Zimmerman Not Guilty - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/15/2013 12:08:33 PM · #101

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

One thing that's REALLY important to remember: by all accounts, the investigation was bungled and the prosecution did a poor job. Then, in the end, the jury votes to acquit not necessarily because they totally buy the defense's version of the incident, but because there was reasonable doubt, LOTS of reasonable doubt. That's the take-home here: in our judicial system, the prosecution has to prove something happen past any reasonable doubt, and it was unable to do so, and Zimmerman was acquitted. I don't have a quarrel with that.

But I don't think for one minute that this means Zimmerman is blameless in the matter, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that a civil suit for damages is going to look a LOT different.

Ok Bear, for your money, where did Zimmerman make the first mistake which put him in a position of liability?

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/15/2013 12:20:19 PM · #102

He put himself in a position to have to defend himself with deadly force. I'm not sure what that makes him guilty of.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/15/2013 12:23:28 PM · #103

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

This guy laid out the facts very well

Then he put out a follow up after the verdict where he addresses comments, criticisms and questions about his first video.

Major key point for me that really settles this is: ALL of the EVIDENCE and most of the witness testimony corroborates GZ's account.

Originally posted by Cory:

I don't want this to get buried. Art posted a great post, and it NEEDS to be watched if you think Zimmerman was guilty of murder.

Please, spend the time, they're not a short videos, but the guy really does a fine job of laying it all out.

I watched the first video, will not watch the second. Is this supposed to be a balanced presentation of the evidence? It is not. He ignores almost all the evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's claims. And, there is something wrong with this guy's attitude toward Obama. B. Hussein Obama? Obama is white black? Obama celebrates beating children? You might want to think again, in a case where there are racial issues, about sourcing your material from someone who could be perceived as having racial issues. Just a suggestion.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

07/15/2013 12:30:48 PM · #104

//www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/trayvon-martin-and-the-irony-of-american-justice/277782/

...That conclusion should not offer you security or comfort. It should not leave you secure in the wisdom of our laws. On the contrary, it should greatly trouble you. But if you are simply focusing on what happened in the court-room, then you have been head-faked by history and bought into a idea of fairness which can not possibly exist.

The injustice inherent in the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was not authored by a jury given a weak case. The jury's performance may be the least disturbing aspect of this entire affair. The injustice was authored by a country which has taken as its policy, for the lionshare of its history, to erect a pariah class. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest.

07/15/2013 12:48:15 PM · #105

Originally posted by blindjustice:

After all this, no one has answered why Zimmerman was following this kid, and wouldn't let it go, this night.

Without editorializing, why was he following an unarmed kid with skittles and an iced tea?

Originally posted by Cory:

Why does it matter?

It's not illegal.

Why do you continue to bring up this fallacy, it's not relevant to the incident, which really didn't begin until Martin attacked Zimmerman.

First, there is no conclusive evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is another version of the events leading up to the physical altercation presented by the friend who was on the phone with Martin at the time of the first verbal (and apparently physical) exchange. The friend claims that Martin said to Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" To which Zimmerman replied, "What are you doing around here?" or something to that effect. Then she hears the phone drop and Martin say, "Get off me, get off me." There are no eyewitnesses to these events. How do we know that it wasn't Zimmerman who punched first?

And, by the way, Zimmerman claims he thought Martin might be "on drugs." Doesn't that make this suspicious character even more potentially dangerous? So, what kind of an idiot follows a suspicious character around who might be on drugs? Answer: The idiot with the gun in his pocket.

As to the question about when the incident began, some of us perceive the beginning at the point where Zimmerman decides to pursue Martin, and that's why we keep bringing it up. Whether it's illegal or not doesn't really matter, because absent the pursuit, there would have been no incident. That was a choice Zimmerman made, and it was within his power not to follow. When you consider that Zimmerman was armed with a deadly weapon, that he thought the kid was suspicious, possibly dangerous, possibly on drugs which could potentially make him more dangerous, that Zimmerman was the one with all the police/legal/Neighborhood-Watch training, and that the 911 operator told him not to pursue, he at least bears some moral responsibility for making the crucial decision from which everything else follows. Why is that difficult to understand?

07/15/2013 12:57:52 PM · #106

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

What civil suit? The law in Florida (and most states) regarding self defense protects people that justifiably use force in self defense from civil liability in cases of injury or death.

The verdict in this case proved that the force WAS justified. Any civil case brought against Zimmerman will be dismissed and any future ones will be barred.

07/15/2013 01:03:50 PM · #107

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by blindjustice:
After all this, no one has answered why Zimmerman was following this kid, and wouldn't let it go, this night.

Without editorializing, why was he following an unarmed kid with skittles and an iced tea?

Originally posted by Cory:
Why does it matter?

It's not illegal.

Why do you continue to bring up this fallacy, it's not relevant to the incident, which really didn't begin until Martin attacked Zimmerman.

First, there is no conclusive evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is another version of the events leading up to the physical altercation presented by the friend who was on the phone with Martin at the time of the first verbal (and apparently physical) exchange. The friend claims that Martin said to Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" To which Zimmerman replied, "What are you doing around here?" or something to that effect. Then she hears the phone drop and Martin say, "Get off me, get off me." There are no eyewitnesses to these events. How do we know that it wasn't Zimmerman who punched first?

And, by the way, Zimmerman claims he thought Martin might be "on drugs." Doesn't that make this suspicious character even more potentially dangerous? So, what kind of an idiot follows a suspicious character around who might be on drugs? Answer: The idiot with the gun in his pocket.

As to the question about when the incident began, some of us perceive the beginning at the point where Zimmerman decides to pursue Martin, and that's why we keep bringing it up. Whether it's illegal or not doesn't really matter, because absent the pursuit, there would have been no incident. That was a choice Zimmerman made, and it was within his power not to follow. When you consider that Zimmerman was armed with a deadly weapon, that he thought the kid was suspicious, possibly dangerous, possibly on drugs which could potentially make him more dangerous, that Zimmerman was the one with all the police/legal/Neighborhood-Watch training, and that the 911 operator told him not to pursue, he at least bears some moral responsibility for making the crucial decision from which everything else follows. Why is that difficult to understand?

So many "ifs" that would have made this a non-incident, plenty of them resting with the decisions made by Martin as well. If he had simply gone to his dad's house instead of doubling back to confront Zimmerman. If he had managed to beat Zimmerman unconscious (or to death) before Zimmerman could draw his weapon. If..if..if..if; the list goes on and on.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/15/2013 01:09:49 PM · #108

Originally posted by Kelli:

Just to respond to a tiny little slice of this excellent article, in other states, the burden of proof for a self-defense claim rests firmly on the defendant. In Florida, it doesn't; once the defense shows even the flimsiest shred of evidence in support of a self-defense claim, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the defendant DIDN'T act in self-defense, and that's tough when the defendant is the only living eyewitness, and/or the eyewitnesses are hopelessly contradictory and unreliable. So the acquittal of Zimmerman is not at all surprising given the way Florida law is written.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/15/2013 01:16:00 PM · #109

i think out legal system works just fine. its the prosecutions case to prove guilt, even when no one is around to see something happen, how is that system flawed? because public perception puts a particular group at the mercy of potential juror bias?

that's not a legal problem its a societal problem.

i understand many people are upset over this decision, but what what they like to happen? punish Zimmerman? for what reason? because they "think" some injustice was caused? there is no proof. you just can't just punish someone without proof.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 13:27:56.

07/15/2013 01:20:47 PM · #110

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Kelli:
//www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/trayvon-martin-and-the-irony-of-american-justice/277782/

...That conclusion should not offer you security or comfort. It should not leave you secure in the wisdom of our laws. On the contrary, it should greatly trouble you. But if you are simply focusing on what happened in the court-room, then you have been head-faked by history and bought into a idea of fairness which can not possibly exist.

The injustice inherent in the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was not authored by a jury given a weak case. The jury's performance may be the least disturbing aspect of this entire affair. The injustice was authored by a country which has taken as its policy, for the lionshare of its history, to erect a pariah class. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest.

Just to respond to a tiny little slice of this excellent article, in other states, the burden of proof for a self-defense claim rests firmly on the defendant. In Florida, it doesn't; once the defense shows even the flimsiest shred of evidence in support of a self-defense claim, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the defendant DIDN'T act in self-defense, and that's tough when the defendant is the only living eyewitness, and/or the eyewitnesses are hopelessly contradictory and unreliable. So the acquittal of Zimmerman is not at all surprising given the way Florida law is written.

So, you would rather a system where acting in self defense guarantees further traumatizing the original victim. Great.

07/15/2013 01:37:21 PM · #111

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Kelli:
//www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/trayvon-martin-and-the-irony-of-american-justice/277782/

...That conclusion should not offer you security or comfort. It should not leave you secure in the wisdom of our laws. On the contrary, it should greatly trouble you. But if you are simply focusing on what happened in the court-room, then you have been head-faked by history and bought into a idea of fairness which can not possibly exist.

The injustice inherent in the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was not authored by a jury given a weak case. The jury's performance may be the least disturbing aspect of this entire affair. The injustice was authored by a country which has taken as its policy, for the lionshare of its history, to erect a pariah class. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest.

Just to respond to a tiny little slice of this excellent article, in other states, the burden of proof for a self-defense claim rests firmly on the defendant. In Florida, it doesn't; once the defense shows even the flimsiest shred of evidence in support of a self-defense claim, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the defendant DIDN'T act in self-defense, and that's tough when the defendant is the only living eyewitness, and/or the eyewitnesses are hopelessly contradictory and unreliable. So the acquittal of Zimmerman is not at all surprising given the way Florida law is written.

So, you would rather a system where acting in self defense guarantees further traumatizing the original victim. Great.

With great power comes great responsibility. You want a gun? You want to carry it around with you? You want to use it to end someone's life? Yes, you'd better be prepared to defend the use of that power.

07/15/2013 01:52:08 PM · #112

Originally posted by Spork99:

So you've got a stranger following you for no apparent reason, and you're going to lead him right to your home? I wouldn't.

07/15/2013 02:04:55 PM · #113

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Spork99:
So many "ifs" that would have made this a non-incident, plenty of them resting with the decisions made by Martin as well. If he had simply gone to his dad's house instead of doubling back to confront Zimmerman.

So you've got a stranger following you for no apparent reason, and you're going to lead him right to your home? I wouldn't.

He had a cell phone, no? He could have called the police, used 911 right then and there to say, "I've got some creep following me". Instead he chose to call his 'girlfriend' and tell her he was going back to confront this guy. Isn't calling 911 and hoping the cops show up the way you propose self-defense be done. Call and hope the cops get there before you're dead.

07/15/2013 02:09:49 PM · #114

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One thing that's REALLY important to remember: by all accounts, the investigation was bungled and the prosecution did a poor job. Then, in the end, the jury votes to acquit not necessarily because they totally buy the defense's version of the incident, but because there was reasonable doubt, LOTS of reasonable doubt. That's the take-home here: in our judicial system, the prosecution has to prove something happen past any reasonable doubt, and it was unable to do so, and Zimmerman was acquitted. I don't have a quarrel with that.

But I don't think for one minute that this means Zimmerman is blameless in the matter, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that a civil suit for damages is going to look a LOT different.

What civil suit? The law in Florida (and most states) regarding self defense protects people that justifiably use force in self defense from civil liability in cases of injury or death.

The verdict in this case proved that the force WAS justified. Any civil case brought against Zimmerman will be dismissed and any future ones will be barred.

Excerpt, from this article:

Defense lawyer Mark O'Mara expressed confidence that his client would be able to fend off a civil action.

"If someone believes that it's appropriate to sue George Zimmerman, then we will seek and we will get immunity in a civil hearing," O'Mara said in a post-verdict press conference.

"We'll see just how many civil lawsuits will spawn from this fiasco."

To seek immunity, Zimmerman would have to ask for a hearing under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. He chose not to pursue one before the criminal trial, but O'Mara had suggested he might go that route in the event of an acquittal.

Coffey said that if Zimmerman is granted a hearing, he would have to testify. If he didn't convince the judge to grant him immunity, a civil suit could proceed to trial, where he would likely have to testify again.

07/15/2013 02:16:25 PM · #115

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Kelli:
//www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/trayvon-martin-and-the-irony-of-american-justice/277782/

...That conclusion should not offer you security or comfort. It should not leave you secure in the wisdom of our laws. On the contrary, it should greatly trouble you. But if you are simply focusing on what happened in the court-room, then you have been head-faked by history and bought into a idea of fairness which can not possibly exist.

The injustice inherent in the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was not authored by a jury given a weak case. The jury's performance may be the least disturbing aspect of this entire affair. The injustice was authored by a country which has taken as its policy, for the lionshare of its history, to erect a pariah class. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest.

Just to respond to a tiny little slice of this excellent article, in other states, the burden of proof for a self-defense claim rests firmly on the defendant. In Florida, it doesn't; once the defense shows even the flimsiest shred of evidence in support of a self-defense claim, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the defendant DIDN'T act in self-defense, and that's tough when the defendant is the only living eyewitness, and/or the eyewitnesses are hopelessly contradictory and unreliable. So the acquittal of Zimmerman is not at all surprising given the way Florida law is written.

So, you would rather a system where acting in self defense guarantees further traumatizing the original victim. Great.

With great power comes great responsibility. You want a gun? You want to carry it around with you? You want to use it to end someone's life? Yes, you'd better be prepared to defend the use of that power.

And Zimmerman did.

When someone gets shot breaking into a home, you'd be OK with having that homeowner arrested, charged and tried as well as left open to civil suits for defending themselves. After all, the poor criminal was probably harmless. There have more than a few cases of prosecutorial misconduct by DA's with an anti-gun agenda that have resulted in prosecutions of crime victims for using lethal force against their attackers. Cases where the criminal (or their family) have sued their victims in civil court for damages incurred while they were committing a crime. I suppose rapists should be able to sue their victims too.

In you, criminals have at least one staunch ally.

07/15/2013 02:17:42 PM · #116

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

And with that post, you have revealed your motivation for argument.

For you it's not about Zimmerman or Martin. Your heart is simply filled with hatred for guns, and you think using one is just wrong period.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/15/2013 02:24:28 PM · #117

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Despite I disagree with you nearly 100% on the TM/GZ issue, I have to say that you're spot on with all of those observations.

It's a shame he didn't go into the contradictions of GZ's story. I think they're pretty easy to shoot down, and have done so before Art posted that video anyway, but it would have made the video feel more balanced.

And yes, wtf with B. Hussein Obama? That was just odd as all hell.

None of that detracts from his other points significantly enough to warrant ignoring them though.

frisca

Nikon D70

07/15/2013 02:27:45 PM · #118

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

With great power comes great responsibility. You want a gun? You want to carry it around with you? You want to use it to end someone's life? Yes, you'd better be prepared to defend the use of that power.

And with that post, you have revealed your motivation for argument.

For you it's not about Zimmerman or Martin. Your heart is simply filled with hatred for guns, and you think using one is just wrong period.

Your response is over the top, Cory and it is dismissive and borders on offensive. What Judith appears to be talking about is use of force and the same responsibility that comes to all police officers who carry firearms. Yes, you should be able to legimately support your use of force, ESPECIALLY your use of deadly force. To say her "heart is filled with hatred for guns" is hyperbole. Probably Judith doesn't think casual gun ownership is wise and wishes it wasn't the case. I am sure she doesn't spend her days consumed by her "hatred of guns" as you put it.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 14:27:59.

07/15/2013 02:31:36 PM · #119

Originally posted by frisca:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

With great power comes great responsibility. You want a gun? You want to carry it around with you? You want to use it to end someone's life? Yes, you'd better be prepared to defend the use of that power.

And with that post, you have revealed your motivation for argument.

For you it's not about Zimmerman or Martin. Your heart is simply filled with hatred for guns, and you think using one is just wrong period.

Your response is over the top, Cory and it is dismissive and borders on offensive. What Judith appears to be talking about is use of force and the same responsibility that comes to all police officers who carry firearms. Yes, you should be able to legimately support your use of force, ESPECIALLY your use of deadly force. To say her "heart is filled with hatred for guns" is hyperbole. Probably Judith doesn't think casual gun ownership is wise and wishes it wasn't the case. I am sure she doesn't spend her days consumed by her "hatred of guns" as you put it.

Fine. I'll go back and beat the shit out of the dead horse point by point. I'd hate to be seen dismissive.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/15/2013 02:35:07 PM · #120

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Spork99:
So many "ifs" that would have made this a non-incident, plenty of them resting with the decisions made by Martin as well. If he had simply gone to his dad's house instead of doubling back to confront Zimmerman.

So you've got a stranger following you for no apparent reason, and you're going to lead him right to your home? I wouldn't.

He had a cell phone, no? He could have called the police, used 911 right then and there to say, "I've got some creep following me". Instead he chose to call his 'girlfriend' and tell her he was going back to confront this guy. Isn't calling 911 and hoping the cops show up the way you propose self-defense be done. Call and hope the cops get there before you're dead.

She never testified that TM said he was "going back to confront this guy." Where are you getting this?

frisca

Nikon D70

07/15/2013 02:35:33 PM · #121

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by frisca:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

With great power comes great responsibility. You want a gun? You want to carry it around with you? You want to use it to end someone's life? Yes, you'd better be prepared to defend the use of that power.

And with that post, you have revealed your motivation for argument.

For you it's not about Zimmerman or Martin. Your heart is simply filled with hatred for guns, and you think using one is just wrong period.

Your response is over the top, Cory and it is dismissive and borders on offensive. What Judith appears to be talking about is use of force and the same responsibility that comes to all police officers who carry firearms. Yes, you should be able to legimately support your use of force, ESPECIALLY your use of deadly force. To say her "heart is filled with hatred for guns" is hyperbole. Probably Judith doesn't think casual gun ownership is wise and wishes it wasn't the case. I am sure she doesn't spend her days consumed by her "hatred of guns" as you put it.

Fine. I'll go back and beat the shit out of the dead horse point by point. I'd hate to be seen dismissive.

yeah, sarcastic is a way better look for you. ;)

07/15/2013 02:45:26 PM · #122

Originally posted by Cory:

Having a gun in your home for self-defense is one thing, and even then it should only be used with the utmost caution. But if you want to put yourself and your family at risk, that's your business. Carrying a gun around on the street, concealed, being allowed to carry it into restaurants, movie theaters, classrooms, etc., yes, I'll cop to being completely opposed to that, because now you're putting the rest of the world at risk. There are just too many people who are irresponsible, angry, scared, mentally ill, wannabe cops.... you name it, to trust with a firearm. And the laws ought not be written to attach the minimal legal liability when someone ends up dead.

07/15/2013 02:50:48 PM · #123

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Ok. Point by point Judith.

No evidence Zimmerman was attacked by Martin. I don't even like answering you on these points, but for Frisca I will.
-Injuries to Zimmerman - Bloody Nose, bleeding wounds to the back of the head -- VS -- Injuries to Martin - bruised knuckles, gunshot wound
--Conclusion, you're either ignoring what I've said ten times already, along with all the physical evidence, or you somehow insanely think this indicates that Zimmerman was attacking Martin's fists with his face.

Rachel Jeantel, your only even close to valid point, is about the most disastrous thing that happened to the prosecution. If you want to blame someone for Zimmerman walking, blame her. She was surly, used racial slurs like they were a non issue, and because of the culture she is a part of, would almost certainly have felt compelled to say whatever she thought would benefit her friend, and screw that 'creepy ass cracker' over for shooting him.
-I completely dismiss her as being anything even close to unbiased or reliable, if anything she served as a great character witness, since I think you will agree that we do tend to act and think in a similar manner to those who we identify as our friends.

As for Martin being 'on drugs' and the fact that you somehow think this proves Zimmerman wouldn't have followed him, let's remember that HE WASN'T TRYING TO CONFRONT TRAYVON, he was trying to help the police to confront him. Trayvon approached Zimmerman in his vehicle, then took off, and subsequently circled back on him to confront him. Even ignoring the fact that Trayvon's text messages were full of stuff about drugs and fighting, it does seem that the aggressor was not Zimmerman. No one KNOWS anything here for sure, that's why we try to use the evidence to indicate what is likely. It doesn't take a salty sailor to tell which way the wind is blowing here.

I want to take a special moment to examine the ignorance in your statement "There are no eyewitnesses to these events. How do we know that it wasn't Zimmerman who punched first?"
-Holy shit woman, there may not be any eye witnesses, but the fact that you are still ignoring the physical evidence is just upsetting to me - arguing with you is like fighting with a brick wall, no matter how many punches I land, you're not even going to notice.
--I'll just go over it once more, for Frisca of course, so as to not be dismissive - The evidence indicates that Martin was never punched, not one single time, and it clearly shows Zimmerman had the holy shit beaten out of him. Pretty sure Martin threw the first punch, and every subsequent punch.

As for the last mess of a position you've gotten into, you say that you perceive the beginning of the incident as being when Zimmerman 'pursued' Martin. You go on to state that you don't care if it was lawful or not, because if he hadn't done so Martin wouldn't have attacked him.
-Fuck me. Really? Sorry to sound so pissed here, but I feel like I'm having to explain things to an imbecile, and I know you're not stupid, so I can only assume you're being obtuse for amusement, or because it's the only tool in your bag on this issue.
--So, you're wrong, just wrong, and here is why - if you want to go off on the butterfly theory, then I would find it quite easy to blame any victim. She wore too skimpy of a dress, of COURSE she got raped, he was in a black neighborhood, OF COURSE he got beaten, he was saying offensive things, so OF COURSE someone ran him over with a car.
---By this completely screwed logic we can even argue that Zimmerman was justified to shoot Martin for being black in a white neighborhood, especially while wearing a hoodie, since we all KNOW how dangerous that is.

Now, to return the question, why is that so difficult to understand?

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 15:03:44.

07/15/2013 02:54:21 PM · #124

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by frisca:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

With great power comes great responsibility. You want a gun? You want to carry it around with you? You want to use it to end someone's life? Yes, you'd better be prepared to defend the use of that power.

And with that post, you have revealed your motivation for argument.

For you it's not about Zimmerman or Martin. Your heart is simply filled with hatred for guns, and you think using one is just wrong period.

Your response is over the top, Cory and it is dismissive and borders on offensive. What Judith appears to be talking about is use of force and the same responsibility that comes to all police officers who carry firearms. Yes, you should be able to legimately support your use of force, ESPECIALLY your use of deadly force. To say her "heart is filled with hatred for guns" is hyperbole. Probably Judith doesn't think casual gun ownership is wise and wishes it wasn't the case. I am sure she doesn't spend her days consumed by her "hatred of guns" as you put it.

Fine. I'll go back and beat the shit out of the dead horse point by point. I'd hate to be seen dismissive.

Having a gun in your home for self-defense is one thing, and even then it should only be used with the utmost caution. But if you want to put yourself and your family at risk, that's your business. Carrying a gun around on the street, concealed, being allowed to carry it into restaurants, movie theaters, classrooms, etc., yes, I'll cop to being completely opposed to that, because now you're putting the rest of the world at risk. There are just too many people who are irresponsible, angry, scared, mentally ill, wannabe cops.... you name it, to trust with a firearm. And the laws ought not be written to attach the minimal legal liability when someone ends up dead.

Any time you have any responsibility, you are putting other people at risk.

How about if we concentrate on crimes, rather than imagination. I would be all for framing up some more responsible use laws, if someone gives any indication that they are not qualified to be armed, then I do think some sort of remedial training/qualifications/licensing would be ok.. The problem is that I don't trust your side, and think that if any leeway was given, you would attempt to use that as leverage to further your initiates, so unfortunately, it's better for me to simply advocate not allowing any changes. A shame really, since there are many good common sense measures that could be enacted if there was any level of trust between the two sides of this issue.