Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

Quote:

RexRed wrote:
Logic is made up of statements and responses. Zimmerman disobeyed a DIRECT ORDER from the police...

Rex, please explain how
the police acquired jurisdiction to stop anyone
from FOLLOWING someone. I challenge that jurisdiction.

Your comment makes no sense. You made a statement about republicans and gun violence, I'm asking you to back it up.

Can you show that Republicans have perpetuated the gun violence in this country?

Views on politics[edit source | editbeta]
Records show that Loughner was registered as an Independent and voted in 2006 and 2008, but not in 2010.[39][40] A YouTube channel under an account called "Classitup10" was linked to Loughner. (There have been numerous copies of 'impostor accounts' such as 'JaredLoughner' and 'Classitup1O'.)[41][42]
Loughner's high school friend Zach Osler said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right."[17] But a former classmate, Caitie Parker, who attended high school and college with Loughner, described his political views prior to 2007 as "left wing, quite liberal,"[43] "radical."[44]
In the aftermath of the shooting, the Anti-Defamation League reviewed messages by Loughner, and concluded that there was a "disjointed theme that runs through Loughner's writings", which was a "distrust for and dislike of the government." It "manifested itself in various ways" – for instance, in the belief that the government used the control of language and grammar to brainwash people, the notion that the government was creating "infinite currency" without the backing of gold and silver, or the assertion that NASA was faking spaceflights.[45]
Dislike for Gabrielle Giffords[edit source | editbeta]
According to a former friend, Bryce Tierney, Loughner had expressed a longstanding dislike for Gabrielle Giffords. Tierney recalled that Loughner had often said that women should not hold positions of power.[46][47] He repeatedly derided Giffords as a "fake". This belief intensified after he attended her August 25, 2007 event when she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer his question: "What is government if words have no meaning?"[19] Loughner kept Giffords' form letter, which thanked him for attending the 2007 event, in the same box as an envelope which was scrawled with phrases like "die bitch" and "assassination plans have been made".[48] Zane Gutierrez, a friend, later told the New York Times that Loughner's anger would also "well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government."[47]

You have lost it haven't you. The guy who shot Gabby Giffords was not a Republican or a conservative. You guys tried to prove it right after the shooting but had nothing. So now that it has been a few years you think people have forgotten? This high horse your ridding has smaller legs than you think it does. Every site you posted was from the time of the shooting when it was easy for you guys from the left to make a stink out of blame game and were wrong at the same time. Just like the Colorado theater shooting, the media couldn't wait to find a link to him and rightwing politics, even went as far to find the wrong person associated with the Tea Party.

Jared Loughner is described by his friends:

Quote:

Views on politics[edit source | editbeta]
Records show that Loughner was registered as an Independent and voted in 2006 and 2008, but not in 2010.[39][40] A YouTube channel under an account called "Classitup10" was linked to Loughner. (There have been numerous copies of 'impostor accounts' such as 'JaredLoughner' and 'Classitup1O'.)[41][42]
Loughner's high school friend Zach Osler said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right."[17] But a former classmate, Caitie Parker, who attended high school and college with Loughner, described his political views prior to 2007 as "left wing, quite liberal,"[43] "radical."[44]
In the aftermath of the shooting, the Anti-Defamation League reviewed messages by Loughner, and concluded that there was a "disjointed theme that runs through Loughner's writings", which was a "distrust for and dislike of the government." It "manifested itself in various ways" – for instance, in the belief that the government used the control of language and grammar to brainwash people, the notion that the government was creating "infinite currency" without the backing of gold and silver, or the assertion that NASA was faking spaceflights.[45]
Dislike for Gabrielle Giffords[edit source | editbeta]
According to a former friend, Bryce Tierney, Loughner had expressed a longstanding dislike for Gabrielle Giffords. Tierney recalled that Loughner had often said that women should not hold positions of power.[46][47] He repeatedly derided Giffords as a "fake". This belief intensified after he attended her August 25, 2007 event when she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer his question: "What is government if words have no meaning?"[19] Loughner kept Giffords' form letter, which thanked him for attending the 2007 event, in the same box as an envelope which was scrawled with phrases like "die bitch" and "assassination plans have been made".[48] Zane Gutierrez, a friend, later told the New York Times that Loughner's anger would also "well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government."[47]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner

Quote:

Quote:

RexRed wrote:
Logic is made up of statements and responses. Zimmerman disobeyed a DIRECT ORDER from the police...

Rex, please explain how
the police acquired jurisdiction to stop anyone
from FOLLOWING someone. I challenge that jurisdiction.

Actually, Rex is wrong here, David. It was not a direct order...nor an order of any kind.

It was a reasoned and reasonable suggestion.

In effect, the dispatcher was saying, "If you follow that person, bad things could happen. Let the police take care of it."

When you think about it...the dispatcher had a valid point.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

RexRed wrote:
Logic is made up of statements and responses. Zimmerman disobeyed a DIRECT ORDER from the police...

Rex, please explain how
the police acquired jurisdiction to stop anyone
from FOLLOWING someone. I challenge that jurisdiction.

Actually, Rex is wrong here, David. It was not a direct order...nor an order of any kind.

It was a reasoned and reasonable suggestion.

In effect, the dispatcher was saying, "If you follow that person, bad things could happen. Let the police take care of it."

When you think about it...the dispatcher had a valid point.

I voted your post up because in some part I agree with you Frank... A suggestion starts with "I think...". There was an inference to possible consequences in his tone.

These are the exact words the police officer said to Zimmerman...

The police officer asked Zimmerman, "ARE YOU FOLLOWING HIM"? Zimmerman said, "Yep." The police officer responded, "OKAY, WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT!'

That means, "back off" not, "follow at your own risk". That means stop, not, pursue and confront. I would not actually call it an indirect suggestion or inference... Though consequences were inferred which also include counter legal implications against Zimmerman for disobeying that order..

An indirect order would have been in writing or a message relayed to a friend....

Quote:

RexRed wrote:
Logic is made up of statements and responses. Zimmerman disobeyed a DIRECT ORDER from the police...

Rex, please explain how
the police acquired jurisdiction to stop anyone
from FOLLOWING someone. I challenge that jurisdiction.

Actually, Rex is wrong here, David.
It was not a direct order...nor an order of any kind. [Yes; I know, Frank. David]

It was a reasoned and reasonable suggestion.

In effect, the dispatcher was saying, "If you follow that person, bad things could happen. Let the police take care of it."

When you think about it...the dispatcher had a valid point.

Quote:

Quote:

RexRed wrote:
Logic is made up of statements and responses. Zimmerman disobeyed a DIRECT ORDER from the police...

Rex, please explain how
the police acquired jurisdiction to stop anyone
from FOLLOWING someone. I challenge that jurisdiction.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Actually, Rex is wrong here, David.
It was not a direct order...nor an order of any kind. [Yes; I know, Frank. David]

It was a reasoned and reasonable suggestion.

In effect, the dispatcher was saying, "If you follow that person, bad things could happen. Let the police take care of it."

When you think about it...the dispatcher had a valid point.

The same trouble cud have resulted no matter WHO followed him.
The police get involved in fights all the time.

It is error to assume that if THE POLICE had caught him,
then there 'd have been a different result (tho that is among the sundry possibilities).





David

Loughner's high school friend Zach Osler said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right."[17] But a former classmate, Caitie Parker, who attended high school and college with Loughner, described his political views prior to 2007 as "left wing, quite liberal,"[43] "radical."[44]

Rex, please explain how
the police acquired jurisdiction to stop anyone
from FOLLOWING someone. I challenge that jurisdiction.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Rex, please explain how
the police acquired jurisdiction to stop anyone
from FOLLOWING someone. I challenge that jurisdiction.

Well if you really would like to know, one police officer's word is worth that of two civilians. This is why it takes two civilians to arrest another civilian yet it only takes one police officer to arrest a civilian.

This gives a police officer direct jurisdiction over a civilian and their actions. In the end it is the judicial system that judges if the police and their "direct orders" are ultimately appropriate... If the police officer thought this person was a possible risk to another civilian this also gave this officer "reasonable cause" to detain or obstruct Zimmerman's pursuit. Apparently that was the case by this police sergeant's tone and demeanor towards Zimmerman on the phone...

Apparently Zimmerman was more of a nuisance rather than an asset to the "neighborhood watch". This sergeant's experienced intuition ultimately proved to be correct...

Zimmerman disobeyed a direct order from a "police sergeant" (who has disciplinary jurisdiction over even other officers)...

Rex, please explain how
the police acquired jurisdiction to stop anyone
from FOLLOWING someone. I challenge that jurisdiction.

Well if you really would like to know, one police officer's word is worth that of two civilians. This is why it takes two civilians to arrest another civilian yet it only takes one police officer to arrest a civilian.

This gives a police officer direct jurisdiction over a civilian and their actions. In the end it is the judicial system that judges if the police and their "direct orders" are ultimately appropriate... If the police officer thought this person was a possible risk to another civilian this also gave this officer "reasonable cause" to detain or obstruct Zimmerman's pursuit. Apparently that was the case by this police sergeant's tone and demeanor towards Zimmerman on the phone...

Apparently Zimmerman was more of a nuisance rather than an asset to the "neighborhood watch". This sergeant's experienced intuition ultimately proved to be correct...

Zimmerman disobeyed a direct order from a "police sergeant" (who has disciplinary jurisdiction over even other officers)...

RexRed wrote:

This gives a police officer direct jurisdiction over a civilian and their actions. In the end it is the judicial system that judges if the police and their "direct orders" are ultimately appropriate... If the police officer thought this person was a possible risk to another civilian this also gave this officer "reasonable cause" to detain or obstruct Zimmerman's pursuit. Apparently that was the case by this police sergeant's tone and demeanor towards Zimmerman on the phone...

Apparently Zimmerman was more of a nuisance rather than an asset to the "neighborhood watch". This sergeant's experienced intuition ultimately proved to be correct...

Zimmerman disobeyed a direct order from a "police sergeant" (who has disciplinary jurisdiction over even other officers)...

Rex, b4 I address these points that u have raised,
will u tell us the SOURCE of your information ?