slim

Gary is right again.

If I read books, I wouldn't have time to VJ.

Not according to the law, even before SYG. What you folks keep dismissing is it's not illegal to follow someone. President Obama said he'd been followed around before but he didn't say he violently attackex the person following him. Wonder why?

The duty to flee is always "if possible" but that doesn't guarantee your right to defend yourself and that's why it's so horrible. There should be no obligation to run away from anything threatening your life. Is that really the kind of country we want?
Pretty sure the libtards (since that's an approved-by-TOS term now) would ask "Why didn't your run?" in just about every scenario. People are still asking why GZ didn't run. They don't want a society in which you, a law abiding citizen, have the right to defend yourself from that which threatens you. They want you to call the state whenever there's a problem. You, as a law abiding citizen, have no right to be secure in your person or property because you haven't been trained and aren't trusted enough to deal with those scenarios. Better call big brother to sort it out.
Absolutely.
And when you're in a scenario such as those I post about... you're going to say, "Gee whiz. Slim was right. I can't believe it."

The scenarios are right out of real life. You can see them on the news or in the paper every day.
I hope I'm never involved in a shooting. But here's the kicker - I will never shoot unless I feel my (or a loved one's) life is at stake. At that point, the last thing I'm worried about is the legality and what's going to happen later. The good news for me (and spoiler for you) is that's perfectly legal in all 50 states.
Sorry, I don't think bears while camping are the only threat in the real world.

So, if I'm out walking with my wife and she's pushing the baby in a stroller, how far do we have to back away from the young men trying to rob us and rape her before we're allowed to stand our ground?
If that one doesn't work, how about a person is on top of me bashing my head into the ground. How do I get away from them?
Still can't grasp a simple concept of being secure in your person wherever you are? Grandma - the little old lady who everyone knows and loves - gets surrounded by a few "nice young men" as she walks toward her car after a doctor's appointment. How do you suggest she "flees" the danger?
Self defense law isn't made for dudes like me one-on-one with another able-bodied male. It's made for everyone. You can't have "special circumstances" depending on who the shooter is. The beauty of our laws is they apply across the board. Why some of you keep trying to make special cases for certain people is beyond me. Especially since you're also the "everyone is equal" crowd.

Gary is absolutely right. Every violent criminal killed is one less problem we have to deal with down the road.

You must not know many 17 year olds.

Gary is absolutely right. Every violent criminal killed is one less problem we have to deal with down the road.

So, if I'm out walking with my wife and she's pushing the baby in a stroller, how far do we have to back away from the young men trying to rob us and rape her before we're allowed to stand our ground?
If that one doesn't work, how about a person is on top of me bashing my head into the ground. How do I get away from them?
Still can't grasp a simple concept of being secure in your person wherever you are? Grandma - the little old lady who everyone knows and loves - gets surrounded by a few "nice young men" as she walks toward her car after a doctor's appointment. How do you suggest she "flees" the danger?
Self defense law isn't made for dudes like me one-on-one with another able-bodied male. It's made for everyone. You can't have "special circumstances" depending on who the shooter is. The beauty of our laws is they apply across the board. Why some of you keep trying to make special cases for certain people is beyond me. Especially since you're also the "everyone is equal" crowd.

Gary and I shop at the same stores.

Me and my "Italian super model from the beach" shooting the AK-47.

I believe Karee was referring to the American Idol generation who cares more about Kim Kardashian than their individual rights. They care more about "Justice for Trayvon" than they do for their own rights.
...and someday it might just come back to bite them in the backside.

I will never accept it. And until black people stop with the double standard, nor will anyone else.

I love this stuff. "You can't lop us all into the same category" when it's time to talk about things like free money, victimizing others, etc. But as soon as it's time to tabulate who is a victim, "the numbers don't lie."
I guess having it both ways is nice when it suits you. Just keep in mind you've now argued in favor of allowing extra evidence a t trials and using public opinion to convict people. Wonder how much that'll help those numbers.
Strippers rock! Bone a hot chick while anpther dude pays the bills. Can't beat that!

The point is every black person in the country is held to the same standards as GZ. When they go to trial, the state can't bring up things irrelevant to the crime. Are you suggesting we should change that so next time a black man goes to trial he's not protected by our laws but instead is allowed to be convicted by public opinion?
This case was over before it started. That's why GZ wasn't initially arrested. Next time the cops find no evidence of a crime do you want the community and the media to dictate what the "new rules" are?
There was a time in our history when "mob justice" didn't work out so well for black people. Are you really sure you want to advocate going back to it?

This aint no Syrian civil war!

Wolverines!

Then it fit the legal standard. What's the problem? I understand you guys on here are all ticked off because "pu$$y @$$ George Zimmerman" was getting beat up by "poor little Trayvon." But what you're forgetting is condemning GZ also condemns grandma in the wheel chair when thugs try to steal her purse. It disables our wives from defending themselves against bigger and stronger men.
Simply put, the law is in place to protect the threatened. Changing that just because GZ is a bit of a b!tch sets in motion a slew of unintended consequences. Do you really want a woman pushing a baby stroller to have the duty to flee from those who would do her harm?

The only way the military won't intervene in Syria is if our ambassador is taken hostage. Then we'll be miles away and won't know anything about it.

Then it fit the legal standard. What's the problem? I understand you guys on here are all ticked off because "pu$$y @$$ George Zimmerman" was getting beat up by "poor little Trayvon." But what you're forgetting is condemning GZ also condemns grandma in the wheel chair when thugs try to steal her purse. It disables our wives from defending themselves against bigger and stronger men.
Simply put, the law is in place to protect the threatened. Changing that just because GZ is a bit of a b!tch sets in motion a slew of unintended consequences. Do you really want a woman pushing a baby stroller to have the duty to flee from those who would do her harm?

The only way the military won't intervene in Syria is if our ambassador is taken hostage. Then we'll be miles away and won't know anything about it.

Sorry, I like to consider all sources before forming an opinion. I don't just eat up what's spoon fed to me by the media and academia. You really should try thinking about stuff sometimes. It's kind of nice to be able to consider everything in the world before you decide which way you have to lean.
I'll take unofficial updates from real people over stuff broadcast on the "official news channels" any day. What's really neat about facebook is I can get realtime updates from all over the world before the government has a chance to spin the information.

Thanks for letting me know what type of dude you are. You're actually one of my favorites because at the end of the day, you're practical. You'll call out things you perceive but won't act on them until they're directly affecting you.
I can work with you. Chance are you already own a gun and while you don't believe the sky is falling just yet, your inherent distrust of big business and "the system" means you're open to the idea of it all crashing down someday.
By the way.... before you get all upset over big business, keep in mind, this country is a republic, not a democracy. If you force them to follow that paper - and hold them accountable - you'll find we still have a chance to peacefully right the sinking ship.
You sir, I won't be able to help. You'll deny all the way till the end and then when you want a gun, you'll be mad nobody made it mandatory for you to own one.
Good luck!

I think it's completely possible that it could've happened. GZ could've walked right up on TM, shoved him around a little, and TM started whooping GZ's backside.
But the facts of the case are such that there's no evidence that it did. Trying to convict someone based on what might have happened is something so horrible to suggest that I'm appalled modern Americans would even consider it. Especially black Americans. Why on earth would anyone want to grant the state the power to convict people based on "what might have happened?"
"You might have bought some crack." Who cares that you didn't. Who cares that you didn't have any crack on you at the time of your arrest. As long as it might have happened... you can be convicted.
What you folks are asking for here - and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't even know you're doing it - is you're asking for our right to be innocent until proven guilty to be taken away whenever there's a suspicion of a crime.
Please, please, PLEEEEEEEASE stop asking for that to happen. Please wake up to the fact that this case, like most of the others the media glorifies, is about nothing more than decreasing our individual rights and increasing the power of the state. And while we're so focused on this, what other huge cases are being ignored?
Connect the dots, folks.
How could Zimmerman retreat with Martin on top of him?