Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Are you also denying he was put into Anger Management?
2. Should someone who is ordered into Anger Management education be allowed to continue CCW ... even be allowed to own guns ... until he proves himself mentally sound again?
You have to post a link or something so that I can read and offer my opinion.
I live in a state where CCW is hard for the average person to get because you have to have a real reason for one ... like you are in a business where you carry a lot of cash or jewelry for instance or you ARE a bona fide licensed armed security person ... I am perfectly fine with that. I have never felt the need to have a concealed weapon. I feel perfectly safe in my surroundings. I work in Manhattan, take public transit, including buses and subways and never had a problem, even at night. People in my situation have to develop street smarts, good reasoning and verbal skills and have good physical and agility skills to protect ourselves. We can rely on ourselves and have confidence in ourselves, NOT a crutch like a "prosthetic metal penis for dickless wonders we can hide on our person that we can use to kill someone when all else fails and then cry fear of our lives and get off scot free." It doesn't work that way here and GZ is lucky he was where he was when this happened.
Do you (or anyone) think if she (and/or the other jurors) used SYG to lead to the not-guilty verdict it would invalidate the verdict and they should throw it out and redo the trial?
I see it as being inconsequential to the trial. SYG was not relevant. If it could have been proved that there was a confrontation where Zimmerman had a chance to retreat, rather than a punch in the face and on the ground, then it would be relevant.
As a permit holder, I am trained to retreat at the first sign of confrontation. Some one calls you names? Someone throws a rock at you? You leave the scene and do not escalate so that you don't reach the poiint where it becomes a threat and you need to use your weapon. I do not extend that example to GZ getting out of his car because at that time there was no confrontation. It may seem like a fine line, but it's clear to me. Imagine instead the precedent it sets when saying "oh you have a gun so that means you can't do the simple act of walking here or there", raising the possibility of prosecution by an overzelous LEO for the simple act of carrying a gun even further.
But assistant prosecutor Bernardo de la Rionda asked the family members about two incidents. In 2005, George Zimmerman had to take anger management courses after an undercover law enforcement officer accused him of attacking him as he tried to arrest Zimmerman's friend. In another incident, a girlfriend accused Zimmerman of attacking her. No charges were filed.
That July, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of Zimmerman's at a bar. He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.
I see it as being inconsequential to the trial. SYG was not relevant. If it could have been proved that there was a confrontation where Zimmerman had a chance to retreat, rather than a punch in the face and on the ground, then it would be relevant.
As a permit holder, I am trained to retreat at the first sign of confrontation. Some one calls you names? Someone throws a rock at you? You leave the scene and do not escalate so that you don't reach the poiint where it becomes a threat and you need to use your weapon. I do not extend that example to GZ getting out of his car because at that time there was no confrontation. It may seem like a fine line, but it's clear to me. Imagine instead the precedent it sets when saying "oh you have a gun so that means you can't do the simple act of walking here or there", raising the possibility of prosecution by an overzelous LEO for the simple act of carrying a gun even further.
If it was inconsequential and irrelevant, shouldn't the jurors have NOT been using it in their deliberations?
But assistant prosecutor Bernardo de la Rionda asked the family members about two incidents. In 2005, George Zimmerman had to take anger management courses after an undercover law enforcement officer accused him of attacking him as he tried to arrest Zimmerman's friend. In another incident, a girlfriend accused Zimmerman of attacking her. No charges were filed.
That July, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of Zimmerman's at a bar. He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.
Ah OK, but in the other link I provided about this charge, this "anger management" class was described as an "alcohol education" class. Neither are good, but then again the actual "assault" was described as a shove. The charge was dismissed as a result of taking this class...so no unless it was accompanied by a conviction, misdomeaner or felony, for violence, which would be an indicator that the court took the offense serious enough to hold him permanently accountable, I don't think it was disqualify him from a carry permit.
He was "accused". None of the charges stuck. Shoving an officer. That will get you arrested but...come on. Restraining order for domestic violence was mutual - he accused his fiance. No detail on facts. If he was charged and convicted of domestic violence he should and would not have been issued a carry permit.
He was charged with speeding as well...wow.
Come on, what?
My experience is:
!) Over 99% of people manage to go their whole lives without shoving a cop, and
2) Those who do shove cops usually get a beatdown or worse.....before they get arrested.
If it was inconsequential and irrelevant, shouldn't the jurors have NOT been using it in their deliberations?
It appears from the one interview that the juror was simply and mistakenly using the term interchangeably with self defense laws, so it didn't make a difference either way.
I just looked at the CCW permit in my state, just asks about misdemeanor and felonies. Nothing about disability, mental competence, mental health status. Heck, in comparison to the drivers license exam, they ask a lot more about mental and physical health. Interesting, really, one would think it should be similar.
Not that it applies to Zimmerman, but maybe there should be more questions about anger management, domestic violence. At least a review.
The criminal justice classes taken by Zimmerman were a waste, even before this occurance, the domestic violence issue was a mark against him, as far as a law enforcement job.
I wonder what he will do now? His life is really messed up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
