DaVinci

No I could have sworn that was one of your positions... My apologies if I am incorrect. I would agree. However, ALL evidence needs to be looked at. And the evidence that is coming out now is painting a different picture of Trayvon than originally pitched. It should be looked at, not discounted. If I had to venture a guess... I'd say that Trayvon was a wannabe gangbanger than ran across a wannabe cop. Now, while I don't know this is what happened, but following a person is enough to piss a guy off however it is NOT sufficient to allow a violent response. If Trayvon attacked GZ for following him and was beating him on the ground... The GZ was legally allowed to use force to stop the attack. If GZ started the altercation then it changes things, but the evidence so far does not support GZ starting a violent attack. The evidence so far seems to support Trayvon starting the fight.

You know he didn't have a violent history? Or you know he was never *caught* with a violent personality? Don't you claim that one of the big dangers of easy gun ownership is you never know who is going to snap and when? http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2012/03/trayvon-martins-tweets.html From his twitte handle, “NO_LIMIT_NIGGA”: At least one tweet to him makes reference to him "swinging on a bus driver" Maybe he is just one of those dangerous folks that have not been in trouble yet you keep talking about?

Then why the cost difference? If they both take the same type of paperwork and check the same things.... Why the separate costs?

Then if you know this... Why are you asking me why he didn't run? You claimed he did run.

Don't know... I do know that from the story given that he was laying on his back after being punched. If so, then blood would have run over too the back of his head, not his shirt. Also, I have had a bloody nose more than once... I didn't get any on my gi. So it can happen.

I don't know why Trayvon didn't call the police and run away.

And you base this on your extensive experience with fight club? You channeling the dead Dr. Freud and being able to diagnose a persons mental state several hours removed from the incident by a low res video tape with no sound? He didn't want to go.... A person can deny treatment. Ever actually been in a fight and had your nose hit hard enough to bleed? I'd really like to know where you got your expertise in this field.

So you are claiming that he lied, the police lied, and the paramedics that treated him at the scene lied? Ever have a bloody nose or a scalp wound? They bleed like hell, and when they are stopped, very little visible blood remains.

The news report here in the local paper (Miami) said that he was suspended for the jewelry. Of course this would not be the first time that the media reported something that was later not substantiated. But this is still more than the "peaceful protest" you claimed he was suspended for earlier. And vandalizing school property, truancy, and (according to the local paper) not only an empty bag, but also a pipe with resin..... Should remove the "good school kid" image the media and others were trying to paint of this kid.

And being a 17 year old fit football player... I'd most likely run like hell and put as much distance between me and the other guy as I could. Mr Miaggi, "Best defense, don't be there"

It should not be allowed to stand. If we allow the Govt to force us to buy a commercial product.... Where does that line stop? Can the Govt mandate that you buy a fire extinguisher or pay a fine? To those that think it should stand.... What is your *Constitutional* backing of that? I am not talking about the emotional "What are you going to let the poor die!" But your LEGAL reasons why you think the Govt can mandate that you buy a private product. And then I would like you to tell me where you think that line stops. Can the govt make you buy a cell phone? Cable TV? A car?

When in a gun? I'd say no. The only way a modern gun is going to fire is if the trigger is pulled. So basically.... No modern firearm *accidentally* discharges. The trigger manipulation might have been an accident, but the gun didn't misfire.... It fired when the trigger was pulled. Now take an older gun, like a revolver from 1860 to say 1930 and that didn't have a hammer block safety or a transfer bar. If the hammer was down on a loaded chamber, then hitting the hammer hard enough could have caused the round to fire. Even then it would have to be quite the hit. Cowboys often carried the gun on an empty chamber... thus making a 5 shooter really only a 4 shooter. Same thing could happen to an older hammer fired semi auto like a 1911. But modern firearms have internal safeties that protect the firing pin unless the trigger has been pulled. So I am skeptical every time someone says the gun 'misfired'. The only true misfire I have ever seen was on a belt fed full auto SAW. And the only reason that happened was due to the chamber being so hot from all the use that the bullet 'cooked off'. And in this case the bullet just exploded and threw some shrapnel at the operator (on a SAW the bullet does not go into the chamber until bolt picks it up and shoves it in, the bullet is hit by the firing pin milliseconds after it is chambered). I feel the same way about CYPRES 'misfires'. If a guy loses track of altitude and pulls at 1100 feet and the CYPRES fired... I don't consider that a 'misfire'.

Yet not enough in_this_situation.

Do a search... A better one. Or outline your proposal and I will do the same... Can't get anymore welcoming than that. Identify YOUR proposal item by item and I will do the same. Ah, you just stated that making a law banning or preventing something can't work... BRAVO!!!! If you want every gun to go through a background check... Criminals are still not going to do it.

Uh, unlikely that jumping a bed caused the gun to fire. But I'll give you a little something for your trouble.... Responsible gun owners should not have a gun stored in such a way with kids in the house. With kids in the house, they should have a safe. Think this will come up in a search later?

The current system of 'compromise' is clearly not working.

Do you think that the mentally ill should be allowed to vote? Would you support that same standard with the right to vote or free speech? I agree. BTW, this tactic has been used before; NFA 1934. For me it is really simple..... If you would put that restriction on "X", then it should also have to be applied to "Y". If not, then you are restricting a right. So if you need an ID to buy a gun... You should need an ID to vote. If you need a permit for a gun... You should need a permit for free speech. If you need a background check for a gun... You should need a background check to assemble. All RIGHTS should have the same freedoms, not one standard for the ones an individual likes and another standard for the ones he does not like.

Yes, and convictions only happen when the data still points in the direction later. Most cops tend to take the "If in doubt, ride them". In this case, due to the nature of the case, the was a law in place to prevent the 'ride' unless the evidence was solid enough to back the assumption of guilt. In this case, there was not enough evidence to ride him.

Blonde said she heard the crying for help stop after the gunshot. "I don't think it is self defense since if it was Zimmerman crying he would still be crying after the shot went off" Uh, not really. After the threat was ended you more likely will not still be crying for help. Dark haired said she saw Zimmerman AFTER it was over. So: 1. Neither saw what happened 2. Both are making a claim based on thinking they knew who was crying for help. Neither knew either party so they have no way of knowing who it was, they are making a guess. And when in a panic voices tend to rise. The cops also said their stories didn't really seem authentic. You really want to trust people who didn't see anything and are basing their entire opinion on hearing a voice in a panic and being able to place it to a person they don't know?

Yes, Yellow or Red.... but not Black. Being followed is a reason to raise your guard, escape and evade, but not to attack someone.

According to the news today, he had been suspended three times. 1. Vandalizing school property (spray paint). 2. Found with a bunch of womens jewelry. 3. Marijuana bag.

This, and I would most likely call 911.

Keep looking, I am sure a guy as smart as you should be able to find some of the other points. But I warn you... You will actually have to read what is written, not just assume an answer based on your own position. And I'll make you a deal.... Explain IN DETAIL your plan, and I will gladly reciprocate. But I recall others asking you for your plan and you replying with "Do a search".... And they could not find anything, and you replied with "Do a better search".

You mean why do I try to have a debate based on facts with you???? I don't know why I try. Maybe I hope that you will listen to facts and reason even though I have plenty of proof you are unable. But my 'plan' is there... In fact, you have recently discovered one small part of it. 1. Actually punish criminals for being criminals. Keep looking, I am sure a guy as smart as you should be able to find some of the other points. But I warn you... You will actually have to read what is written, not just assume an answer based on your own position. And I'll make you a deal.... Explain IN DETAIL your plan, and I will gladly reciprocate. But I recall others asking you for your plan and you replying with "Do a search".... And they could not find anything, and you replied with "Do a better search". So what is good for the goose......

Well there is PART of it.... Maybe you should READ what is posted? As soon as you provide the link to YOUR plan....Or just type it out again... I will respond in kind. Until then, just like when you were asked and YOU replied with "do a search".... I will continue to tell you that it is here and you just are too lazy to look for it. But, I will commend you for finding PART of the answer... Bravo!