really get his ass whupped. Or much worse, depending on the circumstances.

Dave is a really laid back dude with a huge heart, but his family is #1 (as should be), and he is a good friend to have, too.

"Don't cross him, don't boss him..."
Shucks, Alan.

Actually, with me, it's more along the lines of, "Don't start no sh!+, won't be no sh!+."


I have always had a similar philosophy. I rarely if ever started a fight I was in. It usually came about from defending myself or defending someone I care about.


Carol - 8/1/2013 at 08:39 PM

{How do you know how fast Martin was walking and what difference does that make???? Unless he was walking up and looking in houses or looking in cars there was no reason for him to be suspected for doing anything!!!! Not against the law to walk slowly and walking somewhere slowly doesn't make you suspicious and if Martin didn't think this creep was following him he would have had no reason to stop.}

Makes no difference..this is America, there are no laws how fast or slow one must walk

Interestingly , one of the lawmakers who voted to pass the Stand Your Ground law was speaking on local radio talk this morning, he insisted its a good law, but it is being misinterpreted by the judicial system.

I couldn't agree more.

And as far as the creepy peeping , trespassing Tom goes, he's lucky all he got was a beat down imho

Show me one Father , or Mother for that matter, of a young Daughter who wouldn't beat down some pos he/she caught lurking around ,looking in daughter's bedroom window.

Get real people.


BoytonBrother - 8/1/2013 at 09:13 PM

quote:
First of all it was Zimmerman who was on neighborhood watch and who called the cops. How was Martin to even know Zimmerman called the cops on him???? He was just walking up the road. Secondly Martin would have had no reason to stand down. If Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the operator told him to Martin would have just kept walking home. If Zimmerman wasn't such an over zealous and paranoid person he would have just followed Martin from a distance in his car until Martin was safe in his home instead of calling the cops on someone who was doing nothing wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


No reason to stand down? He had no reason to attack Zimmerman.


sixty8 already admitted that he would phsically attack someone with violence if they were following him. This is who he is. He admitted to being someone prone to committing aggravated assault.


BoytonBrother - 8/1/2013 at 09:25 PM

quote:
OK, so you are trying to say that Zimmerman was right to continue to follow Martin and you think if he did the same thing again under the same circumstances that he would be in the right????? All I can say is WOW!!!!!!


It's not against the law. Show us where following someone is a crime. Creepy maybe, but not against the law. Agree? Well, you have to, because it's fact.

quote:
Maybe teenagers in Florida should start packing if they plan on walking to the store.


Or just not assault the follower, and call the cops. Yeah we know, you think Zimmerman started the fight, even though he called 911 and knew cops were on the way...yeah, that makes sense.

quote:
You say Martin had no reason to attack Zimmerman. Well, in mine and many other's opinions Zimmerman had no right to follow Martin for no reason both on in his car and by foot. Zimmerman is the one who sparked fear in Martin. Zimmerman is the one who was doing something out of the ordinary stalking someone.


Too bad if you don't like it. You can cry all day long that Zimmerman was wrong, but the law says otherwise. Move to Canada if you don't like our laws.


Carol - 8/1/2013 at 09:37 PM

I hope this freak stays the hell out of Florida

http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/george-zimmerman-stopped-for-speeding-in-t exas/39543363959


DougMacKenzie - 8/1/2013 at 10:02 PM

quote:
And as far as the creepy peeping , trespassing Tom goes, he's lucky all he got was a beat down imho

Show me one Father , or Mother for that matter, of a young Daughter who wouldn't beat down some pos he/she caught lurking around ,looking in daughter's bedroom window.

Get real people.

I wouldn't (and I have a daughter that just turned 16). I'd call the cops and let them handle it. I don't want to teach my kids that violence is the answer to anything. I also don't want them to see me arrested for assault and the trauma that would cause everyone in our household. I find this idea that we have no choice in how we respond to situations appalling, that somehow the actions of others make us respond in certain ways. That is just not true. We always have a choice, no matter what the situation. I also find the idea that violence is a justifiable response in anything but a life threatening situation, especially among the "mature" population on this site, incredibly disappointing.


sixty8 - 8/1/2013 at 10:22 PM

quote:
quote:
OK, so you are trying to say that Zimmerman was right to continue to follow Martin and you think if he did the same thing again under the same circumstances that he would be in the right????? All I can say is WOW!!!!!!


It's not against the law. Show us where following someone is a crime. Creepy maybe, but not against the law. Agree? Well, you have to, because it's fact.

quote:
Maybe teenagers in Florida should start packing if they plan on walking to the store.


Or just not assault the follower, and call the cops. Yeah we know, you think Zimmerman started the fight, even though he called 911 and knew cops were on the way...yeah, that makes sense.

quote:
You say Martin had no reason to attack Zimmerman. Well, in mine and many other's opinions Zimmerman had no right to follow Martin for no reason both on in his car and by foot. Zimmerman is the one who sparked fear in Martin. Zimmerman is the one who was doing something out of the ordinary stalking someone.


Too bad if you don't like it. You can cry all day long that Zimmerman was wrong, but the law says otherwise. Move to Canada if you don't like our laws.


I am not crying dude and you should really stop with the personal attacks here because you are showing off your character by doing so. I am not the one who stalked a kid and ended up killing him nor am I the kid who was being followed. If you can't argue about issues without getting your panties all up in a bunch and taking everything so personally and without name calling and I am talking about name calling to the people debating here then maybe you should stop posting. Either that or go learn some proper etiquette.


sixty8 - 8/1/2013 at 10:26 PM

quote:
I hope this freak stays the hell out of Florida

http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/george-zimmerman-stopped-for-speeding-in-t exas/39543363959


I hope he stays right there. Keep him the hell away from NY although I am sure we have our fair share of over zealous and paranoid gun toting morons here already.


sixty8 - 8/1/2013 at 10:34 PM

quote:
quote:
And as far as the creepy peeping , trespassing Tom goes, he's lucky all he got was a beat down imho

Show me one Father , or Mother for that matter, of a young Daughter who wouldn't beat down some pos he/she caught lurking around ,looking in daughter's bedroom window.

Get real people.

I wouldn't (and I have a daughter that just turned 16). I'd call the cops and let them handle it. I don't want to teach my kids that violence is the answer to anything. I also don't want them to see me arrested for assault and the trauma that would cause everyone in our household. I find this idea that we have no choice in how we respond to situations appalling, that somehow the actions of others make us respond in certain ways. That is just not true. We always have a choice, no matter what the situation. I also find the idea that violence is a justifiable response in anything but a life threatening situation, especially among the "mature" population on this site, incredibly disappointing.


Different strokes for different folks. I don't have a daughter but if I did and someone was outside my house peeping at her undressing and such I don't know if the rage I would feel would even allow me to call the cops before getting physical. Next to being assaulted by someone that would be the next worst thing that someone could do to you. You call the cops and the guy gets a slap on the wrist. What if his next intention is to rape your daughter??? I would like to think that I could hold back but under those circumstances it would be extremely tough and as long as it is the criminals taking the beating I am not gonna feel a bit sorry for them.


DougMacKenzie - 8/1/2013 at 10:40 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
And as far as the creepy peeping , trespassing Tom goes, he's lucky all he got was a beat down imho

Show me one Father , or Mother for that matter, of a young Daughter who wouldn't beat down some pos he/she caught lurking around ,looking in daughter's bedroom window.

Get real people.

I wouldn't (and I have a daughter that just turned 16). I'd call the cops and let them handle it. I don't want to teach my kids that violence is the answer to anything. I also don't want them to see me arrested for assault and the trauma that would cause everyone in our household. I find this idea that we have no choice in how we respond to situations appalling, that somehow the actions of others make us respond in certain ways. That is just not true. We always have a choice, no matter what the situation. I also find the idea that violence is a justifiable response in anything but a life threatening situation, especially among the "mature" population on this site, incredibly disappointing.


Different strokes for different folks. I don't have a daughter but if I did and someone was outside my house peeping at her undressing and such I don't know if the rage I would feel would even allow me to call the cops before getting physical. Next to being assaulted by someone that would be the next worst thing that someone could do to you. You call the cops and the guy gets a slap on the wrist. What if his next intention is to rape your daughter??? I would like to think that I could hold back but under those circumstances it would be extremely tough and as long as it is the criminals taking the beating I am not gonna feel a bit sorry for them.

So you do believe violence is the answer? I disagree, and believe for our "civilization" to progress and evolve that kind of vigilante, "they made me do it" philosophy has to end, one person at a time.


BoytonBrother - 8/1/2013 at 10:52 PM

quote:

I wouldn't (and I have a daughter that just turned 16). I'd call the cops and let them handle it. I don't want to teach my kids that violence is the answer to anything. I also don't want them to see me arrested for assault and the trauma that would cause everyone in our household. I find this idea that we have no choice in how we respond to situations appalling, that somehow the actions of others make us respond in certain ways. That is just not true. We always have a choice, no matter what the situation. I also find the idea that violence is a justifiable response in anything but a life threatening situation, especially among the "mature" population on this site, incredibly disappointing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Different strokes for different folks. I don't have a daughter but if I did and someone was outside my house peeping at her undressing and such I don't know if the rage I would feel would even allow me to call the cops before getting physical. Next to being assaulted by someone that would be the next worst thing that someone could do to you. You call the cops and the guy gets a slap on the wrist. What if his next intention is to rape your daughter??? I would like to think that I could hold back but under those circumstances it would be extremely tough and as long as it is the criminals taking the beating I am not gonna feel a bit sorry for them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

So you do believe violence is the answer? I disagree, and believe for our "civilization" to progress and evolve that kind of vigilante, "they made me do it" philosophy has to end, one person at a time.


Beautifully stated Doug. Very mature and intelligent. Too bad others can't see it.


BoytonBrother - 8/1/2013 at 10:59 PM

quote:
Too bad if you don't like it. You can cry all day long that Zimmerman was wrong, but the law says otherwise. Move to Canada if you don't like our laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

I am not crying dude and you should really stop with the personal attacks here because you are showing off your character by doing so. I am not the one who stalked a kid and ended up killing him nor am I the kid who was being followed. If you can't argue about issues without getting your panties all up in a bunch and taking everything so personally and without name calling and I am talking about name calling to the people debating here then maybe you should stop posting. Either that or go learn some proper etiquette.


Wah Wah Wah. Show me where I name-called. Describing you as violent, and prone to committing aggravated assault, is not name-calling....just a factual description according to your own words.

quote:
Different strokes for different folks. I don't have a daughter but if I did and someone was outside my house peeping at her undressing and such I don't know if the rage I would feel would even allow me to call the cops before getting physical. Next to being assaulted by someone that would be the next worst thing that someone could do to you. You call the cops and the guy gets a slap on the wrist. What if his next intention is to rape your daughter??? I would like to think that I could hold back but under those circumstances it would be extremely tough and as long as it is the criminals taking the beating I am not gonna feel a bit sorry for them.


Wow, so you would let your daughter watch you assault someone, then get taken away in handcuffs, charged and convicted of assault, and do time, leaving your daughter fatherless for an extended period? Real nice. Maybe Doug's response is a tad bit better for everyone involved.

Keep typing, I'm enjoying all of it.


sixty8 - 8/2/2013 at 03:00 AM

quote:
quote:
Too bad if you don't like it. You can cry all day long that Zimmerman was wrong, but the law says otherwise. Move to Canada if you don't like our laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

I am not crying dude and you should really stop with the personal attacks here because you are showing off your character by doing so. I am not the one who stalked a kid and ended up killing him nor am I the kid who was being followed. If you can't argue about issues without getting your panties all up in a bunch and taking everything so personally and without name calling and I am talking about name calling to the people debating here then maybe you should stop posting. Either that or go learn some proper etiquette.


Wah Wah Wah. Show me where I name-called. Describing you as violent, and prone to committing aggravated assault, is not name-calling....just a factual description according to your own words.

quote:
Different strokes for different folks. I don't have a daughter but if I did and someone was outside my house peeping at her undressing and such I don't know if the rage I would feel would even allow me to call the cops before getting physical. Next to being assaulted by someone that would be the next worst thing that someone could do to you. You call the cops and the guy gets a slap on the wrist. What if his next intention is to rape your daughter??? I would like to think that I could hold back but under those circumstances it would be extremely tough and as long as it is the criminals taking the beating I am not gonna feel a bit sorry for them.


Wow, so you would let your daughter watch you assault someone, then get taken away in handcuffs, charged and convicted of assault, and do time, leaving your daughter fatherless for an extended period? Real nice. Maybe Doug's response is a tad bit better for everyone involved.

Keep typing, I'm enjoying all of it.


If I had a daughter who was being peeped on and I gave her peeper a nice little beating I am sure she would be very proud of her papa for having her back and being her protector. I am sure there wouldn't be very many other people that would condemn me for doing that to someone who was peeping on my daughter on my very own property. Sorry, but anyone who would do that deserve what they get and I don't care if you disapprove or not.


DougMacKenzie - 8/2/2013 at 03:04 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Too bad if you don't like it. You can cry all day long that Zimmerman was wrong, but the law says otherwise. Move to Canada if you don't like our laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

I am not crying dude and you should really stop with the personal attacks here because you are showing off your character by doing so. I am not the one who stalked a kid and ended up killing him nor am I the kid who was being followed. If you can't argue about issues without getting your panties all up in a bunch and taking everything so personally and without name calling and I am talking about name calling to the people debating here then maybe you should stop posting. Either that or go learn some proper etiquette.


Wah Wah Wah. Show me where I name-called. Describing you as violent, and prone to committing aggravated assault, is not name-calling....just a factual description according to your own words.

quote:
Different strokes for different folks. I don't have a daughter but if I did and someone was outside my house peeping at her undressing and such I don't know if the rage I would feel would even allow me to call the cops before getting physical. Next to being assaulted by someone that would be the next worst thing that someone could do to you. You call the cops and the guy gets a slap on the wrist. What if his next intention is to rape your daughter??? I would like to think that I could hold back but under those circumstances it would be extremely tough and as long as it is the criminals taking the beating I am not gonna feel a bit sorry for them.


Wow, so you would let your daughter watch you assault someone, then get taken away in handcuffs, charged and convicted of assault, and do time, leaving your daughter fatherless for an extended period? Real nice. Maybe Doug's response is a tad bit better for everyone involved.

Keep typing, I'm enjoying all of it.


If I had a daughter who was being peeped on and I gave her peeper a nice little beating I am sure she would be very proud of her papa for having her back and being her protector. I am sure there wouldn't be very many other people that would condemn me for doing that to someone who was peeping on my daughter on my very own property. Sorry, but anyone who would do that deserve what they get and I don't care if you disapprove or not.

Wow.


Carol - 8/2/2013 at 01:34 PM

{I wouldn't (and I have a daughter that just turned 16). I'd call the cops and let them handle it. I don't want to teach my kids that violence is the answer to anything. I also don't want them to see me arrested for assault and the trauma that would cause everyone in our household. I find this idea that we have no choice in how we respond to situations appalling, that somehow the actions of others make us respond in certain ways. That is just not true. We always have a choice, no matter what the situation. I also find the idea that violence is a justifiable response in anything but a life threatening situation, especially among the "mature" population on this site, incredibly disappointing.}

While I admire your idealism, I find it incredibly naïve.

Do you really think the police would be able to get to your home and protect your daughter in time?

You might want to do a predator check online, odds are, the sexual predators outnumber your local police.


The city I live in has just been named the safest city in America.

Meanwhile, jury here is being selected for the case of the 300 something pound monster that brutally raped and killed a 2 year old .

Then there was the 4 year old who was strapped by her ankles to the shower curtain rod and beaten to death after being repeatedly raped and abused .

The missing 17 year old whose body was found in the swamps, (what was left of it) covered with vultures picking away at her bones.

the 1st and 3rd remained cold cases for years, the 3rd case still hasn't produced an arrest, only the 1st case is being brought to justice.

That's just off the top of my head, there are more.


Carol - 8/2/2013 at 01:36 PM

"Then there was the 4 year old who was strapped by her ankles to the shower curtain rod and beaten to death after being repeatedly raped and abused ."

I should add, by the social worker assigned to protect her

She would have been lucky to have a Father like sixty imho


Dannyspell - 8/2/2013 at 01:49 PM

I think I will just stay in and enjoy the A/C today....


DougMacKenzie - 8/2/2013 at 01:52 PM

quote:
{I wouldn't (and I have a daughter that just turned 16). I'd call the cops and let them handle it. I don't want to teach my kids that violence is the answer to anything. I also don't want them to see me arrested for assault and the trauma that would cause everyone in our household. I find this idea that we have no choice in how we respond to situations appalling, that somehow the actions of others make us respond in certain ways. That is just not true. We always have a choice, no matter what the situation. I also find the idea that violence is a justifiable response in anything but a life threatening situation, especially among the "mature" population on this site, incredibly disappointing.}

While I admire your idealism, I find it incredibly naïve.

Do you really think the police would be able to get to your home and protect your daughter in time?

You might want to do a predator check online, odds are, the sexual predators outnumber your local police.


The city I live in has just been named the safest city in America.

Meanwhile, jury here is being selected for the case of the 300 something pound monster that brutally raped and killed a 2 year old .

Then there was the 4 year old who was strapped by her ankles to the shower curtain rod and beaten to death after being repeatedly raped and abused .

The missing 17 year old whose body was found in the swamps, (what was left of it) covered with vultures picking away at her bones.

the 1st and 3rd remained cold cases for years, the 3rd case still hasn't produced an arrest, only the 1st case is being brought to justice.

That's just off the top of my head, there are more.



Naive? I don't think so. I've spent the last 30 years working with psychos, crazies, and criminals, including the Texas prison system and severl psychiatric hospitals. I know where the predators in my community live and what they are capable of. I've spent the last 6 years working with delinquent and criminal youth, because that is where the best opportunity for change lies. The incredibly huge percentage of perpetrators who have been the victims of physical violence themselves is staggering. If you believe more violence will stop the violence and that kids would be "lucky" to be taught such a philosphy I'd put that on a par with believing more sugar will cure diabeties. I find it incredibly ironic that so many of the same people condeming GZ espouse a very similiar philosphy of taking the law into their own hands.


BoytonBrother - 8/2/2013 at 02:27 PM

quote:
Wow, so you would let your daughter watch you assault someone, then get taken away in handcuffs, charged and convicted of assault, and do time, leaving your daughter fatherless for an extended period? Real nice. Maybe Doug's response is a tad bit better for everyone involved.

Keep typing, I'm enjoying all of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

If I had a daughter who was being peeped on and I gave her peeper a nice little beating I am sure she would be very proud of her papa for having her back and being her protector. I am sure there wouldn't be very many other people that would condemn me for doing that to someone who was peeping on my daughter on my very own property. Sorry, but anyone who would do that deserve what they get and I don't care if you disapprove or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Wow.


I know, it's shocking.

You condemn Zimmerman for vigilantism, but yet you say you would assault someone (which is against the law) for peeping in your window, instead of call the cops, which you're supposed to do.

You blame Zimmerman for being over-zealous for taking the law into his own hands, and not listening to cops, yet you just admit to doing the same thing! If you called the cops on the peeper, and you said you were going to go out there to confront him, they would say, "we don't need you to do that." Don't you think you're being hypocritical?

Have you learned nothing from the Zimmerman case? What if the peeper had a knife or gun on them and used it on you? Your actions could get you killed, and your daughter left fatherless. Doug's actions would keep him and his family safe, and the peeper in jail where he belongs. Not very smart on your part.

Your thoughts, actions, and bevior are reckless, backwards, angry, hypocritical, and mean-spirited. You think a young girl would be proud to watch her father engage in violence? What world are you living in? You have learned absolutely nothing from the Zimmerman trial.

Not that I'm a religous man, but even the Bible says to forgive those who trespass against us, not assault them. A peeper is most likely disturbed, and has mental problems. Beating a disturbed person does nothing to help any situation, except to satisfy your own anger and violent tendencies.


BoytonBrother - 8/2/2013 at 02:58 PM

quote:
While I admire your idealism, I find it incredibly naïve.

Do you really think the police would be able to get to your home and protect your daughter in time?



Carol, why are you assuming that the peeper is going to escalate his crime to breaking and entering, and then sexual assault? That's a pretty big leap to assume he's going to take. Most peepers get their kicks out of voyeurism, and wouldn't take it any further. Don't you think it's a bit paranoid to assume they would go that far? Cops usually get to a house within minutes.


alloak41 - 8/2/2013 at 03:20 PM

If you're not a police officer you should call the police and stand down. What happened to that?


LeglizHemp - 8/2/2013 at 03:52 PM

Why are people today such pussies? a simple fist fight doesn't need to involve guns.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130802/NEWS02/308020020/4-shot-outside-Br oad-Ripple-nightclub-suspect-claims-self-defense?nclick_check=1

4 shot outside Broad Ripple nightclub, suspect claims self-defense

Aug. 2, 2013 8:54 AM
Written by
Bill McCleery

Police this morning are investigating the shootings of four men outside The Vogue nightclub in Broad Ripple.

The shootings occurred around 3 a.m. at the club, police said, which is located in the 6200 block of North College Avenue.

None of the four men who were shot appeared to have life-threatening injuries, said Officer Michael Hewitt with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.

The shootings followed a physical altercation, Hewitt said in a release.

Police have detained a man they believe to be the shooter, Hewitt said.

An IMPD report indicated that police responding to the scene of the shooting were flagged down by a man who claimed he was the shooter and acted in self-defense. Another man at the scene vouched for the shooter’s account, police said.

The shooter, identified in the report as a 28-year-old Westfield man, told police a group of men were attacking him when he pulled his firearm to fend them off. The men already had attacked a friend of the shooter, he told police. The man also directed police to his gun, the report states, which by that point was inside his car.

Those shot range in age from 24 to 30, according to the IMPD report. Two are identified as being from Indianapolis, one from Carmel and one from Fillmore. When they arrived to the scene, police found three of the wounded men in the 700 block of Broad Ripple Avenue and one in an alley east of the 6200 block of North College Avenue, the report states.

Two of the injured were taken to IU Methodist Hospital, police said, and two were taken to Wishard Memorial Hospital.

Police arrested another man at the scene for public intoxication and disorderly conduct, an IMPD report states, because he allegedly was interfering with the crime scene after being told to get behind a barricade of yellow crime-scene tape.

The man initially complied, police said, but continued to argue loudly and cause a disruption. Police confiscated a cell phone with which he had videotaped the incident, the report states, because they believed it contained evidence of his disorderly conduct.

This story will be updated.


BigDaveOnBass - 8/2/2013 at 07:03 PM

quote:
Why are people today such pussies? a simple fist fight doesn't need to involve guns.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130802/NEWS02/308020020/4-shot-outside-Br oad-Ripple-nightclub-suspect-claims-self-defense?nclick_check=1

4 shot outside Broad Ripple nightclub, suspect claims self-defense

Aug. 2, 2013 8:54 AM
Written by
Bill McCleery

Police this morning are investigating the shootings of four men outside The Vogue nightclub in Broad Ripple.

The shootings occurred around 3 a.m. at the club, police said, which is located in the 6200 block of North College Avenue.

None of the four men who were shot appeared to have life-threatening injuries, said Officer Michael Hewitt with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.

The shootings followed a physical altercation, Hewitt said in a release.

Police have detained a man they believe to be the shooter, Hewitt said.

An IMPD report indicated that police responding to the scene of the shooting were flagged down by a man who claimed he was the shooter and acted in self-defense. Another man at the scene vouched for the shooter’s account, police said.

The shooter, identified in the report as a 28-year-old Westfield man, told police a group of men were attacking him when he pulled his firearm to fend them off. The men already had attacked a friend of the shooter, he told police. The man also directed police to his gun, the report states, which by that point was inside his car.

Those shot range in age from 24 to 30, according to the IMPD report. Two are identified as being from Indianapolis, one from Carmel and one from Fillmore. When they arrived to the scene, police found three of the wounded men in the 700 block of Broad Ripple Avenue and one in an alley east of the 6200 block of North College Avenue, the report states.

Two of the injured were taken to IU Methodist Hospital, police said, and two were taken to Wishard Memorial Hospital.

Police arrested another man at the scene for public intoxication and disorderly conduct, an IMPD report states, because he allegedly was interfering with the crime scene after being told to get behind a barricade of yellow crime-scene tape.

The man initially complied, police said, but continued to argue loudly and cause a disruption. Police confiscated a cell phone with which he had videotaped the incident, the report states, because they believed it contained evidence of his disorderly conduct.

This story will be updated.
Whoa! My old stompin' grounds!

The shooter graduated from the same HS I graduated from. Crazy...


dougrhon - 8/2/2013 at 07:03 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
That is why I said that new neighborhood watch laws should be passed after this incident so any future over zealous neighborhood watch people know exactly what to do and what not to do when they see something they deem to be suspicious. That means call the cops, give them a description and take your concealed gun and stand down. Period!!!


then, in the language it should be written that the person under suspicion should also "stand down" until the police arrive, which Treyvon Martin didn't.


First of all it was Zimmerman who was on neighborhood watch and who called the cops. How was Martin to even know Zimmerman called the cops on him???? He was just walking up the road. Secondly Martin would have had no reason to stand down. If Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the operator told him to Martin would have just kept walking home. If Zimmerman wasn't such an over zealous and paranoid person he would have just followed Martin from a distance in his car until Martin was safe in his home instead of calling the cops on someone who was doing nothing wrong.


No reason to stand down? He had no reason to attack Zimmerman.



NO REASON TO STAND DOWN????????? After the operator told him to?????? OK, so you are trying to say that Zimmerman was right to continue to follow Martin and you think if he did the same thing again under the same circumstances that he would be in the right????? All I can say is WOW!!!!!! Maybe teenagers in Florida should start packing if they plan on walking to the store.

You say Martin had no reason to attack Zimmerman. Well, in mine and many other's opinions Zimmerman had no right to follow Martin for no reason both on in his car and by foot. Zimmerman is the one who sparked fear in Martin. Zimmerman is the one who was doing something out of the ordinary stalking someone.


You are aware Zimmerman says he returned to his truck when he was told it was not necessary to follow Martin (he was NOT told to stand down) You choose not to believe him. Fine. But don't announce it as fact that he continued to follow Martin. It is not fact. It is your belief because of your firm and immovable belief that Zimmerman is lying.

Second, Are you going to stand forever on the totally false notion that Martin was RIGHT to attack him? It simply isn't so unless Zimmerman literally threatened him first of which there is simply NO evidence and which makes NO sense. I don't care how many kid fights you got into in high school. What Martin did was against the law and a felony. You won't even concede that. Forget for a second whether Zimmerman's fear of serious harm was reasonable. You believe it was right and correct for Martin to attack him. You have said so numerous times. But it ain't so. What Martin did was a crime. What Zimmerman prior to the shooting was not. These facts are not really in controversy.

So what is it? Did Zimmerman throw the first punch? Or did Martin commit a felony but you think its ok because the creepy wimp Zimmerman was following him in a public place? It can't be both ways.


Carol - 8/2/2013 at 07:07 PM

to each his own..for those who think some creep peeking in his daughter's window watching her undress simply call the police, you do that.

Not me..Im a mother bear, I wont stand for it, right or wrong..

I don't know the stats for who peeps and doesn't move on to more serious offensives, but Im not willing to risk finding out with my loved one.


dougrhon - 8/2/2013 at 07:09 PM

quote:
If you're not a police officer you should call the police and stand down. What happened to that?




It only applies if the shooter is a white hispanic and the shootee is black.


Carol - 8/2/2013 at 07:33 PM

interesting-

"The United States FBI assert that some individuals who engage in "nuisance" offenses (such as voyeurism) may also have a propensity for violence based on behaviors of serious sex offenders. An FBI researcher has suggested that voyeurs are likely to demonstrate some characteristics that are common, but not universal, among serious sexual offenders who invest considerable time and effort in the capturing of a victim (or image of a victim); careful, methodical planning devoted to the selection and preparation of equipment; and often meticulous attention to detail."


Dannyspell - 8/2/2013 at 07:47 PM

It din't rain today, yet...


BoytonBrother - 8/2/2013 at 07:50 PM

quote:
Not me..Im a mother bear, I wont stand for it, right or wrong..

I don't know the stats for who peeps and doesn't move on to more serious offensives, but Im not willing to risk finding out with my loved one.


Carol, are you saying you would put your life in danger, and risk leaving your daughter without her mother? That peeper could have a knife or gun and use it on you. Ever think of that?


alloak41 - 8/2/2013 at 08:12 PM

quote:
quote:
Not me..Im a mother bear, I wont stand for it, right or wrong..

I don't know the stats for who peeps and doesn't move on to more serious offensives, but Im not willing to risk finding out with my loved one.


Carol, are you saying you would put your life in danger, and risk leaving your daughter without her mother? That peeper could have a knife or gun and use it on you. Ever think of that?


Turns out Mother Bear is Dead Duck?


sixty8 - 8/2/2013 at 09:05 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
That is why I said that new neighborhood watch laws should be passed after this incident so any future over zealous neighborhood watch people know exactly what to do and what not to do when they see something they deem to be suspicious. That means call the cops, give them a description and take your concealed gun and stand down. Period!!!


then, in the language it should be written that the person under suspicion should also "stand down" until the police arrive, which Treyvon Martin didn't.


First of all it was Zimmerman who was on neighborhood watch and who called the cops. How was Martin to even know Zimmerman called the cops on him???? He was just walking up the road. Secondly Martin would have had no reason to stand down. If Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the operator told him to Martin would have just kept walking home. If Zimmerman wasn't such an over zealous and paranoid person he would have just followed Martin from a distance in his car until Martin was safe in his home instead of calling the cops on someone who was doing nothing wrong.


No reason to stand down? He had no reason to attack Zimmerman.



NO REASON TO STAND DOWN????????? After the operator told him to?????? OK, so you are trying to say that Zimmerman was right to continue to follow Martin and you think if he did the same thing again under the same circumstances that he would be in the right????? All I can say is WOW!!!!!! Maybe teenagers in Florida should start packing if they plan on walking to the store.

You say Martin had no reason to attack Zimmerman. Well, in mine and many other's opinions Zimmerman had no right to follow Martin for no reason both on in his car and by foot. Zimmerman is the one who sparked fear in Martin. Zimmerman is the one who was doing something out of the ordinary stalking someone.


You are aware Zimmerman says he returned to his truck when he was told it was not necessary to follow Martin (he was NOT told to stand down) You choose not to believe him. Fine. But don't announce it as fact that he continued to follow Martin. It is not fact. It is your belief because of your firm and immovable belief that Zimmerman is lying.

Second, Are you going to stand forever on the totally false notion that Martin was RIGHT to attack him? It simply isn't so unless Zimmerman literally threatened him first of which there is simply NO evidence and which makes NO sense. I don't care how many kid fights you got into in high school. What Martin did was against the law and a felony. You won't even concede that. Forget for a second whether Zimmerman's fear of serious harm was reasonable. You believe it was right and correct for Martin to attack him. You have said so numerous times. But it ain't so. What Martin did was a crime. What Zimmerman prior to the shooting was not. These facts are not really in controversy.

So what is it? Did Zimmerman throw the first punch? Or did Martin commit a felony but you think its ok because the creepy wimp Zimmerman was following him in a public place? It can't be both ways.


I concede to nothing because yes I don't believe his story. It doesn't add up to me. You say when Zimmerman started huffing and puffing that he was running back to his car, I think he kept going towards where Martin was running to try to stop him from running away.

Nobody has answered one question. If as Zimmerman claimed he got punched in the nose first and then claims that Martin was trying to cover his mouth and nose and smother him, how come there was zero Zimmerman blood on Martin's hands??????? It doesn't add up that Zimmerman's nose that was all bloody and Martin trying to cover his mouth and nose was totally clean of a single drop of Zimmerman's blood. Also doesn't make sense that Martin grabbed for the gun if they were in the position Zimmerman claimed and the gun was also where Zimmerman claimed. You can believe his story if you want to but I don't have to.


sixty8 - 8/2/2013 at 09:16 PM

quote:
quote:
Wow, so you would let your daughter watch you assault someone, then get taken away in handcuffs, charged and convicted of assault, and do time, leaving your daughter fatherless for an extended period? Real nice. Maybe Doug's response is a tad bit better for everyone involved.

Keep typing, I'm enjoying all of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

If I had a daughter who was being peeped on and I gave her peeper a nice little beating I am sure she would be very proud of her papa for having her back and being her protector. I am sure there wouldn't be very many other people that would condemn me for doing that to someone who was peeping on my daughter on my very own property. Sorry, but anyone who would do that deserve what they get and I don't care if you disapprove or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Wow.


I know, it's shocking.

You condemn Zimmerman for vigilantism, but yet you say you would assault someone (which is against the law) for peeping in your window, instead of call the cops, which you're supposed to do.

You blame Zimmerman for being over-zealous for taking the law into his own hands, and not listening to cops, yet you just admit to doing the same thing! If you called the cops on the peeper, and you said you were going to go out there to confront him, they would say, "we don't need you to do that." Don't you think you're being hypocritical?

Have you learned nothing from the Zimmerman case? What if the peeper had a knife or gun on them and used it on you? Your actions could get you killed, and your daughter left fatherless. Doug's actions would keep him and his family safe, and the peeper in jail where he belongs. Not very smart on your part.

Your thoughts, actions, and bevior are reckless, backwards, angry, hypocritical, and mean-spirited. You think a young girl would be proud to watch her father engage in violence? What world are you living in? You have learned absolutely nothing from the Zimmerman trial.

Not that I'm a religous man, but even the Bible says to forgive those who trespass against us, not assault them. A peeper is most likely disturbed, and has mental problems. Beating a disturbed person does nothing to help any situation, except to satisfy your own anger and violent tendencies.




Yeah, you know why Einstein????? Because unlike Martin who was doing nothing but walking up the street, the peeper was on a private property committing a crime and violating a young girl. You can live in your Father Knows Best world but if I find someone on my property peeping into my windows there is a good chance the peeper will end up hurt. It is really no different than if someone brakes into your house. You know, the old grab a baseball bat thing that we have seen on TV shows since the beginning of time. If someone is gonna peep on my young daughter I find it no different especially if you don't know their intentions. How do you know his next move wouldn't be murdering or kidnapping your daughter if he is peeping on her????? You call the cops and wait. I will call the cops, subdue the peeper if he is still there with whatever means necessary, and deal with whatever happens after that. Chances are in that situation the cops don't even listen to any
complaints from the peeper.


sixty8 - 8/2/2013 at 09:22 PM

quote:
quote:
Wow, so you would let your daughter watch you assault someone, then get taken away in handcuffs, charged and convicted of assault, and do time, leaving your daughter fatherless for an extended period? Real nice. Maybe Doug's response is a tad bit better for everyone involved.

Keep typing, I'm enjoying all of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

If I had a daughter who was being peeped on and I gave her peeper a nice little beating I am sure she would be very proud of her papa for having her back and being her protector. I am sure there wouldn't be very many other people that would condemn me for doing that to someone who was peeping on my daughter on my very own property. Sorry, but anyone who would do that deserve what they get and I don't care if you disapprove or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Wow.


I know, it's shocking.

You condemn Zimmerman for vigilantism, but yet you say you would assault someone (which is against the law) for peeping in your window, instead of call the cops, which you're supposed to do.

You blame Zimmerman for being over-zealous for taking the law into his own hands, and not listening to cops, yet you just admit to doing the same thing! If you called the cops on the peeper, and you said you were going to go out there to confront him, they would say, "we don't need you to do that." Don't you think you're being hypocritical?

Have you learned nothing from the Zimmerman case? What if the peeper had a knife or gun on them and used it on you? Your actions could get you killed, and your daughter left fatherless. Doug's actions would keep him and his family safe, and the peeper in jail where he belongs. Not very smart on your part.

Your thoughts, actions, and bevior are reckless, backwards, angry, hypocritical, and mean-spirited. You think a young girl would be proud to watch her father engage in violence? What world are you living in? You have learned absolutely nothing from the Zimmerman trial.

Not that I'm a religous man, but even the Bible says to forgive those who trespass against us, not assault them. A peeper is most likely disturbed, and has mental problems. Beating a disturbed person does nothing to help any situation, except to satisfy your own anger and violent tendencies.




Mental problem or not that peeper is watching my little girl and planning on doing who knows what with her next then yes, I am gonna confront them 100%. Could care less what you think about it either. I am not a very religious man. My Bible says God help you if you violate my family in that way.


sixty8 - 8/2/2013 at 09:25 PM

quote:
If you're not a police officer you should call the police and stand down. What happened to that?




Little bit of a difference when a crime is actually happening. There was no crime happening in the case of Zimmerman following Martin. Also the fact that it was the owners property, not a neighborhood watch situation. Huge difference!!!! If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.


BoytonBrother - 8/2/2013 at 09:57 PM

quote:
Mental problem or not that peeper is watching my little girl and planning on doing who knows what with her next then yes, I am gonna confront them 100%.


What if he has a gun or knife on him and plans to use it on you if you come after him? Then what?


sixty8 - 8/3/2013 at 12:56 AM

quote:
quote:
Mental problem or not that peeper is watching my little girl and planning on doing who knows what with her next then yes, I am gonna confront them 100%.


What if he has a gun or knife on him and plans to use it on you if you come after him? Then what?



Then maybe I get stabbed or shot defending my family and property or maybe I take the gun or knife and stick it up the peepers @ss. He would be better off with the gun because I would have a bat or something similar to confront him with if he was peeping into my house.


er1016 - 8/3/2013 at 03:01 AM

quote:

What if he has a gun or knife on him and plans to use it on you if you come after him? Then what?


I know you know this but I will state the obvious anyway......An internet tough guy has a contingency plan for everything.


BoytonBrother - 8/3/2013 at 05:16 AM

quote:
Then maybe I get stabbed or shot defending my family and property


It's amazing that you would take the risk of hurting your own self and family when you could just call the cops and have them take care of it. But to each's own I guess.


gina - 8/3/2013 at 02:38 PM

quote:
Vigilantism is the next step to anarchy.


Well that's okay, cause after anarchy comes jihad and things get fixed.


dougrhon - 8/3/2013 at 06:26 PM

quote:
quote:
Vigilantism is the next step to anarchy.


Well that's okay, cause after anarchy comes jihad and things get fixed.


Oh God.


BrerRabbit - 8/3/2013 at 07:33 PM

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Vigilantism is the next step to anarchy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Well that's okay, cause after anarchy comes jihad and things get fixed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Oh God.



Well, it's a small comfort knowing that you will get fixed a long time before they get around to me.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://allmanbrothers.com/

Url of this website:
http://allmanbrothers.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=130524