You ignore material info and hang on to the fucking back entrance which holds no bearing on the case.
I haven't seen one other person talk about the fucking back door as much as you. WHY?
The fact the Zimmerman said Martin was running in the opposite direction of Zimmerman on the 911 tape tells the prelude to the confrontation.
How can someone who said he stopped following him and running in the opposite direction of Zimmerman, say he saw martin disappear and then one minute later say he was blindly confronted and attacked?
How can any person with any sense believe that a person would lose sight of a potentially dangerous person?
The idea that Martin was running away from Zimmerman, disappeared, and then ran back towards Zimmerman as he was going to his car in a matter of second’s sounds like bullshit.
Martin’s girlfriend was one the phone with Martin and said he was scared and was being followed and was approached by Zimmerman and said Zimmerman asked Martin “what he was doing there?”
Why did the officer who arrived on scene put on his report HOMICIDE–NEGLIG-MANSL–UNESSESSARY KILLING TO PREVENT UNLAWFUL ACT?
Again, the continued protestation and repudiation of the evidence by callous republicans is no surprise.
You ignore material info and hang on to the fucking back entrance which holds no bearing on the case.
I haven't seen one other person talk about the fucking back door as much as you. WHY?
The fact the Zimmerman said Martin was running in the opposite direction of Zimmerman on the 911 tape tells the prelude to the confrontation.
How can someone who said he stopped following him and running in the opposite direction of Zimmerman, say he saw martin disappear and then one minute later say he was blindly confronted and attacked?
How can any person with any sense believe that a person would lose sight of a potentially dangerous person?
The idea that Martin was running away from Zimmerman, disappeared, and then ran back towards Zimmerman as he was going to his car in a matter of second’s sounds like bullshit.
Martin’s girlfriend was one the phone with Martin and said he was scared and was being followed and was approached by Zimmerman and said Zimmerman asked Martin “what he was doing there?”
Why did the officer who arrived on scene put on his report HOMICIDE–NEGLIG-MANSL–UNESSESSARY KILLING TO PREVENT UNLAWFUL ACT?
Again, the continued protestation and repudiation of the evidence by callous republicans is no surprise.
You ignore material info and hang on to the fucking back entrance which holds no bearing on the case.
I haven't seen one other person talk about the fucking back door as much as you. WHY?
The material info doesn't tell the story either. Z was in no official capacity as a watchman - was self appointed, wasn't his job & he had no right even following Martin based on what he says he observed or questioning him. Conversely, Martin had no obligation to even acknowledge Z, much less answer questions.
My guess is the kid was angry (cuz he wasn't doing anything wrong) & a little scared that he was being followed, started walking fast & thought he'd lost him, then was confronted when Z pulled up & got out of his car. Based on the 911 call & the fact he even made it, it seems clear Z already thought M was up to no good & who knows what was said, but was probably insulting & demeaning towards Martin to some degree. Even if Z started to return to his car (& there's no way to know that, only have his word but is possible), it's understandable that Martin might have had a delayed reaction of indignaton/anger that he was even followed/questioned accusingly & went back to him where they exchanged more words, got into a fight which Martin was winning, then Z shot him. The fact that Martin was seen on top or whoever was hear screamin/moanin for help says nothing about anything.
Noone here is saying that Z intended to shoot & kill Martin from the outset, but 1 thing is clear. It was Z who created & provoked this entire situation & an unarmed kid who was doing nothing unlawful before it started ended up shot to death. A jury should decide this case...
You ignore material info and hang on to the fucking back entrance which holds no bearing on the case.
I haven't seen one other person talk about the fucking back door as much as you. WHY?
The material info doesn't tell the story either. Z was in no official capacity as a watchman - was self appointed, wasn't his job & he had no right even following Martin based on what he says he observed or questioning him. Conversely, Martin had no obligation to even acknowledge Z, much less answer questions.
My guess is the kid was angry (cuz he wasn't doing anything wrong) & a little scared that he was being followed, started walking fast & thought he'd lost him, then was confronted when Z pulled up & got out of his car. Based on the 911 call & the fact he even made it, it seems clear Z already thought M was up to no good & who knows what was said, but was probably insulting & demeaning towards Martin to some degree. Even if Z started to return to his car (& there's no way to know that, only have his word but is possible), it's understandable that Martin might have had a delayed reaction of indignaton/anger that he was even followed/questioned accusingly & went back to him where they exchanged more words, got into a fight which Martin was winning, then Z shot him. The fact that Martin was seen on top or whoever was hear screamin/moanin for help says nothing about anything.
Noone here is saying that Z intended to shoot & kill Martin from the outset, but 1 thing is clear. It was Z who created & provoked this entire situation & an unarmed kid who was doing nothing unlawful before it started ended up shot to death. A jury should decide this case...
And that's partly why the "stand your ground" laws are bullshit as far as I'm concerned. There should have been an arrest & jury trial in this case even with those statutes imo. Hopefully, there still will be - will be a difficult case on both sides, but everything needs to come to light here under oath & let a jury decide. The known facts alone obviously do not tell the whole story...
The debate right now is ridiculous. "Self-defence" or not shouldn't really be the focus. Although, however unfortunate, I do understand why that is.
The real problem is that nobody is talking about the obvious issues with a vigilante society that allows Zimmerman to play police officer, PICK UP A GUN to pursue somebody he thought was a 'suspect,' get into an altercation, shoot that unarmed person dead, and then be DEFENDED AS THE VICTIM
This is beyond absurd. Only in the gun loving USA...
And that's partly why the "stand your ground" laws are bullshit as far as I'm concerned. There should have been an arrest & jury trial in this case even with those statutes imo. Hopefully, there still will be - will be a difficult case on both sides, but everything needs to come to light here under oath & let a jury decide. The known facts alone obviously do not tell the whole story...
The debate right now is ridiculous. "Self-defence" or not shouldn't really be the focus. Although, however unfortunate, I do understand why that is.
The real problem is that nobody is talking about the obvious issues with a vigilante society that allows Zimmerman to play police officer, PICK UP A GUN to pursue somebody he thought was a 'suspect,' get into an altercation, shoot that unarmed person dead, and then be DEFENDED AS THE VICTIM
This is beyond absurd. Only in the gun loving USA...
but 1 thing is clear. It was Z who created & provokedthis entire situation & an unarmed kid who was doing nothing unlawful before it started ended up shot to death. A jury should decide this case...
but 1 thing is clear. It was Z who created & provokedthis entire situation & an unarmed kid who was doing nothing unlawful before it started ended up shot to death. A jury should decide this case...
We live in a nation of spineless jellyfish, that allow our govt. to walk all over us, and criminals run rampant.
Vigilante Society
In a "Vigilante Society" Zimmerman would have already been killed by Treyvon's dad ( if he wasn't out trying to capitalize on his son's death), and most likely Teyvon's dad would have been killed by Zimmerman's dad. etc.
We live in a nation of spineless jellyfish, that allow our govt. to walk all over us, and criminals run rampant.
Vigilante Society
In a "Vigilante Society" Zimmerman would have already been killed by Treyvon's dad ( if he wasn't out trying to capitalize on his son's death), and most likely Teyvon's dad would have been killed by Zimmerman's dad. etc.
The material info doesn't tell the story either. Z was in no official capacity as a watchman - was self appointed, wasn't his job & he had no right even following Martin based on what he says he observed or questioning him. Conversely, Martin had no obligation to even acknowledge Z, much less answer questions. could you link the law that says that Zimmerman is not allowed to form a neighborhood watch, or observe someone walking on a public street?
My guess is the kid was angry (cuz he wasn't doing anything wrong) & a little scared that he was being followed, started walking fast & thought he'd lost him, then was confronted when Z pulled up & got out of his car. Based on the 911 call & the fact he even made it, it seems clear Z already thought M was up to no good & who knows what was said, but was probably insulting & demeaning towards Martin to some degree. Even if Z started to return to his car (& there's no way to know that, only have his word but is possible), it's understandable that Martin might have had a delayed reaction of indignaton/anger that he was even followed/questioned accusingly & went back to him where they exchanged more words, got into a fight which Martin was winning, then Z shot him. The fact that Martin was seen on top or whoever was hear screamin/moanin for help says nothing about anything. It says that Martin was on top of Zimmerman reigning down blows, it also says that this is the only eye witness testimony you will get (unless someone else comes forward). This does not bode well if you are in the camp trying to imprison Zimmerman.
Noone here is saying that Z intended to shoot & kill Martin from the outset, but 1 thing is clear. It was Z who created & provoked this entire situation & an unarmed kid who was doing nothing unlawful before it started ended up shot to death. A jury should decide this case...As I understand it, it does not matter how you got there. Especially if it is a public place. We do not know how the events precipitated, and we may never know. I personally think ZImmerman walks away scott free, with his right to carry in tact.
And I still do not understand how people are saying that he was told to stop following Teyvon?
As I recall the statement by the operator was "we do not need you to do that" .
Not equal to , stop following him, will not stand in court.
Zimmerman's attorney could argue, that Zimmerman was already doing more than was required of him, that He DID NOT need to be patrolling his neighborhood that night, but after a rash of burglaries he was determined to keep watch.
Zimmerman though that the statement that he was not needed to follow was an option for Zimmerman's own safety, and had he been told to stop pursuit that he would have immediately stopped.
The material info doesn't tell the story either. Z was in no official capacity as a watchman - was self appointed, wasn't his job & he had no right even following Martin based on what he says he observed or questioning him. Conversely, Martin had no obligation to even acknowledge Z, much less answer questions. could you link the law that says that Zimmerman is not allowed to form a neighborhood watch, or observe someone walking on a public street?
My guess is the kid was angry (cuz he wasn't doing anything wrong) & a little scared that he was being followed, started walking fast & thought he'd lost him, then was confronted when Z pulled up & got out of his car. Based on the 911 call & the fact he even made it, it seems clear Z already thought M was up to no good & who knows what was said, but was probably insulting & demeaning towards Martin to some degree. Even if Z started to return to his car (& there's no way to know that, only have his word but is possible), it's understandable that Martin might have had a delayed reaction of indignaton/anger that he was even followed/questioned accusingly & went back to him where they exchanged more words, got into a fight which Martin was winning, then Z shot him. The fact that Martin was seen on top or whoever was hear screamin/moanin for help says nothing about anything. It says that Martin was on top of Zimmerman reigning down blows, it also says that this is the only eye witness testimony you will get (unless someone else comes forward). This does not bode well if you are in the camp trying to imprison Zimmerman.
Noone here is saying that Z intended to shoot & kill Martin from the outset, but 1 thing is clear. It was Z who created & provoked this entire situation & an unarmed kid who was doing nothing unlawful before it started ended up shot to death. A jury should decide this case...As I understand it, it does not matter how you got there. Especially if it is a public place. We do not know how the events precipitated, and we may never know. I personally think ZImmerman walks away scott free, with his right to carry in tact.
And I still do not understand how people are saying that he was told to stop following Teyvon?
As I recall the statement by the operator was "we do not need you to do that" .
Not equal to , stop following him, will not stand in court.
Zimmerman's attorney could argue, that Zimmerman was already doing more than was required of him, that He DID NOT need to be patrolling his neighborhood that night, but after a rash of burglaries he was determined to keep watch.
Zimmerman though that the statement that he was not needed to follow was an option for Zimmerman's own safety, and had he been told to stop pursuit that he would have immediately stopped.
The real problem is that nobody is talking about the obvious issues with a vigilante society that allows Zimmerman to play police officer, PICK UP A GUN to pursue somebody he thought was a 'suspect,' get into an altercation, shoot that unarmed person dead, and then be DEFENDED AS THE VICTIM
The real problem is that nobody is talking about the obvious issues with a vigilante society that allows Zimmerman to play police officer, PICK UP A GUN to pursue somebody he thought was a 'suspect,' get into an altercation, shoot that unarmed person dead, and then be DEFENDED AS THE VICTIM
We - Used by a speaker to refer to him or her and one or more other people considered together. Don’t - A statement of what should not be done. Need - A requirement, necessary duty, or obligation. You - Used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing. To - Expressing motion in the direction of. Do – Perform. That - Used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the speaker.
Don’t - A statement of what should not be done. Do – Perform. That - Used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the speaker.
Yeah, we don't need you to do that and don't do that are two different meanings?
We - Used by a speaker to refer to him or her and one or more other people considered together. Don’t - A statement of what should not be done. Need - A requirement, necessary duty, or obligation. You - Used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing. To - Expressing motion in the direction of. Do – Perform. That - Used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the speaker.
Don’t - A statement of what should not be done. Do – Perform. That - Used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the speaker.
Yeah, we don't need you to do that and don't do that are two different meanings?
I am not defending him, I think he should have a day in court. The problem is that he is already guilty in the court of public opinoin, and there are hundreds of followers on the @killzimmerman Twitter page. Bounties, threats etc.
My natural reaction is to wait things out to see what the facts are. I am sick of hearing about it in the media but there is so much that is unknown.
How about this:
Zimmerman was chosen as a neighborhood watch coordinator by his neighbors, according to Wendy Dorival, who organizes Neighborhood Watch for the Sanford Police Department.
I am not defending him, I think he should have a day in court. The problem is that he is already guilty in the court of public opinoin, and there are hundreds of followers on the @killzimmerman Twitter page. Bounties, threats etc.
My natural reaction is to wait things out to see what the facts are. I am sick of hearing about it in the media but there is so much that is unknown.
How about this:
Zimmerman was chosen as a neighborhood watch coordinator by his neighbors, according to Wendy Dorival, who organizes Neighborhood Watch for the Sanford Police Department.
The fact the Zimmerman said Martin was running in the opposite direction of Zimmerman on the 911 tape tells the prelude to the confrontation.
How can someone who said he stopped following him and running in the opposite direction of Zimmerman, say he saw martin disappear and then one minute later say he was blindly confronted and attacked?
How can any person with any sense believe that a person would lose sight of a potentially dangerous person?
The idea that Martin was running away from Zimmerman, disappeared, and then ran back towards Zimmerman as he was going to his car in a matter of second’s sounds like bullshit.
Martin’s girlfriend was one the phone with Martin and said he was scared and was being followed and was approached by Zimmerman and said Zimmerman asked Martin “what he was doing there?”
Why did the officer who arrived on scene put on his report HOMICIDE–NEGLIG-MANSL–UNESSESSARY KILLING TO PREVENT UNLAWFUL ACT?
Again, the continued protestation and repudiation of the evidence by callous republicans is no surprise.
You use the word disappear and I've seen the words in reports as 'lost sight' Two very different meanings.
If he turned around to head back to his vehicle that would explain how he lost sight of Trayvon. Ya right, nobody in the history of the free world has lost sight of a dangerous person have they?
The report actually said that Trayvon asked him why he was following him first.
Idiotic liberal non objective vigilante's jump to wrong conclusions then ignore sound evidence and rationale.
The fact the Zimmerman said Martin was running in the opposite direction of Zimmerman on the 911 tape tells the prelude to the confrontation.
How can someone who said he stopped following him and running in the opposite direction of Zimmerman, say he saw martin disappear and then one minute later say he was blindly confronted and attacked?
How can any person with any sense believe that a person would lose sight of a potentially dangerous person?
The idea that Martin was running away from Zimmerman, disappeared, and then ran back towards Zimmerman as he was going to his car in a matter of second’s sounds like bullshit.
Martin’s girlfriend was one the phone with Martin and said he was scared and was being followed and was approached by Zimmerman and said Zimmerman asked Martin “what he was doing there?”
Why did the officer who arrived on scene put on his report HOMICIDE–NEGLIG-MANSL–UNESSESSARY KILLING TO PREVENT UNLAWFUL ACT?
Again, the continued protestation and repudiation of the evidence by callous republicans is no surprise.
You use the word disappear and I've seen the words in reports as 'lost sight' Two very different meanings.
If he turned around to head back to his vehicle that would explain how he lost sight of Trayvon. Ya right, nobody in the history of the free world has lost sight of a dangerous person have they?
The report actually said that Trayvon asked him why he was following him first.
Idiotic liberal non objective vigilante's jump to wrong conclusions then ignore sound evidence and rationale.
Where the fuck did he "pick up" the gun?? Was he legally precluded from carrying? Did the police investigate? Was Martin a wannabe gangster with gold "teath" and an arrest record who attacked Zim?
Oh well.
Time to refocus on what a shitty job obama is doing................
Where the fuck did he "pick up" the gun?? Was he legally precluded from carrying? Did the police investigate? Was Martin a wannabe gangster with gold "teath" and an arrest record who attacked Zim?
Oh well.
Time to refocus on what a shitty job obama is doing................
We - Used by a speaker to refer to him or her and one or more other people considered together. Don’t - A statement of what should not be done. Need - A requirement, necessary duty, or obligation. You - Used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing. To - Expressing motion in the direction of. Do – Perform. That - Used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the speaker.
Don’t - A statement of what should not be done. Do – Perform. That - Used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the speaker.
Yeah, we don't need you to do that and don't do that are two different meanings?
You are dead wrong.
We don't need you to do that. Is not the same as Don't do that.
Using your fucktarded breakdown above one could infer that to mean. that it is not required for you to do that,
or it is not a necessary duty for you to follow him,
We - Used by a speaker to refer to him or her and one or more other people considered together. Don’t - A statement of what should not be done. Need - A requirement, necessary duty, or obligation. You - Used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing. To - Expressing motion in the direction of. Do – Perform. That - Used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the speaker.
Don’t - A statement of what should not be done. Do – Perform. That - Used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the speaker.
Yeah, we don't need you to do that and don't do that are two different meanings?
You are dead wrong.
We don't need you to do that. Is not the same as Don't do that.
Using your fucktarded breakdown above one could infer that to mean. that it is not required for you to do that,
or it is not a necessary duty for you to follow him,
The material info doesn't tell the story either. Z was in no official capacity as a watchman - was self appointed, wasn't his job & he had no right even following Martin based on what he says he observed or questioning him. Conversely, Martin had no obligation to even acknowledge Z, much less answer questions.
My guess is the kid was angry (cuz he wasn't doing anything wrong) & a little scared that he was being followed, started walking fast & thought he'd lost him, then was confronted when Z pulled up & got out of his car. Based on the 911 call & the fact he even made it, it seems clear Z already thought M was up to no good & who knows what was said, but was probably insulting & demeaning towards Martin to some degree. Even if Z started to return to his car (& there's no way to know that, only have his word but is possible), it's understandable that Martin might have had a delayed reaction of indignaton/anger that he was even followed/questioned accusingly & went back to him where they exchanged more words, got into a fight which Martin was winning, then Z shot him. The fact that Martin was seen on top or whoever was hear screamin/moanin for help says nothing about anything.
Noone here is saying that Z intended to shoot & kill Martin from the outset, but 1 thing is clear. It was Z who created & provoked this entire situation & an unarmed kid who was doing nothing unlawful before it started ended up shot to death. A jury should decide this case...
Complete bullshit cashin. Last time I checked it is unlawful to punch someone in the face and bang their head into the pavement.
Show me the law that says you are aloud to punch someone in the face.
The material info doesn't tell the story either. Z was in no official capacity as a watchman - was self appointed, wasn't his job & he had no right even following Martin based on what he says he observed or questioning him. Conversely, Martin had no obligation to even acknowledge Z, much less answer questions.
My guess is the kid was angry (cuz he wasn't doing anything wrong) & a little scared that he was being followed, started walking fast & thought he'd lost him, then was confronted when Z pulled up & got out of his car. Based on the 911 call & the fact he even made it, it seems clear Z already thought M was up to no good & who knows what was said, but was probably insulting & demeaning towards Martin to some degree. Even if Z started to return to his car (& there's no way to know that, only have his word but is possible), it's understandable that Martin might have had a delayed reaction of indignaton/anger that he was even followed/questioned accusingly & went back to him where they exchanged more words, got into a fight which Martin was winning, then Z shot him. The fact that Martin was seen on top or whoever was hear screamin/moanin for help says nothing about anything.
Noone here is saying that Z intended to shoot & kill Martin from the outset, but 1 thing is clear. It was Z who created & provoked this entire situation & an unarmed kid who was doing nothing unlawful before it started ended up shot to death. A jury should decide this case...
Complete bullshit cashin. Last time I checked it is unlawful to punch someone in the face and bang their head into the pavement.
Show me the law that says you are aloud to punch someone in the face.
rick - 1st of all, I didn't say he wasn't allowed to form a neighborhood watch or observe anyone.I'm saying he was in no official capacity to where anyone had the obligation to answer any of his questions. You're puttin words in my mouth there & I'm not in any "camp". Am only saying a jury should decide after hearing all the related & relevant testimony -
Hope the "stand your ground" laws are repealed soon. They're redundant at best & loaded with unintended consequences. They may benefit funeral homes, gun manufacturers/dealers & the NRA, but certainly don't serve the cause of justice in America.
rick - 1st of all, I didn't say he wasn't allowed to form a neighborhood watch or observe anyone.I'm saying he was in no official capacity to where anyone had the obligation to answer any of his questions. You're puttin words in my mouth there & I'm not in any "camp". Am only saying a jury should decide after hearing all the related & relevant testimony -
Hope the "stand your ground" laws are repealed soon. They're redundant at best & loaded with unintended consequences. They may benefit funeral homes, gun manufacturers/dealers & the NRA, but certainly don't serve the cause of justice in America.
I think that Zimmerman will walk on this, I really do not know if he is guilty of a crime in the state of Florida.
Even though I am probably the most stringent 2nd amendment guy in this forum, I think that the Stand your ground law kind of sets a weird standard for justified homicide.
I would have to look more into it, but I do not think at this point I am against it being repealed.
I like the standards in my state, and I like the castle law, I also like the Castle law to include one's vehicle, as it does in my state. I think the Stand your ground law allows for disproportionate force to be used. Only a small assault could be met with deadly force.
I would rather go to hands than arms if someone assaults me.
I think that Zimmerman will walk on this, I really do not know if he is guilty of a crime in the state of Florida.
Even though I am probably the most stringent 2nd amendment guy in this forum, I think that the Stand your ground law kind of sets a weird standard for justified homicide.
I would have to look more into it, but I do not think at this point I am against it being repealed.
I like the standards in my state, and I like the castle law, I also like the Castle law to include one's vehicle, as it does in my state. I think the Stand your ground law allows for disproportionate force to be used. Only a small assault could be met with deadly force.
I would rather go to hands than arms if someone assaults me.
Do you believe that someone armed with a gun ( zimmerman ) could be in fear of their life if another unarmed person has broken their nose, knocked them to the ground, and is continuing to punch them?
Do you believe that someone armed with a gun ( zimmerman ) could be in fear of their life if another unarmed person has broken their nose, knocked them to the ground, and is continuing to punch them?
At the time, Timoney was finding it challenging enough to reduce the use of deadly physical force by the officers of his department. And here was a law proposing to give civilians with no training or experience even greater leeway than cops to blaze away.
At the time, Timoney was finding it challenging enough to reduce the use of deadly physical force by the officers of his department. And here was a law proposing to give civilians with no training or experience even greater leeway than cops to blaze away.
Fuck, I guess it would be easy to attack you because if I saw someone who looked like who could hurt me I would even blink. The only time Zimmerman told the truth was on the 911 tape. The report actually said that Trayvon asked him why he was following him first. Zimmerman said that not Martin’s girlfriend. Lose sight of - Be no longer able to see Disappear - Cease to be visible Republicans have zero capability of having an analytic mind. You should not do that and don’t do that and disappear and lose sight. Arguing over meticulous bullshit and are always so damn persnickety. What the fuck does Martin kicking his ass have to do with the fact that Zimmerman started the entire situation and since he started it, he deserves to be charged with manslaughter? Fuck, you guys are morons. I think like a cop and you think like a dumbass vigilante uneducated derrrr republican.
Fuck, I guess it would be easy to attack you because if I saw someone who looked like who could hurt me I would even blink. The only time Zimmerman told the truth was on the 911 tape. The report actually said that Trayvon asked him why he was following him first. Zimmerman said that not Martin’s girlfriend. Lose sight of - Be no longer able to see Disappear - Cease to be visible Republicans have zero capability of having an analytic mind. You should not do that and don’t do that and disappear and lose sight. Arguing over meticulous bullshit and are always so damn persnickety. What the fuck does Martin kicking his ass have to do with the fact that Zimmerman started the entire situation and since he started it, he deserves to be charged with manslaughter? Fuck, you guys are morons. I think like a cop and you think like a dumbass vigilante uneducated derrrr republican.
At the time, Timoney was finding it challenging enough to reduce the use of deadly physical force by the officers of his department. And here was a law proposing to give civilians with no training or experience even greater leeway than cops to blaze away.
At the time, Timoney was finding it challenging enough to reduce the use of deadly physical force by the officers of his department. And here was a law proposing to give civilians with no training or experience even greater leeway than cops to blaze away.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.