I think this guy needs to get a long sentence just to educate the public about the legal use of deadly force. You have the right to defend your home but that should limited to self defense. Yesterday My wife,Snoogs,saw some guy towing a boat turn around on our front lawn. We just had a few inches of rain yesterday so he left some deep ruts that may cause me to spill my beer next time I mow. Her first thought was to grab a gun and lay down a barrage of 44magnum rounds. She asked all her co workers if that would be legal and they all assured her it was and seemed to approve of using deadly force in this situation. Granted I was pissed off about it too especially the thought of spilling beer or damaging the blades on my rider mower but I thought killing a man and whoever else might be in the truck was a overreaction. Even if it was legal I think human life has more value than beer or mower blades. Most people would assume that the driver was white in this case because of the boat and massive 4 wheel drive truck so a jury might not be as forgiving as they no doubt would be if the rutting party had been black. This is Texas after all. Clearly this illustrates the need to educate citizens about the do's and dont's of killing people on your property.

Mar 21, 2012 -- 9:24AM, Girlchristian wrote:

Mar 21, 2012 -- 8:51AM, Kwinters wrote:

Mar 21, 2012 -- 7:28AM, Nepenthe wrote:

Why shouldn't he have access to a gun?  I saw no evidence in the posted article relating to mental illness or being unfit for a gun purchase.

The problem here is not the law.  Like other situations, the problem lies with law enforcement and prosecution.

video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/46786334/...

You hear the boy screaming for help and then a minute or two later a shot from this guy that law enforcement has yet to arrest!

The man was a menace and mentally unstable.

And yet it was the dead black boy's body that the police tested for drugs!  He was screaming for help when the man executed him.  It is horrifying that this man was allowed to wander around armed.

With no history of mental illness or instability, how exactly would you have kept him from getting a gun? He met all of the qualifications for purchasing a gun so unless you're proposing we ban all guns, what would you have liked done?

Then there need to be better ways of sharing information across agencies or some other form of mental health screening, because based on his prior actions (reports from neighbors of repeated harrassment, his 'serial 911 caller' background, etc), someone should have previously identified this guy as mentally unstable.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also think reasonable precautions should be taken to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and those with mental illness.

Mar 21, 2012 -- 1:46PM, Cesmom wrote:

Mar 21, 2012 -- 9:24AM, Girlchristian wrote:

Mar 21, 2012 -- 8:51AM, Kwinters wrote:

Mar 21, 2012 -- 7:28AM, Nepenthe wrote:

Why shouldn't he have access to a gun?  I saw no evidence in the posted article relating to mental illness or being unfit for a gun purchase.

The problem here is not the law.  Like other situations, the problem lies with law enforcement and prosecution.

video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/46786334/...

You hear the boy screaming for help and then a minute or two later a shot from this guy that law enforcement has yet to arrest!

The man was a menace and mentally unstable.

And yet it was the dead black boy's body that the police tested for drugs!  He was screaming for help when the man executed him.  It is horrifying that this man was allowed to wander around armed.

With no history of mental illness or instability, how exactly would you have kept him from getting a gun? He met all of the qualifications for purchasing a gun so unless you're proposing we ban all guns, what would you have liked done?

Then there need to be better ways of sharing information across agencies or some other form of mental health screening, because based on his prior actions (reports from neighbors of repeated harrassment, his 'serial 911 caller' background, etc), someone should have previously identified this guy as mentally unstable.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also think reasonable precautions should be taken to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and those with mental illness.

My understanding is that the mental condition part of the law is based on a professional diagnosing them as such. Unless he had visited a professional or was forced to do so (which we don't really believe in doing in this country), I'm not sure how anyone could have known. Reports from his neighbors and being a serial 911 caller aren't enough to declare someone unstable.

I agree with you on precautions, but I don't know how we get around it short of banning guns which won't work and would violate our constitution or forcing everyone that purchases guns to go through a psychiatric evaluation, which I'm fairly certain would be unconstitutional.

Mar 21, 2012 -- 2:28PM, rabello wrote:

I am not in anyway blaming this 911 operator.  This is not her fault, however I do wish she had said to the man "Sir, DO NOT FOLLOW ANYONE!, you must get back in your vehicle immediately as I have already notified a police unit in your area.  Sir, do NOT get out of your vehicle and do NOT approach the other person."

Her statement of "we don't need you to follow him" was weak. 

 

The 9-11 dispatcher I heard was he, not a she, and 9-11 dispatchers don't have the authority to order anybody to do anything.  Do you really think this guy would have "followed orders" if they'd been stated the way a grunt gets ordered around in bootcamp?  To focus on the 9-11 dispatcher is to really miss a forest for its trees.  And yes, you are, in effect, blaming the 9-11 dispatcher for this man's choice to do some urban hunting on his own.

And yes, I believe there is a good chance that he would have responded appropriately to the 911 opperator.  He thought he was on the ladder of law enforcement.  Cops in general are pretty good at following specific orders.  Cops are law abiders - generaly speaking and since he saw himself as an extention of that he would have seen himself as a law abider. 

Mar 21, 2012 -- 1:23PM, drawout wrote:

I think this guy needs to get a long sentence just to educate the public about the legal use of deadly force. You have the right to defend your home but that should limited to self defense. Yesterday My wife,Snoogs,saw some guy towing a boat turn around on our front lawn. We just had a few inches of rain yesterday so he left some deep ruts that may cause me to spill my beer next time I mow. Her first thought was to grab a gun and lay down a barrage of 44magnum rounds. She asked all her co workers if that would be legal and they all assured her it was and seemed to approve of using deadly force in this situation. Granted I was pissed off about it too especially the thought of spilling beer or damaging the blades on my rider mower but I thought killing a man and whoever else might be in the truck was a overreaction. Even if it was legal I think human life has more value than beer or mower blades. Most people would assume that the driver was white in this case because of the boat and massive 4 wheel drive truck so a jury might not be as forgiving as they no doubt would be if the rutting party had been black. This is Texas after all. Clearly this illustrates the need to educate citizens about the do's and dont's of killing people on your property.

Zimmerman was not on his own property, but under Florida's "stand your ground" law, he will probably get off, because Florida's law requires only that he believe he was in danger.