[FNAL]

Originally Posted by invertigo ↗

I've been the victim of a break-in before, and lost some very precious sentimentally valuable things as well as about $1,500 worth of electronics. And yes, it fucking sucked, but boohoo. It was just stuff. I do not consider deterring robbery to EVER be worth the life of another human being. Property is replaceable, people are not.

I'm not saying always shoot to kill when there is a robbery. If someone is robbing your home and you confront them with a weapon, they are more than likely to run away. But if they don't back away and instead show aggression or deadly intent towards you, blow them away. Why should you put the decision of your life into the hands of a scumbag thief who has no regard for yours? If you show a weapon, the thief runs away and you get to keep some of your stuff. If he doesn't leave and comes lunges at you, shoot him dead. You get to keep all of your stuff and there is one less scumbag running around. The next thief will think twice before entering a home.

[crice63]

zimmerman to get away with this isn't right, he had culpability, verdict is far from right.

[crice63]

He is a cop want-a-be, that is his whole problem. Leave police work to cops. If Zimmerman would have Trayvon would have still be alive today. Zimmerman is a arrogant control freak. He needs to be a toilet cleaner somewhere where he can do no harm to anyone. Better yet, just flush himself down it, then no one would have to see him again. Sorry, but that verdict makes no sense to me. The jury doesn't want to be identified yet, but guess what...one of them is already writing a book. Juror can't even wait until Zimmerman wipes the smile off his face. Sorry but this whole thing makes me very angry!!!

[crice63]

No offense to folks who are janitors (I know they work hard)

[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by crice63 ↗

He is a cop want-a-be, that is his whole problem. Leave police work to cops. If Zimmerman would have Trayvon would have still be alive today. Zimmerman is a arrogant control freak. He needs to be a toilet cleaner somewhere where he can do no harm to anyone. Better yet, just flush himself down it, then no one would have to see him again. Sorry, but that verdict makes no sense to me. The jury doesn't want to be identified yet, but guess what...one of them is already writing a book. Juror can't even wait until Zimmerman wipes the smile off his face. Sorry but this whole thing makes me very angry!!!

If you want to be angry, vent your anger at the real problem with the justice system in this country:

Glory-hound prosecutors who grossly overcharge and then fail to deliver. If they'd charged him with Manslaughter outright, instead of trying to make it a Murder 2 case this whole trial may have gone very differently.

They were NEVER going to have Murder 2 and Zimmerman was never going to take a plea down from that charge. He knew they didn't have Murder 2 and his lawyer knew they didn't have Murder 2.

Career prosecutors are worse than career politicians. They are also the primary reason I remain a staunch opponent of capital punishment. Because believe me, the only thing worse than a 'guilty' man going free due to over-reaching is an innocent one getting the chair because the case DIDN'T make national headlines and the prosecution bullied and ramrodded their way to victory. Shortcuts, hot-dogging, and thirst for promotion are what's fucking up our legal system.

[FNAL]

It's innocent until proven guilty in this country. Why do we automatically assume it's guilty no matter what evidence?

[AVo]

Originally Posted by invertigo ↗

Even if you think your opponent might have deadly intent, what's wrong with a tazer,a stun-gun

You have one shot and it is close contact. It can take a few seconds for an attacker to fall after being shot, unless there is a perfect shot.

Originally Posted by invertigo ↗

or even mace

That can just as easily disable YOU and again you are in striking range.

Originally Posted by invertigo ↗

and a well placed kick to balls?

Anyone doped up or in a sober rage can take several MEN to take them down. A well placed kick to the balls may not do much.

Originally Posted by invertigo ↗

When there are other human beings involved, a gun should be the last resort, not your go-to defense the second things look a little hairy.

In public, I have a gun I can not try to fumble around looking for the right tool if my life is in question, and I will be damn lucky if I get to that. These attacks happen in a split second and every move you make is important. As far as, anyone's life is concerned I will never willfully endanger theirs, so don't put me in a position to fight for mine.
At home, I live in a bad area clearly we are armed. But I have put bars on my doors and windows, to keep them out. I have 2 very large and well trained dogs (I am an ex dog trainer the husband ex K-9 cop). I have motion lights, we did all of this to keep people out, so you try to bypass all of that (CLEARLY 99.9999% wouldn't) then you are here to kill me and I value my life.
Also at home, I am under no illusion that these things can stop everyone. I DO NOT want to even deal with anything like that, so if my husband is not home you could be on fire on my porch and I do not open the door.
I realize that the media portrays us (gun-owners) as paranoid trigger happy Dirty Harrys. I try my very best to do everything at the safest times, to not be out at 2am etc. and I can gladly report I have never even had to put my hand near my gun :) One thing, I will admit that upsets me about some gun owners is the attitude that it is panacea; just because I carry doesn't mean I will "win" . There are never winners when someone dies.

[LadyKnight7891]

These are without a doubt real pictures and I'm confident because while watching the farce...I mean trial, for a split second you could see the one where TM is laying on his back when the Prosecution was presenting photos. The cameras were too late and I kept rewinding it and trying to hit pause at the right moment to see it. This of course before the pictures leaked.

[invertigo]

Originally Posted by FNAL ↗

I'm not saying always shoot to kill when there is a robbery. If someone is robbing your home and you confront them with a weapon, they are more than likely to run away. But if they don't back away and instead show aggression or deadly intent towards you, blow them away. Why should you put the decision of your life into the hands of a scumbag thief who has no regard for yours? If you show a weapon, the thief runs away and you get to keep some of your stuff. If he doesn't leave and comes lunges at you, shoot him dead. You get to keep all of your stuff and there is one less scumbag running around. The next thief will think twice before entering a home.

You're talking about gun use as a whole, my opinion is context specific. I fully support the right to keep firearm in your home for self defense, but skulking around the neighborhood with a loaded gun, seeking out 'suspicious characters' crosses a moral boundary for me. (Especially considering that, I and others I personally know, have at one time or another accidentally locked keys in our homes or vehicles, and had to break into them ourselves. )

[Feirefiz]

Could someone please explain to me how "fucking *****" is a racist term?