Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Exactly. We should all sing our way out of trouble. It works as long as your heart's pure.

Some people just like to look for trouble as well though. Possible while singing.

I guess I'm not scared enough yet? Sorry to let America down.... again.

 Easy E wrote:
I guess I'm not scared enough yet? Sorry to let America down.... again.

Fire doesn't particularly scare me, but we still have an extinguisher in the house.

I've worked in a Burn Center, fire should scare everybody!

Of course I alwys scan for where the emergency exits are if I am somewhere new, that probably makes me paranoid...

 Easy E wrote:

I'm especially leery of a cop telling me to buy a gun for protection since that same cop who told me to get a gun should be arresting me if I had to use it.

Why should a police officer be arresting someone who used a weapon in the course of legal self-defense? I'm assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "if I had to use it."

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I guess I'm not scared enough yet? Sorry to let America down.... again.

Fire doesn't particularly scare me, but we still have an extinguisher in the house.

Ever since the wildfires here that effectively help take out Grandmother Frazzled, I get semi-panic attacks whenever I smell wood smoke. If I smell it at night I get the full blown variety panic attacks. The wife had to talk me down from Austin when I stepped outside to turn off the sprinkler and smelled wood smoke a few weeks back.

 Hordini wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

I'm especially leery of a cop telling me to buy a gun for protection since that same cop who told me to get a gun should be arresting me if I had to use it.

Why should a police officer be arresting someone who used a weapon in the course of legal self-defense? I'm assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "if I had to use it."

Because he is from MN, we pretty much don't have legal self-defense. We can only legally able to defend ourselves if we can't run away.

 d-usa wrote:
Of course I alwys scan for where the emergency exits are if I am somewhere new, that probably makes me paranoid...

Nope, just sensible

sparkywtf wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

I'm especially leery of a cop telling me to buy a gun for protection since that same cop who told me to get a gun should be arresting me if I had to use it.

Why should a police officer be arresting someone who used a weapon in the course of legal self-defense? I'm assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "if I had to use it."

Because he is from MN, we pretty much don't have legal self-defense. We can only legally able to defend ourselves if we can't run away.

Yup. I thought that was the case in the majority of states.

Plus, if I killed a guy wouldn't I have to be arrested until the investigation showed it was self-defense? The fact is I killed someone. Everything else needs to be investigated.

 Easy E wrote:

sparkywtf wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

I'm especially leery of a cop telling me to buy a gun for protection since that same cop who told me to get a gun should be arresting me if I had to use it.

Why should a police officer be arresting someone who used a weapon in the course of legal self-defense? I'm assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "if I had to use it."

Because he is from MN, we pretty much don't have legal self-defense. We can only legally able to defend ourselves if we can't run away.

Yup. I thought that was the case in the majority of states.

Plus, if I killed a guy wouldn't I have to be arrested until the investigation showed it was self-defense? The fact is I killed someone. Everything else needs to be investigated.

Not really, although it would probably depend on schematics of the words. You can likely expect to be detained (and placed in detention) while the officers investigate, that would probably be something like "Am I free to go?" "No, not until...", and could probably include a trip to the station.

Getting arrested usually implies some sort of charges being filed, at least I think it does. So you can expect to be detained until the officers decide to arrest you or let you go.

Of course you don't have to wait to be arrested to request your lawyer before talking to a cop in that scenario.

If it's true that Traywoman initiated the altercation by hitting him with papers, Zimmerjohn is fully entitled to defend himself with legal force. Defendants have no duty to try and settle under Florida's Stand Your Ground legislation.

 Ouze wrote:
I heard Zims has been known to pull a gatt when losing a fight.

Spoken like someone who punched the wrong "crazy ass cracka".

 d-usa wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

sparkywtf wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

I'm especially leery of a cop telling me to buy a gun for protection since that same cop who told me to get a gun should be arresting me if I had to use it.

Why should a police officer be arresting someone who used a weapon in the course of legal self-defense? I'm assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "if I had to use it."

Because he is from MN, we pretty much don't have legal self-defense. We can only legally able to defend ourselves if we can't run away.

Yup. I thought that was the case in the majority of states.

Plus, if I killed a guy wouldn't I have to be arrested until the investigation showed it was self-defense? The fact is I killed someone. Everything else needs to be investigated.

Not really, although it would probably depend on schematics of the words. You can likely expect to be detained (and placed in detention) while the officers investigate, that would probably be something like "Am I free to go?" "No, not until...", and could probably include a trip to the station.

Getting arrested usually implies some sort of charges being filed, at least I think it does. So you can expect to be detained until the officers decide to arrest you or let you go.

Of course you don't have to wait to be arrested to request your lawyer before talking to a cop in that scenario.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

In MN, it will depend on what city/county you are in and the politics of that area. Even within the metro it swings back and forth over how they handle it. Most important is having a lawyer present before answering anything but identification (name, DoB, address). But that is true in any state. Miswording something can get you in trouble, even though you may have been in your legal rights.

We talking/discussing Z trial again or going with Z divorce?

 Seaward wrote:
I believe it was six in the previous couple years, and, if memory serves, all but one were before he acquired his first handgun.

Whatever, it still shows pretty clearly what the guy was doing with his spare time. And personally, I think that's a really weird way for someone to spend their spare time. It's not putting on a batsuit, but it's along that same continuum.

Well, he was part of the neighborhood watch. That is something that plenty of people do.

I thought that was disputed.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I thought that was disputed.

That he was a member of the Neighborhood Watch isn't in dispute but rather the context, seeing as Zimmerman was essentially the only member of the Neighborhood Watch, and did not operate with any permission or approval from the Home Owners Association. How much support he had in his community for his actions as a Watchmen is unknown.

 Hordini wrote:
Well, he was part of the neighborhood watch. That is something that plenty of people do.

Yeah, he was part of his Neighbourhood Watch, but Neighbourhood Watch doesn't involve individuals patrolling their neighbourhoods by themselves. For reasons that should be obvious to everyone, and that Zimmerman had to learn the hard way.

Stick with the divorce are this thread going to get locked when personnel feeling comes into play on the trial

 Jihadin wrote:
Stick with the divorce are this thread going to get locked when personnel feeling comes into play on the trial

There really isn't that much to say as to the divorce honestly (beyond that Zimmerman is having a really bad time right now). If I'm remembering correctly, his wife wasn't home the night of the shooting due to a fight with her husband then as well. The martial strife seems to predate the Martin shooting, so this might have just happened anyway, though the stress of everything probably accelerated the process

Perception is that his relationship with his wife accelerated his mental capacity to shoot someone. Pretty damn dumb that people are trying to link what was going on with his personnel life to killing someone. Its just another Z beat stick and one that will get this thread locked.

 Jihadin wrote:
Perception is that his relationship with his wife accelerated his mental capacity to shoot someone. Pretty damn dumb that people are trying to link what was going on with his personnel life to killing someone. Its just another Z beat stick and one that will get this thread locked.

Awfully similar to people parading around Martin's life troubles, isn't it? Not very fair I agree.

I'm not looking for it now, but I'm surprised not to see it in this thread: I read last night that the police are pulling data off the ipad and he could be charged with destroying evidence. Purportedly, the reason he smashed the ipad was that the wife was recording the altercation.

There is also some dispute over whether or not he lied to the police about having the gun but to be frank that seems to be in that really unreliable grey area news outlets have when they have no new news but need to say something to fill the air, so maybe lets wait and see on that.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not looking for it now, but I'm surprised not to see it in this thread: I read last night that the police are pulling data off the ipad and he could be charged with destroying evidence. Purportedly, the reason he smashed the ipad was that the wife was recording the altercation.

By my reading of Florida law, by recording the altercation without the consent of all parties involved she was committing a crime punishable by a year in prison.

No district attorney in the country is going to bring someone up on wiretapping charges for shooting video of their spouse inside their own home.

 Ouze wrote:
No district attorney in the country is going to bring someone up on wiretapping charges for shooting video of their spouse inside their own home.

Wrong.

By the way, the Eleventh District, of which Florida is a part, is one of the ones that does not permit recording your spouse in their own home without their permission.

Even if the DA doesn't decide to press it, it would probably very easily get tossed as evidence, and any charges brought up because of it, thrown out as well, if any where to be made.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
No district attorney in the country is going to bring someone up on wiretapping charges for shooting video of their spouse inside their own home.

Wrong.

Do you understand the story you linked in no way refutes what I said; that any and all of the acts the people in your news story are absolutely dissimilar to what I outlined? It's a pretty far throw from "taping your spouse while holding on an ipad" and "installing software on their phone surreptitiously to monitor their calls" which are pretty much the textbook definition of unlawful wiretapping.

Granted, I shouldn't have spoken in absolutes, and should have inserted the word "openly" before shooting video; but I stand by my statement.

 djones520 wrote:
Even if the DA doesn't decide to press it, it would probably very easily get tossed as evidence, and any charges brought up because of it, thrown out as well, if any where to be made.

I'm inclined to agree with this solely because the local police have publicly made statements indicating they wished they hadn't been dragged into this chapter of the Zimmerman Show; and it seems likely the local DA will feel exactly the same way about what I bet are probably misdemeanors.