As far as I can tell, it'd actually improve the bottom lines of the cartel
Please explain why that would be.
It's an industry driven by a bunch of control freaks, it's not even about money anymore.
Yeah, like wedding photographers, jewelry artists, poets, screenwriters, game producers, web programmers, novelists, small film makers - nothing but control freaks!
The most freakishly control-minded people I seem to meet are those who want "control" over the people who create stuff because they entertainment on their own terms (meaning, free), rather than on the terms that the person who has created it has offered their work.
The people who create things want to control how they bring their work to market. You want to control the people who create things. Who's the control freak?
I also highly doubt that this app is designed to report gun ranges, as they are usually clearly marked on the outside of the facility.
The whole point is that it's designed to report whatever people feel like reporting. It's mean as a tool of intimidation, just like the interactive who-owns-guns maps designed to make legal owners feel increasingly threatened by theft, etc.
This whole string of responses relates to ADs. Not public "brandishing." Stick with one topic, or make it clear you're having more than one conversation.
In US political dialogue, "socialism" is just a vague term used to smear people or plans that you don't like.
No, it's used as short-hand for the general bundle of sensibilities that give rise to the urge for a Nanny State approach to things. Collectivist thinking, where people born with or raised to have a work ethic are, by definition, slaves to those who aren't, won't, etc. It doesn't matter where you draw the line between Communism and Socialism, because they come from the same ideological place: they call for an elite group of people to spell out how the efforts of some people will be confiscated in order to dole them out to other people. Structurally, permanently. The harder you're willing to work, the more of a slave you are.
Right... because words have actual meanings, and we have entirely different words that mean "handling" or "loading" or "storing" or "testing" or "fumbling" or "cleaning," etc. Lack of precision in the language surrounding the nature and use of firearms is a non-trivial problem (see so-called journalists who interchangeably - and cluelessly - use "machine gun" and "assault rifle" and "semi-automatic" and the like).
brandish [bran-dish]
verb (used with object)
1. to shake or wave, as a weapon; flourish: Brandishing his sword, he rode into battle.
I don't know anybody who would refer to, say, handing someone else a gun (say, while out plinking cans in the woods) as "brandishing."
But you typically would not load, or clean the weapon in public.
You typically wouldn't be handling a gun in public pretty much ever. But around strangers? Say, at the range? Loading, cleaning, etc., happens all the time around other people. As a range officer, I can assure you it happens all the time.
Or if you drop it while loading it, or are stupid while cleaning it, etc. I didn't stipulate perfection in handling and experience, only pointed out that there are all sorts of situations where an AD can occur without anyone brandishing a weapon at somebody.
First of all, even if open carrying is legal, that does not mean that the police will not come and investigate and also express the concerns of the neighbors to the gun owner.
Maybe once. But if they keep calling them for no reason, they'll arrest the caller for wasting their time and harassing the legal gun owner. Most cops are very familiar with the habitual paranoids and whiners on their beats.
First of all, even if open carrying is legal, that does not mean that the police will not come and investigate and also express the concerns of the neighbors to the gun owner
A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon
This is, as they say, so wrong it's not even wrong.
Close enough that the witness also thought that his dad being there in the house, or not, was relevant. She pointed out that though Martin was there, his dad wasn't. Which is important because if we're talking about Martin being half a block away (not "right by"), the dad being in the house or not would have been meaningless.
There really isn't any room for misunderstanding the testimony of the witnesses, of the police that interviewed Zimmerman, or the rest. There's no misinterpreting Martin's father's initial (honest) reaction to the recording he heard. Understanding the trial is about understanding the motivations of the people who put it on in reaction to craven political pressure. Understanding the facts is also very straightforward.
He never went in the house. But he was talking on the phone as he walked up to the back of the house (the same conversation during which he used the racist epithet). This according to his friend, who testified to that. The "drivel" part is you really, really wishing that he hadn't, because that takes all the fun out of your narrative.
OK, so you ARE saying that the prosecution and their star witness are lying about Martin's return to and arrival at dad's girlfriend's house. Thanks for clearing that up.
The only thing a dispatcher is powerless to do is arrest you, and that's actually by law.
Nonsense. Dispatchers - in almost every jurisdiction - are civilians trained in handling such calls and performing dispatch duties. Union rules and contracts very often prevent even injured cops from booking time as dispatchers, as those are not law enforcement positions.
I know people in this line of work in half a dozen local jurisdictions surrounding a major metro area. In no cases do dispatch employees have any legal authority of any kind, and cannot direct people to do anything - medical or otherwise. In fact they are required to ask people if they would do this or that to help an injured person, and always say "please" because the are, essentially, asking a favor of the caller. They can't make them provide CPR (or anything else) and people who can't or won't do what a dispatch employee suggests face no consequences because they absolutely are not acting with legal authority of any kind.
All of which you know, so it's kind of mysterious that you're pretending it's otherwise, unless your understanding is limited to your own county or city where they perhaps don't do what they do most everywhere else. Regardless, the Martin/Zimmerman case does not involve a copy giving orders to Zimmerman. The dispatcher said, "OK. We don't need you to do that." And testified that it wasn't an order, meant to me one, or coming from anyone who could give one.
Which part? The part where he was at his dad's girlfriend's house? The prosecution's star witness quoted Martin himself as saying he was. Are you saying that the prosecution and their witness are lying? Interesting.
Or are you referring to the part where he referred to him as a "cracker?" That's the prosecution and their witness saying that.
Or are you referring to the part where Martin was beating on Zimmerman? Because there are eye-witness reports of that. He was seen doing so.
For some reason, you seem to believe every word that Zimmerman says
No need to. The prosecution's own witness established that Martin had already returned to his dad's girlfriend's house. For him to have been beating on Zimmerman where the attack occurred, he would have to have turned around and chosen to go back and go at him. The evidence backs this up exactly, even the evidence provided by a witness the prosecution chose.
You know, the guy who shot and killed another guy.
You mean the guy who stopped his own murder from happening? That guy?
Are you so gullible you believe whatever anyone says?
No, otherwise I'd have to believe some of the nonsense that the prosecution tried to trot out (like the BS voice analysis the judge very rightly kept out of the trial).
A dispatcher is an officer of the law as much as the street police.
This is not true. The dispatcher testified to the fact that mentioning to Zimmerman on the call that they didn't "need" him to follow Martin was not instruction to Zimmerman.
I've had dispatch give me orders to begin CPR and instructed me on timing and breathing when my friend's aunt died in-home.
You're very confused about this, aren't you? When you call 911 and ask them for help with a medical emergency, their advice to you to do CPR is not the same as being told by a police officer what to do. Are you really that obtuse?
that doesn't change the reality that he got out of the car because of Trayvon Martin.
What are you talking about? Your lie is that doing so is a confrontation. Zimmerman was walking peacefully back to his truck, and Martin had made it to his dad's house. You are clear on that, right? Because if you say you're not, you're lying. Martin, instead of going into the house, decided to turn around, and run back to dish out a beating on the "cracker" in question. What's your agenda, in leaving out the most important detail, here?
Choices? Zimmerman chose to participate in the Neighborhood Watch Program.
Right. Because he was tired of crime in his neighborhood. A perfectly normal reaction, and not only legal, but actively supported by law enforcement.
And Zimmerman choose to arm himself, despite the fact that the Watch Program discouraged its participants from doing so.
Right - such civic groups do not want to be sued into oblivion if a member has an accident while participating. So they take the policy stand that it's not them, but the members themselves that make that decision.
But at the time of the attack, Zimmerman wasn't on watch.
Which doesn't in any way reduce Martin's responsibility for doubling back from his dad's house in order to attack Zimmerman, and then actually committing that assault.
He chose to follow Martin that night.
Right. Because he didn't recognize the person taking an unusual route through the private community while hiding his face. Thought he'd call the police to report it, and take a moment to see where the person was going. Again, a perfectly reasonable response, and in no way illegal.
He chose to disregard police instructions.
See, now you're just lying. Why? The only time he spoke to police was once they arrived on the scene. On his phone call, he was talking to a dispatcher. A dispatcher has no authority to tell anyone to do (or not do) anything, and the dispatcher in question has already testified that no such instructions were given. You've obviously heard the transcript, so you know that the dispatcher remarked that they didn't "need" Zimmerman to follow the suspicious person. The transcript shows no instruction, the dispatcher - who has no authority either way - said that no instructions were given or intended as such.
He chose to get out of the car.
Right - to see where the person was going. Which he did, and then he turned around and walked back towards his truck.
As the one "trained" and armed with deadly force, it was his responsibility to see that the situation didn't escalate out of control.
And it did not get out of control. He observed, he talked to the dispatch on the phone, and he walked back to his truck. Do you consider that to be out of control? The next situation had nothing to do with him - because it involved Martin leaving his destination, and deliberately coming up from behind, having decided he wanted to dish out a beating. That situation had nothing to do with Zimmerman, who was walking the opposite direction.
Personally, I'd characterize Zimmerman as a police officer wannabe.
Which in what way caused Martin to run up behind him and start beating on him?
So he armed himself and continually went out on "patrol", looking for trouble and a chance to be a hero.
Which is you characterization, and appears to be false (in terms of his motivation) by all reports. Regardless, how did his interest in slowing down the rate of crimes in his neighborhood cause Martin to run up behind him and start beating on him?
he allowed the situation to escalate totally out of control
By turning his back on they guy and walking back to his truck?
Faced with an actual confrontation, he panicked and resorted to using deadly force.
No, faced with a punch in the face, a broken nose, and having his head pounded against the sidewalk and being told he was going to die, use his gun once. I supposed you'd have preferred that he allowed Martin to continued bashing his head against the pavement?
End result of Zimmerman's choices? One dead kid.
No, that was the end result of Martin's choice to - having already made it to his dad's house - turn around, make his way back to Zimmerman, and begin a physical assault.
Your scenario amounts to:
"The armed man in a car following an unarmed man on foot was unable to avoid a confrontation in which he shoots the unarmed guy."
What? How does his being armed as he walked back to his truck have any bearing on the fact that Martin - who had already made it to his destination - doubled back, and ran up behind Zimmerman to sucker punch him and begin the physical assault from which Zimmerman had to defend himself? Carrying a pistol doesn't magically control people who are sneaking up behind you to attack you.
but common sense suggests that Zimmerman's account is bullshit
Other than the part where his account is completely consistent with the evidence, and with actual eyewitness accounts. Other than that part.
Why would Martin run away from him, then turn around and jump Zimmerman without cause?
For the same reason he was thrown out of his house (for being violent)? For the same reason he tweeted about hitting people, showing off a gun and drugs, and generally cultivating his gangster/thug persona? For the same reason that he was the only person involved who used a racial epithet to describe someone? His friend on the phone (the prosecution's witness) was the one that provided the evidence that Martin was already back the house when he turned around to go and assault the "cracker" he was beating on.
oddly enough, she disputes Zimmerman's claims
No, she didn't dispute any of his claiims. When asked, she admitted that she had no idea what happened because Martin ended his phone call before he started beating on Zimmerman.
in colloquial usage bullet and ammo are interchangeable for the same thing.
No, this isn't true. The only demographic among which that mis-use is common is the group that has no idea what they're talking about. The millions and millions of people who've been in the military or who personally own and use firearms, and pretty much anybody literate who's ever read a coherent sentence on the subject, would never make that stupid mistake.
It's sort of like how "the web" and "the internet" aren't the same thing.
The only "witness" to how the fight started is Rachel Jeantel
And of course, she said that was not able to say anything about how the fight started, only that Martin was at his Dad's house. Which means that Martin turned around and ran back to do the assault.
Are you making a reference to the Martin/Zimmerman case? Because it may have been dark when Martin attacked, but that really doesn't have much to do with the "being shot" part. He was shot while on top of Zimmerman, having already run up behind him to attack, punched him in the face and broken his nose, and was proceeding to bash his head into the sidewalk. He was shot while on top of him and throwing more punches. A six-foot guy, continuing to beat up the guy he'd turned around and gone back to attack.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, you tell me, who is the entitled baby?
The one who wants pet entertainment slaves to make them stuff for free. That's who.
You certainly are a fine artist yourself. Your straw man creation is a masterpiece!
As far as I can tell, it'd actually improve the bottom lines of the cartel
Please explain why that would be.
It's an industry driven by a bunch of control freaks, it's not even about money anymore.
Yeah, like wedding photographers, jewelry artists, poets, screenwriters, game producers, web programmers, novelists, small film makers - nothing but control freaks!
The most freakishly control-minded people I seem to meet are those who want "control" over the people who create stuff because they entertainment on their own terms (meaning, free), rather than on the terms that the person who has created it has offered their work.
The people who create things want to control how they bring their work to market. You want to control the people who create things. Who's the control freak?
I also highly doubt that this app is designed to report gun ranges, as they are usually clearly marked on the outside of the facility.
The whole point is that it's designed to report whatever people feel like reporting. It's mean as a tool of intimidation, just like the interactive who-owns-guns maps designed to make legal owners feel increasingly threatened by theft, etc.
This whole string of responses relates to ADs. Not public "brandishing." Stick with one topic, or make it clear you're having more than one conversation.
In US political dialogue, "socialism" is just a vague term used to smear people or plans that you don't like.
No, it's used as short-hand for the general bundle of sensibilities that give rise to the urge for a Nanny State approach to things. Collectivist thinking, where people born with or raised to have a work ethic are, by definition, slaves to those who aren't, won't, etc. It doesn't matter where you draw the line between Communism and Socialism, because they come from the same ideological place: they call for an elite group of people to spell out how the efforts of some people will be confiscated in order to dole them out to other people. Structurally, permanently. The harder you're willing to work, the more of a slave you are.
You're obviously taking brandish very literally.
Right... because words have actual meanings, and we have entirely different words that mean "handling" or "loading" or "storing" or "testing" or "fumbling" or "cleaning," etc. Lack of precision in the language surrounding the nature and use of firearms is a non-trivial problem (see so-called journalists who interchangeably - and cluelessly - use "machine gun" and "assault rifle" and "semi-automatic" and the like).
brandish [bran-dish]
verb (used with object)
1. to shake or wave, as a weapon; flourish: Brandishing his sword, he rode into battle.
I don't know anybody who would refer to, say, handing someone else a gun (say, while out plinking cans in the woods) as "brandishing."
But you typically would not load, or clean the weapon in public.
You typically wouldn't be handling a gun in public pretty much ever. But around strangers? Say, at the range? Loading, cleaning, etc., happens all the time around other people. As a range officer, I can assure you it happens all the time.
Or if you drop it while loading it, or are stupid while cleaning it, etc. I didn't stipulate perfection in handling and experience, only pointed out that there are all sorts of situations where an AD can occur without anyone brandishing a weapon at somebody.
First of all, even if open carrying is legal, that does not mean that the police will not come and investigate and also express the concerns of the neighbors to the gun owner.
Maybe once. But if they keep calling them for no reason, they'll arrest the caller for wasting their time and harassing the legal gun owner. Most cops are very familiar with the habitual paranoids and whiners on their beats.
First of all, even if open carrying is legal, that does not mean that the police will not come and investigate and also express the concerns of the neighbors to the gun owner
A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon
This is, as they say, so wrong it's not even wrong.
So exactly how close is "right by,
Close enough that the witness also thought that his dad being there in the house, or not, was relevant. She pointed out that though Martin was there, his dad wasn't. Which is important because if we're talking about Martin being half a block away (not "right by"), the dad being in the house or not would have been meaningless.
RJ: "he was right by his daddy's house"
There really isn't any room for misunderstanding the testimony of the witnesses, of the police that interviewed Zimmerman, or the rest. There's no misinterpreting Martin's father's initial (honest) reaction to the recording he heard. Understanding the trial is about understanding the motivations of the people who put it on in reaction to craven political pressure. Understanding the facts is also very straightforward.
Martin never returned home from the 7-11.
He never went in the house. But he was talking on the phone as he walked up to the back of the house (the same conversation during which he used the racist epithet). This according to his friend, who testified to that. The "drivel" part is you really, really wishing that he hadn't, because that takes all the fun out of your narrative.
OK, so you ARE saying that the prosecution and their star witness are lying about Martin's return to and arrival at dad's girlfriend's house. Thanks for clearing that up.
The only thing a dispatcher is powerless to do is arrest you, and that's actually by law.
Nonsense. Dispatchers - in almost every jurisdiction - are civilians trained in handling such calls and performing dispatch duties. Union rules and contracts very often prevent even injured cops from booking time as dispatchers, as those are not law enforcement positions.
I know people in this line of work in half a dozen local jurisdictions surrounding a major metro area. In no cases do dispatch employees have any legal authority of any kind, and cannot direct people to do anything - medical or otherwise. In fact they are required to ask people if they would do this or that to help an injured person, and always say "please" because the are, essentially, asking a favor of the caller. They can't make them provide CPR (or anything else) and people who can't or won't do what a dispatch employee suggests face no consequences because they absolutely are not acting with legal authority of any kind.
All of which you know, so it's kind of mysterious that you're pretending it's otherwise, unless your understanding is limited to your own county or city where they perhaps don't do what they do most everywhere else. Regardless, the Martin/Zimmerman case does not involve a copy giving orders to Zimmerman. The dispatcher said, "OK. We don't need you to do that." And testified that it wasn't an order, meant to me one, or coming from anyone who could give one.
That didn't happen
Which part? The part where he was at his dad's girlfriend's house? The prosecution's star witness quoted Martin himself as saying he was. Are you saying that the prosecution and their witness are lying? Interesting.
Or are you referring to the part where he referred to him as a "cracker?" That's the prosecution and their witness saying that.
Or are you referring to the part where Martin was beating on Zimmerman? Because there are eye-witness reports of that. He was seen doing so.
For some reason, you seem to believe every word that Zimmerman says
No need to. The prosecution's own witness established that Martin had already returned to his dad's girlfriend's house. For him to have been beating on Zimmerman where the attack occurred, he would have to have turned around and chosen to go back and go at him. The evidence backs this up exactly, even the evidence provided by a witness the prosecution chose.
You know, the guy who shot and killed another guy.
You mean the guy who stopped his own murder from happening? That guy?
Are you so gullible you believe whatever anyone says?
No, otherwise I'd have to believe some of the nonsense that the prosecution tried to trot out (like the BS voice analysis the judge very rightly kept out of the trial).
A dispatcher is an officer of the law as much as the street police.
This is not true. The dispatcher testified to the fact that mentioning to Zimmerman on the call that they didn't "need" him to follow Martin was not instruction to Zimmerman.
I've had dispatch give me orders to begin CPR and instructed me on timing and breathing when my friend's aunt died in-home.
You're very confused about this, aren't you? When you call 911 and ask them for help with a medical emergency, their advice to you to do CPR is not the same as being told by a police officer what to do. Are you really that obtuse?
that doesn't change the reality that he got out of the car because of Trayvon Martin.
What are you talking about? Your lie is that doing so is a confrontation. Zimmerman was walking peacefully back to his truck, and Martin had made it to his dad's house. You are clear on that, right? Because if you say you're not, you're lying. Martin, instead of going into the house, decided to turn around, and run back to dish out a beating on the "cracker" in question. What's your agenda, in leaving out the most important detail, here?
Right. Because he was tired of crime in his neighborhood. A perfectly normal reaction, and not only legal, but actively supported by law enforcement.
And Zimmerman choose to arm himself, despite the fact that the Watch Program discouraged its participants from doing so.
Right - such civic groups do not want to be sued into oblivion if a member has an accident while participating. So they take the policy stand that it's not them, but the members themselves that make that decision.
But at the time of the attack, Zimmerman wasn't on watch.
Which doesn't in any way reduce Martin's responsibility for doubling back from his dad's house in order to attack Zimmerman, and then actually committing that assault.
He chose to follow Martin that night.
Right. Because he didn't recognize the person taking an unusual route through the private community while hiding his face. Thought he'd call the police to report it, and take a moment to see where the person was going. Again, a perfectly reasonable response, and in no way illegal.
He chose to disregard police instructions.
See, now you're just lying. Why? The only time he spoke to police was once they arrived on the scene. On his phone call, he was talking to a dispatcher. A dispatcher has no authority to tell anyone to do (or not do) anything, and the dispatcher in question has already testified that no such instructions were given. You've obviously heard the transcript, so you know that the dispatcher remarked that they didn't "need" Zimmerman to follow the suspicious person. The transcript shows no instruction, the dispatcher - who has no authority either way - said that no instructions were given or intended as such.
He chose to get out of the car.
Right - to see where the person was going. Which he did, and then he turned around and walked back towards his truck.
As the one "trained" and armed with deadly force, it was his responsibility to see that the situation didn't escalate out of control.
And it did not get out of control. He observed, he talked to the dispatch on the phone, and he walked back to his truck. Do you consider that to be out of control? The next situation had nothing to do with him - because it involved Martin leaving his destination, and deliberately coming up from behind, having decided he wanted to dish out a beating. That situation had nothing to do with Zimmerman, who was walking the opposite direction.
Personally, I'd characterize Zimmerman as a police officer wannabe.
Which in what way caused Martin to run up behind him and start beating on him?
So he armed himself and continually went out on "patrol", looking for trouble and a chance to be a hero.
Which is you characterization, and appears to be false (in terms of his motivation) by all reports. Regardless, how did his interest in slowing down the rate of crimes in his neighborhood cause Martin to run up behind him and start beating on him?
he allowed the situation to escalate totally out of control
By turning his back on they guy and walking back to his truck?
Faced with an actual confrontation, he panicked and resorted to using deadly force.
No, faced with a punch in the face, a broken nose, and having his head pounded against the sidewalk and being told he was going to die, use his gun once. I supposed you'd have preferred that he allowed Martin to continued bashing his head against the pavement?
End result of Zimmerman's choices? One dead kid.
No, that was the end result of Martin's choice to - having already made it to his dad's house - turn around, make his way back to Zimmerman, and begin a physical assault.
Your scenario amounts to:
"The armed man in a car following an unarmed man on foot was unable to avoid a confrontation in which he shoots the unarmed guy."
What? How does his being armed as he walked back to his truck have any bearing on the fact that Martin - who had already made it to his destination - doubled back, and ran up behind Zimmerman to sucker punch him and begin the physical assault from which Zimmerman had to defend himself? Carrying a pistol doesn't magically control people who are sneaking up behind you to attack you.
but common sense suggests that Zimmerman's account is bullshit
Other than the part where his account is completely consistent with the evidence, and with actual eyewitness accounts. Other than that part.
Why would Martin run away from him, then turn around and jump Zimmerman without cause?
For the same reason he was thrown out of his house (for being violent)? For the same reason he tweeted about hitting people, showing off a gun and drugs, and generally cultivating his gangster/thug persona? For the same reason that he was the only person involved who used a racial epithet to describe someone? His friend on the phone (the prosecution's witness) was the one that provided the evidence that Martin was already back the house when he turned around to go and assault the "cracker" he was beating on.
oddly enough, she disputes Zimmerman's claims
No, she didn't dispute any of his claiims. When asked, she admitted that she had no idea what happened because Martin ended his phone call before he started beating on Zimmerman.
in colloquial usage bullet and ammo are interchangeable for the same thing.
No, this isn't true. The only demographic among which that mis-use is common is the group that has no idea what they're talking about. The millions and millions of people who've been in the military or who personally own and use firearms, and pretty much anybody literate who's ever read a coherent sentence on the subject, would never make that stupid mistake.
It's sort of like how "the web" and "the internet" aren't the same thing.
The only "witness" to how the fight started is Rachel Jeantel
And of course, she said that was not able to say anything about how the fight started, only that Martin was at his Dad's house. Which means that Martin turned around and ran back to do the assault.
Next time I shoot someone in the dark
Are you making a reference to the Martin/Zimmerman case? Because it may have been dark when Martin attacked, but that really doesn't have much to do with the "being shot" part. He was shot while on top of Zimmerman, having already run up behind him to attack, punched him in the face and broken his nose, and was proceeding to bash his head into the sidewalk. He was shot while on top of him and throwing more punches. A six-foot guy, continuing to beat up the guy he'd turned around and gone back to attack.
Or would you try to charge Martin with homicide if he had killed Zimmerman?
Yes, because Martin was the one who committed the assault, not Zimmerman.