|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 23:16:36 [Permalink]
|
Mach:
Disregarding that was not illegal as far as I know (though of course if they found that he pulled the gun too early, you could have false imprisonment or something). Anyway, I don't think this piece of information is very useful, it may be used in combination with some other facts to argue for a particular state of mind, but I certainly don't see this fact being the major piece of an effective argument about a state of mind. |
Well.. Along with this. "These assholes. They always get away..." Remember that Zimmerman is following Travon. And the kid is obviously wondering why. Near the end of the call, Travon is running away, which means that Zimmerman had to follow in order for the confrontation to happen. Why? Because "these assholes...always get away." If that doesn't say something about Zimmerman's state of mind, what would? If I were prosecuting the case, I would absolutely bring up the fact that Zimmerman had already prejudged the kid. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2012 : 00:22:49 [Permalink]
|
| Every observation Zimmerman made on that tape seemed to me to be a paranoid, worst-case interpretation of what he actually saw. Meantime, he was definitely stalking Martin, who had far more (and soon to be proven) cause for paranoia. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2012 : 23:06:39 [Permalink]
|
I also heard Zimmerman has apparently called 911 dozens of times in the past, which could complement the information you guys are using for this argument well.
Zimmerman's father has actually been on Florida local news arguing he did actually stop pursuing Martin after that, but it really doesn't seem to fit with the 911 audio. (Plus, if the kid was running away and Zimmerman stopped pursuing him, how could Martin possibly be back attacking Zimmerman?) The leaked videos really make it look as if Zimmerman wasn't badly hurt also -- possibly it's not good enough quality to see a broken nose as he had been treated by a paramedic on-site, but there were certainly no bandages or anything there or on the back of his head, which his people were claiming was badly injured. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 04/02/2012 : 06:02:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Val:
Remember when Aldrin decked Sibrel? This is the kind of escallation that I am talking about. |
Yeah. And in Florida, Sibrel could have shot Aldren dead, instead of losing his civil case against him. And it would have been legal under that boneheaded law.
|
And Aldrin could have perforated Sibrel as well.
Sibrel would have the issue that he initiated contact and persued Aldrin. He would not be protected against this law. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2012 : 06:13:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Good shoot, questionable shoot, bad shoot. Trinary. |
Then where do you draw the lines between a "good shoot" and a "questionable shoot," and a "questionable shoot" and a "bad shoot?"| I look at probabilities and try not to provoke others into a physical altercation. There are non-verbal cues that the person will give off that will indicate that they are preparing to attack you physically. Squaring shoulders, getting lower to the ground, picking up speed, looking to get in the final burst of speed to take you down. Several others. Requires watchfulness and requires that the individual do their own risk assessment. |
But this risk assessment results in a determination of whether the death penalty is warranted or not. Do you petition your representatives to make all simple assaults capital crimes? If you think you're capable being judge, jury and executioner in the heat of the moment, do you think an actual judge and a jury of peers who aren't running on adrenaline could do worse?
|
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.
| Your level of response seems wholly tied to the other person throwing the first punch before you react to the threat. Allowing the individual into arms length gives that attacker the upper hand. |
And that last statement makes me think you're saying that I should shoot everyone on sight, just to be sure that nobody ever gets within arm's length of me. I can't know which people are psychos who will suddenly launch into me as soon as my back is turned, after all. You're clearly telling me that I shouldn't wait until someone throws a punch, and that I should react to the merest inkling of a threat with the highest level of response I can muster. |
Why does that make you think that?
And then, you throw all sorts of qualifiers on it to (apparently) make it seem more reasonable, but with no seeming consistency. For example, what does it matter if someone has "rage" on their face? I've been assaulted by people who were laughing.
|
Obviously you missed the parts of that persons non-verbal which indicated that he was preparing to assault you.
| As a background check is supposed to catch nuances like that, it would be unlikely that you would have a gun. |
Wait. Now you're appealing to the ability of government agents to do their jobs competently?! Now I'm sure that your position isn't at all self-consistent.
|
I acknowledge that you want an unarmed population.
| It just seems that guns are singled out as the evil bugaboo that they are not. |
I'm not talking about guns specifically, I'm talking about the use of deadly force in response to a "lean" or a "lunge." We'd be having this same discussion if Heckman had kung-fu'd Carroll's leg. You'd be claiming that it was a "good kick" and I'd be wondering what sort of anarchic world you're hankering for, one in which a sneeze could be considered to be a good justification for using the five point palm-exploding heart technique?| Based on a pattern of behavior, certian intent can be assumed. Sometimes wrongly, but it can indicate intent. This is what Heckman was faced with and he reacted as he felt appropriate. |
Apparently, it is now "appropriate" to intentionally escalate a conflict. 
|
Apparently, people aren't allowed to be human.
| Given the state of escalation and Carroll's continued baiting/"step up" type of statements, he was trying to physically intimidate a man much older than himself. |
Carroll was in his truck and not an immediate threat until Heckman threw the doorknob. Are you trying to tell me that that action was justified?
|
From your linked story it was apparent that Carroll was baiting Heckman. This is not my judgement but rather the opinion of the lawyer. In that area, sitting and blocking access to someones property is considered a threatening behavior.
| Remember when Aldrin decked Sibrel? This is the kind of escallation that I am talking about. |
And it's clear from the video that Aldrin should have been charged with assault. Mere words do not warrant a violent response, Aldrin was obviously irrational. By your logic, Val, Sibrel should have blown Buzz away as soon as the old man clenched his fist, and not waited for his actual attack.
|
Sibrel also shoved a book violently at him. By my logic, Sibrel (half the age and twice the weight of Aldrin) would be the one shot by Aldrin who feared for his life and safety. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2012 : 07:07:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. |
In other words, shoot first and let the law sort it out later.| Your level of response seems wholly tied to the other person throwing the first punch before you react to the threat. Allowing the individual into arms length gives that attacker the upper hand. |
And that last statement makes me think you're saying that I should shoot everyone on sight, just to be sure that nobody ever gets within arm's length of me. I can't know which people are psychos who will suddenly launch into me as soon as my back is turned, after all. You're clearly telling me that I shouldn't wait until someone throws a punch, and that I should react to the merest inkling of a threat with the highest level of response I can muster. |
Why does that make you think that? |
Because you're saying it's a bad thing to allow people to get within arm's reach of you.| Obviously you missed the parts of that persons non-verbal which indicated that he was preparing to assault you. |
Obviously?! It's like you were there. | I acknowledge that you want an unarmed population. |
Whether that's something I want or not is completely irrelevant to the point that you have both dismissed and appealed to the government's ability to protect people in this argument.| Apparently, people aren't allowed to be human. |
So you're telling me that all human behavior is appropriate.| From your linked story it was apparent that Carroll was baiting Heckman. |
I didn't link to a story, I linked to the judge's ruling in the case. And it says:Heckman believed that Carroll was “baiting” him. What Heckman believed may have been wrong.| This is not my judgement but rather the opinion of the lawyer. In that area, sitting and blocking access to someones property is considered a threatening behavior. |
In what area, Florida? And throwing a door handle was an appropriate response? If simply sitting in a truck at the end of his driveway was a threat, shouldn't Heckman have shot to kill right then?| Sibrel also shoved a book violently at him. |
Please provide the time in the video at which Sibrel "violently" shoves his Bible at Adlrin.| By my logic, Sibrel (half the age and twice the weight of Aldrin) would be the one shot by Aldrin who feared for his life and safety. |
Sibrel's tactics were widely known at the time, and Aldrin knew of them, too. That's the context. Aldrin must have known his life was not in any danger. The video clearly shows that he got violent when Sibrel called him a liar for the third time. He was only defending his honor, not his life. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 05:52:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.
|
In other words, shoot first and let the law sort it out later.
|
The law ain't there. However, I have a duty to not persue a retreating individual who has not posed a threat to me.
| Your level of response seems wholly tied to the other person throwing the first punch before you react to the threat. Allowing the individual into arms length gives that attacker the upper hand. |
And that last statement makes me think you're saying that I should shoot everyone on sight, just to be sure that nobody ever gets within arm's length of me. I can't know which people are psychos who will suddenly launch into me as soon as my back is turned, after all. You're clearly telling me that I shouldn't wait until someone throws a punch, and that I should react to the merest inkling of a threat with the highest level of response I can muster. |
Why does that make you think that? |
Because you're saying it's a bad thing to allow people to get within arm's reach of you.
|
Strangers whose body language tend to indicate a squaring of the shoulders, shifting center of gravity to the back leg, and staring indicate people who should be kept beyond arms length. These are signs that the person intends to attack.
| Obviously you missed the parts of that persons non-verbal which indicated that he was preparing to assault you. |
Obviously?! It's like you were there. | I acknowledge that you want an unarmed population. |
Whether that's something I want or not is completely irrelevant to the point that you have both dismissed and appealed to the government's ability to protect people in this argument.
|
Based on the immediacy of threat. Someone just walking around looking suspicious and actively retreats from you is not an immediate threat. This is not time sensitive so the calling of authorities to let them handle it is appropriate.
Someone who is very close and posing an immediate threat is time sensitive and should be dealt with. Either by retreating or direct confrontation.
| Apparently, people aren't allowed to be human. |
So you're telling me that all human behavior is appropriate.
|
No. You are insisting that people completely shut off their emotions. That it is understandable that things happen.
| From your linked story it was apparent that Carroll was baiting Heckman. |
I didn't link to a story, I linked to the judge's ruling in the case. And it says:Heckman believed that Carroll was “baiting” him. What Heckman believed may have been wrong.| This is not my judgement but rather the opinion of the lawyer. In that area, sitting and blocking access to someones property is considered a threatening behavior. |
In what area, Florida? And throwing a door handle was an appropriate response? If simply sitting in a truck at the end of his driveway was a threat, shouldn't Heckman have shot to kill right then?
|
In the South in general. Throwing the door handle was Heckman's response. Sitting at the end of the driveway after Heckman told him to leave and announced he was going to call police was threatening behavior. Carroll was, by his words and actions, trying to goad Heckman into a physical confrontation. Heckman threw the door handle in response to compel Carroll to move on.
| Sibrel also shoved a book violently at him. |
Please provide the time in the video at which Sibrel "violently" shoves his Bible at Adlrin.| By my logic, Sibrel (half the age and twice the weight of Aldrin) would be the one shot by Aldrin who feared for his life and safety. |
Sibrel's tactics were widely known at the time, and Aldrin knew of them, too. That's the context. Aldrin must have known his life was not in any danger. The video clearly shows that he got violent when Sibrel called him a liar for the third time. He was only defending his honor, not his life.
|
Witnesses inform police that Sibrel initiated contact.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 06:25:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.
|
In other words, shoot first and let the law sort it out later.
|
The law ain't there. |
Yeah, that's what "later" means.| However, I have a duty to not persue a retreating individual who has not posed a threat to me. |
What about a retreating person who you think poses a threat to you, but isn't actually a threat?| Strangers whose body language tend to indicate a squaring of the shoulders, shifting center of gravity to the back leg, and staring indicate people who should be kept beyond arms length. These are signs that the person intends to attack. |
And it's necessary to assume that this not-yet-initiated attack will be fatal?Based on the immediacy of threat. Someone just walking around looking suspicious and actively retreats from you is not an immediate threat. This is not time sensitive so the calling of authorities to let them handle it is appropriate.
Someone who is very close and posing an immediate threat is time sensitive and should be dealt with. Either by retreating or direct confrontation. |
Define "immediate" better for me. Was Carroll, sitting in his truck at the end of a driveway while Heckman was behind locked doors an "immediate" threat?| No. You are insisting that people completely shut off their emotions. |
Baloney. I'm asking you whether their emotion- and violence-filled responses are appropriate behaviors in a modern, civil society.| That it is understandable that things happen. |
Understandable, but not justifiable as appropriate.| In the South in general. Throwing the door handle was Heckman's response. Sitting at the end of the driveway after Heckman told him to leave and announced he was going to call police was threatening behavior. Carroll was, by his words and actions, trying to goad Heckman into a physical confrontation. Heckman threw the door handle in response to compel Carroll to move on. |
And it wasn't an appropriate response, since it obviously baited Carroll to react violently.That's not visible in the video. And the article also states that Sibrel had done this to Aldrin specifically twice before, thus supporting my contention that Aldrin knew there was no physical threat. It was the word "liar" that goaded Aldrin into violence, not any assault on Sibrel's part. And look at what Aldrin did: punched the guy, and then stood there waiting for a response. He neither pressed him attack nor retreated. He wasn't afraid for his life, even after acting in a way which in Florida after 2005 could have gotten him legally killed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 10:14:37 [Permalink]
|
Speculating about this case before the full story is presented is wrong and making up "what if" fact changing scenarios with past cases is nothing more than tong flapping or with this format finger dancing. All counter productive. Originally posted by HalfMooner
Every observation Zimmerman made on that tape seemed to me to be a paranoid, worst-case interpretation of what he actually saw. Meantime, he was definitely stalking Martin, who had far more (and soon to be proven) cause for paranoia.
|
I agree. By definition if one believes their being followed and they are, it's NOT paranoia. Martin was not paranoid Zimmerman was. Based on the face that Martin had reason to be there and was not up to no good. To bad Martin didn't call 911 saying he was being stalked and feared attacked. Basically that's what he told his girlfriend and that turned out to be correct.
ALSO, it has been reported that it was Trayvon's voice yelling for help over Zimmerman's 911 phone call, recorded when the shots were fired.
I still see it the same way,,,Originally posted by sailingsoul
It's the police who is wrongly applying the law. I don't see how it even applies in this case. This shooter has some serious problems ahead of him.
|
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 11:56:15 [Permalink]
|
Retreating person scenarios can be rather widespread.
It is usually not a threat. That's one of those judgement call things. But if the individual has not demonstrated a perpensity to return to escalate, then there is no threat to deal with.
Attacks:
Isn't likely to be pleasant and if they outclass me physically it is likely that they may kill me. I intend to resist any attack. Primarily by retreating, but if pursued I may have to defend myself. If I feel my life in danger, I can do so with deadly force.
Carroll:
Didn't get shot while sitting in his truck.
Heckman responded in a questionable manner which was the excuse Carroll was waiting for to escalate the confrontation.
Modern society:
Yes, violent reactions are appropriate in a modern society. The criminals aren't going to play by those rules.
Aldrin:
Could not a different explaination be that he was making sure he would not be assaulted from behind? Aldrin popped Sibrel after provocation and made sure that Sibrel was no longer a threat before he moved on. Sibrel would not be protected under the stand your ground law as he was running Aldrin down. Aldrin would be.
"Stand your ground does not mean running someone down and shooting them" - Jeb Bush. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 13:53:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Carroll:
Didn't get shot while sitting in his truck.
Heckman responded in a questionable manner which was the excuse Carroll was waiting for to escalate the confrontation.
|
Heckman did not need to take the bait. Tossing the doornob at Carroll's truck was not sensible. The lessons of hindsight in this case shows that a prudent approach would have been for Heckman to have retrieved his gun, stayed in the house, and continued to call 9-1-1 until successful. If Carroll decides to escalate by trying to break into Heckman's house, then we have an shooting that few beyond family would know much about. Tossing the doornob was just stupid. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 14:43:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Retreating person scenarios can be rather widespread.
It is usually not a threat. That's one of those judgement call things. |
And you think that such judgments can and should be made by people in the heat of the moment.| But if the individual has not demonstrated a perpensity to return to escalate, then there is no threat to deal with. |
Define propensity.Attacks:
Isn't likely to be pleasant and if they outclass me physically it is likely that they may kill me. |
No, it is not likely. I submit that any calculation of probabilities must rely on the available data, which clearly indicate that most people who commit assault do not intend to commit murder, regardless of their size relative to their victim.| I intend to resist any attack. Primarily by retreating, but if pursued I may have to defend myself. If I feel my life in danger, I can do so with deadly force. |
I don't have a problem with any of that, despite your incorrect statement about me wanting an unarmed citizenry. I have a problem with nothing more than a "lunge" or a "lean" being declared to be solid justifications for a "good shoot."Carroll:
Didn't get shot while sitting in his truck. |
So what? I asked if sitting in his truck at the end of Heckman's driveway constituted an immediate threat such that throwing a door handle was an appropriate response. You have declined to answer, despite being the one to introduce the term "immediate threat" into this discussion.| Heckman responded in a questionable manner which was the excuse Carroll was waiting for to escalate the confrontation. |
So now you can read Carroll's mind? James Randi has a million bucks for you to claim.Modern society:
Yes, violent reactions are appropriate in a modern society. The criminals aren't going to play by those rules. |
Why are you playing stupid, Val?
Is a death sentence for a "lunge" an appropriate reaction? Is lunging at another person now a crime?!Aldrin:
Could not a different explaination be that he was making sure he would not be assaulted from behind? Aldrin popped Sibrel after provocation and made sure that Sibrel was no longer a threat before he moved on. |
No, he didn't "make sure" that the threat was gone, he stood there just looking at the threat. Good grief, Val, Sibrel was in arm's reach of Aldrin.
But it all falls apart, anyway, given the context and the fact that Aldrin's punch was obviously because he was angry, not because he was afraid. Watch the video again. Post the timestamps of when Sibrel was "violent" with his Bible. What got Aldrin worked up was Sibrel insulting him. Sibrel says "you're a coward, and a liar, and [punch starts] a thie[punch lands]f."| Sibrel would not be protected under the stand your ground law as he was running Aldrin down. Aldrin would be. |
No, you're wrong, there. For one thing, Sibrel wasn't "running down" Aldrin with the intention of shooting him. For another, the courts have already decided that it doesn't matter if the shooter provokes the victim into attacking.
"Stand Your Ground" actually protects my right to shout insults at you at a bar all night, and then when you try to punch me when I leave, I get to shoot you dead, legally. That, in my opinion, is one of the worst things about these laws. They should not be protecting bullies with guns, but they do.| "Stand your ground does not mean running someone down and shooting them" - Jeb Bush. |
Google fails to find that quote. What Jeb Bush said was this:"This law does not apply to this particular circumstance... Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back." So yeah, Bush wasn't talking about the law not protecting annoying assholes engaged in ambush interviews. It does protect them, if they decide that the people they're ambushing become a threat to their lives. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 23:10:37 [Permalink]
|
Dave, I think you are off the mark, exemplified by this:| And you think that such judgments can and should be made by people in the heat of the moment. |
I think it's not that Val wants to make such decisions, but that in real life, they are sometimes forced upon a person. And in such situations, flight, fight, or take-no-action at all are all behaviors with terrible consequences.
I think it's not that Val's claiming to have extraordinary powers to predict a confrontee's actions or to make such a decision with perfect foresight, but rather that we imperfect people are sometimes placed in situations where possible dire consequences mean we are forced to make decisions based upon far too little information. I think Val's just trying to show how he thinks one can try to make the best of almost impossible circumstances. Now Val can correct me, if he likes. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/03/2012 23:11:56 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 00:13:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I look at probabilities and try not to provoke others into a physical altercation. There are non-verbal cues that the person will give off that will indicate that they are preparing to attack you physically. Squaring shoulders, getting lower to the ground, picking up speed, looking to get in the final burst of speed to take you down. Several others. Requires watchfulness and requires that the individual do their own risk assessment. |
But this risk assessment results in a determination of whether the death penalty is warranted or not. Do you petition your representatives to make all simple assaults capital crimes? If you think you're capable being judge, jury and executioner in the heat of the moment, do you think an actual judge and a jury of peers who aren't running on adrenaline could do worse? |
It's a very different thing to try to give government the right to practice capital punishment and to determine what a person can do when reasonably fearing for their safety in response to the same thing from an aggressor.
If someone attacks me, and I let it happen, I lose control and then am at the mercy of this attacker. I should not have to be put in this situation, so I absolutely think I should be legally allowed to shoot the person. If you don't want to be seriously harmed or killed, don't act as if you're going to attack someone.
Of course this leaves the door open to misjudgments but as is the case with quite a lot of laws (we just can't give a definition of "reasonable" very well). If there's evidence to suggest this, by all means, prosecute the person. But to remove such protections, we would have to allow a person to attack us in such a situation.
On the other hand, if I were attacked, and the attacker leaves without doing more than simple assault, this is the point in which a court looks at it. My life is no longer potentially in danger, so this life is no longer hanging in the balance of the affair at the point in which it is evaluated by a court, where we can take time to look thoroughly at evidence, and make a decision -- this just isn't available in the moment. So the analogy really falls apart here for me. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 03:31:21 [Permalink]
|
LiveScience has an interesting infographic about "Stand Your Ground" laws:
 |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/04/2012 03:32:03 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Unarmed Trayvon Martin gunned down
