So I've ceased to understand
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=191321
Printed Date: 03 November 2025 at 9:12am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: So I've ceased to understand
Posted By: stratoaxe
Subject: So I've ceased to understand
Date Posted: 18 July 2013 at 11:57pm
|
...most anything about the legal logic behind the Trayvon Martin case anymore. Mostly, because of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2369592/Justice-Department-places-hold-Trayvon-Martin-trial-evidence-including-George-Zimmermans-gun--Florida-law-says-returned-him.html" rel="nofollow - things like this. Where does the DOJ have anything to say about this? Who's the federal government to declare that the police, jury, and all local authority are wrong in a case where there's little to no evidence that supports foul play among the officials involved? Maybe I'm naive here, but the whole thing smells of shameless political pandering. It's all over my FB feed, it's front page news every where, but half of the "facts" I'm hearing thrown around are either shameless speculation or outright untruths. Meanwhile, Zimmerman will either need a new country to live in or a security detail everywhere he goes, because everyone from Al Sharpton to the President's administration have all but declared him guilty after police and a jury found him to be within his legal rights (or at least acquitted of the charges.) I'm not shouting out for Zimmerman's innocence or anything here, frankly if what little I know of the story is true he seems to have acted in a rather sketchy manner through the whole affair, and you just kind of assume that the usual media hogs will come out to make a name for themselves, but the federal involvement really strikes me as unwarranted. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 19 July 2013 at 2:23am
|
If this incident didn't hit national airways, the Feds would have never been involved. But when you have the President making comments that Martin could have been his son, you can bet the Feds will be stepping in. If Zimmerman was found innocent they can ultimately say "We stepped in to make sure everything was follow correctly, can't say we didn't do anything" Politics pure and simple. 1 more case to hammer a wedge between the citizens of this country, and destroy a innocents persons life. I wonder how much that gun would go for at auction. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 19 July 2013 at 3:10am
|
That's the thing though, he was acquitted in a trial that was so forced the initial prosecuter for the DA's office resigned over it. They didn't even want to pursue charged for crying out loud. The DoJ is wanting to pursue civil rights charges on Zimmerman-I'd love to hear how that plays out legally. I'm sorry, this is has gone beyond pursuit of justice and into the league of insanity unless I've missed something vital. Reading the FB and Internet comments makes me want to pull my hair out and simultaneously thank God that most of these people will never represent anyone in court. -------------
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 19 July 2013 at 8:38am
|
------------- 
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 19 July 2013 at 3:38pm
|
Zimmerman was never found "innocent". He was found not guilty. That just means there wasn't enough evidence for the jury to select otherwise. I agree that Zimmerman's life is over as he knows it. He'll be hounded by the Federal Government now. You have the President of the United States now saying that 35 years ago, he could have been Trayvon. Also saying that if Trayvon were white, the outcome might have been different, or if Trayvon was of age and armed could he have stood his ground. And now you also have Eric "Fast & Furious" Holder addressing the NAACP convention calling for changes in the Stand Your Ground laws. The same NAACP convention that turns away black conservatives. Enough rambling. I just don't get it. It's over. The Prosecution & Defense did their jobs as well as the jury. Just let it go. ------------- 
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 19 July 2013 at 8:27pm
|
That's what you get with jury's I suppose, the case was far too high profile for them not to be affected. The media frenzy and cries for his downfall could have actually prevented a conviction. In a less public and heated setting the jury could well have viewed their decision differently. I'm not sure how the U.S contempt laws work but I would be very interested to hear a frank discussion of what was behind their decision. Not that I mean to say I disagree with the one made. I'm not overly familiar with the case but it sounds a wee bit out of the presidents remit. The judiciary have made a decision via the appointed agency (jury). Unless it can be shown the jury have acted out with their instructions and outside the law then it's done and dusted. The law is the law and funnily enough there are even more laws put in place to prevent exactly this kind of influence from the government. I am assuming that the DoJ is a government department and still independent of the Judiciary. When Abu Quatada (terrorist "suspect" facing trial in Jordan) was not extradited on a human rights basis Queen Elizabeth II was not happy with the decision. She did not for one second believe she could influence it however and respected it. If the president/ DOJ has made statements to say that he/they aren't happy with the decision and wants to pursue it further then that sounds insane. I would have thought that murder would trump civil rights abuses, and surely if he is not guilty of murder or even manslaughter then there is no basis for the second case. The act of Zimmerman shooting this kid is the issue and the law seems to have confirmed that he was within his own rights to act as he did. The man is by all available measures innocent of the charges. Is it the racial profiling angle that they're going for? Might as well haul the TSA in front of the judge and compare any sentence one of them would receive to anything Zimmerman gets if they manage to get this to stick. I would consider them two different and independent acts one may be the root cause but if he profiled him without the intention to shoot him then it can't equal a murder charge or even close. Please bear in mind that I only know as much as I've watched and read which may have been on the back of a cereal box so ignore me if I've missed the point entirely.
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 19 July 2013 at 10:38pm
|
Civil cases require a lesser standard of proof than criminal. It is not uncommon for defendants to be found not guilty in a criminal trial, only to later be found liable in a civil trial. ------------- 
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 20 July 2013 at 12:38am
|
It's a shame that the DOJ sent protesters to Florida during the first protest and is now looking into the verdict. If I'm not mistaken, the "evil racist" Zimmerman filed a complaint against the Sanford PD for excessive force against a black person and mentored underprivileged children in the area. ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 20 July 2013 at 2:41am
That's what I've heard as well. The thing is, I've avoided the "is he racist" aspect of the case because I find it irrelevant to the trial. I think that's where the case took a nosedive to begin with-it became a white vs black issue when that's as far from the reality of the situation as possible. Like I said, I don't look at Zimmerman any more innocently than any other murder suspect. I don't claim to know any inside information or hold an allegiance to either side of the trial-I do, however, find it disturbing when the federal government chooses to go after a private citizen on so little evidence. -------------
|
deadeye007 wrote:Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 20 July 2013 at 3:00am
|
Besides the fact that Zimmerman isn't even white. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 20 July 2013 at 10:58pm
|
What all the facebook lawyers out there seem to forget is that Martin laid in wait for Zimmerman. In short, he ambushed him. He wasn't standing his ground as Zimmerman posed no clear threat to his life while following. Plain and simple, he hid out, and jumped someone who was investigating his presence in a gated community. The onus is on the one who first makes contact in a violent confrontation. Martin had offensive wounds on his knuckles and a single gunshot wound to the torso. No defensive wounds what-so-ever. Zimmerman on the other hand had multiple defensive wounds and wounds to the back of his head. You don't need a CJ degree to know what that evidence means. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 July 2013 at 12:43am
It's a shame Americans have lost all sense of critical reasoning. Everything comes down to emotional reaction-because Trayvon wasn't armed and Zimmerman was bigger and older that sums the entire situation up. And it was a crappy situation no doubt-had either of them been anywhere else or made a different decision they'd both be walking free and happy. But it didn't and the goal is to answer the bigger question-who was acting in self defense? -------------
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 21 July 2013 at 6:38pm
One of the few things you've said on here that I have to disagree with. A basic tenant of the U.S. legal system is the concept of innocent until proven guilty. If he isn't found guilty, he is innocent. (Legally) ------------- 
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 22 July 2013 at 10:40pm
This is true. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. How many "innocent" verdicts have you ever seen? I'll bet none. You are either found "guilty" or "not guilty". "Not Guilty" does not equal "innocent". It just means that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence or the ability to find you "guilty". You don't have to agree with me, but that is how the judicial system works. -------------
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 23 July 2013 at 5:34am
|
In Scotland we get around this problem by having the third option of "Not proven" or "Not guilty but don't do it again"
Combined with,
Is the point Mack is making. If someone is found not guilty by a court of law then as far as you or anyone else is concerned they didn't do it. Now in practice we all know this to be a different story what with OJ and the countless people who've been fingered by corrupt PD's a judicial systems etc. But change the fundamental principle of western law this does not. Although the innocent until proven guilty isn't necessarily always going to be interpreted as "the defendant is treated as though he is innocent and we must be completely impartial/borderline favourable to the defendant" One of the reasons it fly's around so much is simply to emphasise the burden of proof. ie Not my job to prove I'm innocent but it is your's to prove I'm guilty, innocent is the status quo as per right to remain silent. So although everyone in the courtroom knows the guy done it. If it cannot be proven to the objective standards of the law (if we imagine a perfect jury if there is one) then he walks and any attempt at street justice, slander or defamation will be prosecuted and will very likely be successful as in the eyes of the law he is innocent so even a newspaper reporting that he really did do it could end up in court for libel. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 July 2013 at 2:00pm
This is 100% not correct in anything other than colloquial nomenclature. There is a world of difference, legally, between the legal finding of "not guilty" and the legal finding of "innocent." |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 July 2013 at 2:05pm
This is correct. And a point of clarification to add, it means that the jury decided the prosecution didn't have or provide enough evidence or argument to find a suspect "guilty" of the charges filed against the defendant. This was a horrible situation, and I think George Zimmerman stalked and killed an unarmed teenager due to racially motivated profiling, but the jury got this one right. This was presented, prosecuted, and defended as a second-degree murder charge, of which I don't believe it was. The manslaughter addendum was indeed added at the end, but the prosecution had argued attempting the level of premeditation needed for the murder charge. I fully believe that if the state had charged and prosecuted based on a manslaughter charge, the verdict would have been different, even with "stand your ground" legislation.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 July 2013 at 2:24pm
|
This case has left a pretty solid distaste in my mouth for the act of carrying firearms. It's a growing distaste I've had for a while now. At one point I didn't seem to mind it as a concept, but I've begun to realize that people who carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise, are hoping they get to shoot someone. I hear lots of empty talk about hoping and praying that one never has to use it, but that's a dissonance-filled projected lie. If not having to use it was such a powerful thing that one hopes and prays, they'd just leave it at home.
A teenager who believed someone was stalking him attacked the person who he thought was stalking him. I don't know why one form of self protection counts more than another.
How, exactly, was Martin supposed to know that the person stalking him, at night, didn't intend to hurt him?
Zimmerman was not a police officer. Martin had every right to be in that community.
Personally, this case makes me pretty frightened of people who conceal carry. Granted, this case had no wide-spread precedent, it's troubling because of the potential basis made for state cases. Martin may have very well started the violent portion of the confrontation, but it was against someone who instigated the initial confrontation by stalking the person in a place they had every right to be. There is no indication that Martin didn't believe he was acting in his own self defense against someone following him against his will. Essentially the state just said it was totally fine to carry a gun, instigate a confrontation, and if you lose, shoot the person who ends up besting you because you felt threatened. So yeah, I'm not big on hanging out with people who carry anymore.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 23 July 2013 at 2:59pm
|
Whale, I typically line up with you on most issues but I vehemently disagree with a couple of your assessments here. Primarily, I think your entire argument is hinged on this one statement-
I grew up with a gun in my vehicle. I lived 10 miles out in the country where snakes and other unsightly critters tend to scurry around your ankles when you're walking around and that's really a way of life in the south. Up until the last 10 or 15 years shotgun racks were as common as bumper stickers in Texas and I never knew a single one of them that was actually carrying their gun for people reasons. Are there crazy concealed carry owners out there trigger happy to pop some teenage thug for violating their daughter's purity? Absolutely, but I fully believe that they're a fringe element. For most concealed carriers I know they carry it on the off chance that they find themselves in a situation in which they can save a life (be it their own or their families) in an area where officers may not be able to respond in time. To take that a step further, they don't talk about their guns or let the world know they own them. Saying that not wanting to use something means you'd leave it at home is like saying I really don't want to have a flat so I'll just leave the jack and spare tire in the garage. It doesn't in any way provide meaningful commentary on the mentality of the person in question. If you're going to judge concealed carry owners, you should do so by the overwhelming statistics and not the occasional cook (and there have been very few of those in crime data.) Zimmerman, based on what I've seen and heard from the media and prosecution / defense (mainly defense because the prosecution seems to be tongue tied or just completely inept) probably fits the bill of vigilante CCW cook who REALLY wanted to be a cop but couldn't cut it. That being said, I don't find the discussion of their personalities to be particularly relevant to this case. The internet is full of discussion about these two guys that none of us actually know and of whom very little account exists of any activity before that night, we have people painting Zimmerman as a an all around good guy, others saying he was a power hungry scum bag, then in Martin's camp we have the innocent school boy vs thug who was always in trouble. Just towing the middle of the line I think that odds were good you have two individuals here who were had very likely made some repeatedly bad decisions and now were about to make a few more. As I said earlier, I'm not in Zimmerman's camp here. In fact, I have no opinion as to either of these guys. The only real value I see in discussing this case is in dissecting the details from a legal standpoint and making a reasonably educated assumption as to the validity of the verdict. The other place you lost me is here-
Confronting someone on the street is NOT an instigation for physical violence. You're condemning Zimmerman for his use of force and then justifying the illegal use of force the Martin used.
Self defense against someone who was on the phone with the police and had no outward indication of being armed? Unless I'm wrong I haven't hear anything about Zimmerman having his gun out while he was following Martin. People keep going on and on about Martin being within his legal rights to be where he was, but Zimmerman was equally within his rights to question Martin as to why he was there. Martin was under no legal obligation to leave, and furthermore didn't OWE Zimmerman an explanation, but saying that Martin being afraid of being "stalked" by Zimmerman after dark is no less questionable than Zimmerman's paranoia of dudes roaming his block after dark. Also, another detail I keep hearing form this trial that drastically changed my opinion of this case is that not only did Martin disappear from view, Zimmerman was on his way to his truck when Martin emerged from the shadows and began beating him senseless. So now not only is there an illegal escalation of force, he's actually running after a man with his back turned. Let's apply that to a concealed handgun owner. Let's go with an unquestionable case of self-defense-you're being robbed at gunpoint. If someone pulls a gun on you and you kill them, there won't even be a question of guilt. Yet, if you wait until this person has walked away with your wallet and shoot them in the back, you've committed a felony and will almost certainly face prison time. I'm sorry, but just by the details of this case, there's almost no grounds to say that Martin acted in fear for his life. By all details of the case, from the racial expletives he exchanged with his girlfriend while describing Zimmerman, to him physically coming after Zimmerman and proceeding to wail on him with his fists, what I see is a thug who decided that he'd teach someone a lesson and was rudely surprised by a firearm. Also, let's talk race for a second-
First of all, I agree it was a terrible situation. I truly wished Zimmerman had stayed in his car or at the very least martin kept walking instead of decided to assault Zimmerman. That said, the racially motivated profiling here is receiving far more negative press than it (by the details of the trial, anyway) deserves. This wasn't a case of "OH NO A BLACK GUY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD." There were repeated burglaries on that block by young men matching Martin's description-young black male wearing a hoodie. So again, I agree that Zimmerman shouldn't have confronted Martin. But I disagree that there's definitive proof that Zimmerman was just an all out racist who didn't want men with skin pigment in his neighborhood-I think he was trying to curtail what he perceived to be a crime. Like I said earlier, we can throw away the idea that teenagers walking around neighborhoods they don't live in where burglaries by teenagers happen frequently might arouse suspicion because, you're right, they have a LEGAL right to be there. But what about Zimmerman's legal right to inquire as to who he is? Again, if you're going to set aside what many might see as a logical reaction on one end simply because the law allows it, you have to allow the same room for Zimmerman. I think the tragedy of the situation is outweighing the reality of it-it's absolutely terrible that Martin is dead now, but had Zimmerman not killed him would he be alive? Would the media be playing the tragedy of George Zimmerman had Martin beat him to death? Would we be seeing "Trayvon Martin has angel wings" on Facebook had he been allowed to continue the action that was in the middle of attempting when he was shot? I'm all about criticizing people who abuse their liberties. But let's talk about the fireman that tried to use the stand your ground law in Texas to kill a man in front of his 2 year old daughter and wife at their birthday party because he didn't like the noise-that's cut and dry evil and makes a good case against certain privileges. The Trayvon Martin case is in no way black and white. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 July 2013 at 4:40pm
| Well I had a long response written up that the forum deleted, so I'll just chat with you on FB messenger like always, 'cause I really don't like posting here. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 23 July 2013 at 5:51pm
One guy in Florida gets into a bad situation and does something stupid, and all of a sudden, the rest of the people who carry are wannabe killers? Being prepared to use deadly physical force for self defense or the termination/prevention of a dangerous crime =/= hoping you get to shoot someone when you carry. I won't derail the entire thread by picking it apart and spewing out rhetoric, but in a nutshell, I think your general assessment is more than a little unfair. ------------- ? |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 23 July 2013 at 6:08pm
Do your research Whale, the jury was allowed to convict him of manslaughter even if that wasn't the stated charge. In fact, half of the jury originally voted to convict him of manslaughter or murder, but found, upon further examination of the law, that he wasn't guilty of anything under the law. See, this is where I just shake my head at the faked outrage. You say it was racially motivated profiling. Zimmerman has been shown to be the opposite of racially motivated to the point that he dimed out some cops he was on a ride-along with for doing exactly what you are accusing him of. And to quote the internet's favorite thugs' lawyer Peter 'P'Ta Mon' John, "This is America, you are free to be profiled if you fit the profile." If you don't want to be suspected of being up to no good, don't go slinking around unlit areas of residential neighborhoods in a hoodie. If it'd been a white kid acting in the same manner with the same walk and the same outfit, he'd have had the cops called on him and he would have been followed just the same. Just because the NAACP and the president decide to call it "racially motivated" doesn't actually make it so. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 July 2013 at 6:47pm
I've not said anything to the contrary.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 July 2013 at 6:51pm
lol
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 23 July 2013 at 8:53pm
And you think you're the rational one in this whole conversation......  ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 24 July 2013 at 9:00am
|
The generalization about people that elect to have an option to protect their family and self is a very bizarre box. Whale abducted? I don't understand how someone that probably aced philosophy of logic, even setting aside the subject, arrives at this invalid statement. |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 24 July 2013 at 2:17pm
I know our laws are different, but you can't attack someone pre-emptively if you think they mean you harm, for exactly this reason. They might not mean you any harm, the attack must have started before you can act in self defense. If you don't, you're the aggressor. And attack having started may mean you took a step towards me if I've indicated I'm feeling threatened and don't want you to advance on me, I don't need to wait for you to physically hurt me.
Not so. I carry my gun every day, every waking moment and it is on my bedside table every night. I also hope I never have to use it. I'm not some closet Rambo waiting to gun down someone for looking like they are dangerous. Firstly I don't want to have to deal with the police, lawyers and paperwork in the aftermath of a shooting. Secondly I don't want to be put into the situation where my only option is to kill someone. That isn't a nice experience. I also won't leave it at home because if I DO end up in those situations I'd rather deal with the paperwork than with being dead or crippled. I also don't want to ever use the airbag and safety belts and crumple zones in my car, but I'm not gonna have them de-activated. I don't want to ever use the plug and press kit and tourniquets I own, but I don't leave them at home either. Just because I own something doesn't mean I'm wanting to use it. When I do that, I go to the shooting range. KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 24 July 2013 at 2:37pm
|
Kback I was told that the seat belt analogy was poor one. Killing someone is an extremely gross and undesirable concept. Rhetorical- what would you do if someone was cracking your wife in the noggin with a louisville so that they could take her ring? |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 24 July 2013 at 2:47pm
|
How is it a poor one? A life saving device used in extreme situations? The only difference is the safety belt works on you, while a firearm works on another person. Either way I don't want to ever be without one when I need one. Out of interest why is the "they only have it to use it" argument never bandied about for pepper spray or tasers? It is only a firearm that they ever "carry because they want to use". KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 24 July 2013 at 3:14pm
|
I asked him how it was a poor analogy too. I was open to new ideas but he didn't have an answer as to why the analogy was poor. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 24 July 2013 at 6:48pm
This is a better question. Do people who arm themselves with these items secretly hope they get to use them on someone every day? No- Odds are they just want to make sure that they and their loved ones are safe in the event of an attack. But the person that sticks a .380 in their waist or pocketbook cares less about safety, and more about wanting to use it on someone? Granted, the use of a firearms is more severe an act, but the principal of self and family defense is exactly the same thing. ------------- ? |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 24 July 2013 at 8:59pm
|
There has been an unsettling rise in the incident of paranoid nutcases with armories in my part of the country throughout the last few years, and in alot of ways Texas itself is becoming kind of disturbing far right wing playground. That said, I've never seen abuses of a right as a condemnation of the right itself. -------------
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 24 July 2013 at 9:14pm
|
Whale, since everyone who carries a gun is hoping they get to shoot someone, that must mean that all black people want to commit crimes, or all journalists must mean they want to twist and distort information, amirite? Really Whale, you're rather intelligent and you're usually reasonable. I kinda expected better. ------------- 
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 25 July 2013 at 12:24am
I take offense to this and many other responsible gun owners that carry open and concealed such as myself would too. I don't hope to shoot anyone. I'm sure I'm not alone. I would rather not have to use my gun, but it is there if I have to. I don't know where you get this "realization" from, but I hope it is personal opinion and nothing steeped in facts. If it is, I'd love to see them... -------------
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 25 July 2013 at 4:17am
|
I hope I get to shoot someone. Violent video games and TV are probably the reason why. -------------
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 25 July 2013 at 11:12pm
Notable exception allowed. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 25 July 2013 at 11:25pm
|
On carrying a firearm: I have a different mindset about this than you all do. I'm fine with that. If you're insulted by it, not much I can do about that. On the particular case at hand: I think it's important to draw the distinction between the legal outcomes and ramifications of the case and the societal/cultural outcomes and ramifications of the case. I wasn't very clear in my initial posting to draw that line, and it is important. If any of y'all feel like talking with me about it, chat me up on Facebook. I don't feel like typing out manuscripts on here.
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 26 July 2013 at 5:55pm
|
Whale, I think your perception of this is based on the idea that all people are equally valuable. All idealism aside, I place a much higher worth on my safety and that of my family than ANYONE ELSE's. Selfish? Maybe... I don't really care - that's reality. It's not about "wanting to use it." It's about being prepared and having the option to use it, should it become necessary. Family Safety > Criminal's Life Flow Chart: Children>Spouse>Myself>Average_Joe>Thief>Rapist>Murderer ^ If you don't fall left of this arrow, you probably should probably behave like a civilized human being and: stay out of my house, out of my car, and away from my family members and you will be fine. If everyone just followed these basic rules, things would be peachy. Unfortunately, people don't parent their children properly and we get incidents like this case. Unfortunate, yes. Murder? Hardly. It will only get worse as we find further and further ways to remove personal accountability from our lives. "I jumped this guy and he shot me..." Boo freakin Hoo. /sarcasm ------------- 
|