Scruit

I disagree with "less control". The evidence so far points to M violently overreacting to Z trying to find out what M was doing in a gated community where he didn't live and wasn't recognized. We're getting dangerously close to saying; "If you see something suspicious, look away".

Saw a guy on a Harley with his GF. Jeans shorts, tank tops, flip-flops, no gloves, no helmet - and he was tailgating me at 65mph less than one bike length behind. Then he got upset because I was leaving a 2 second following distance so he passed me and got up behind a guy in front of me - just as close. The traffic was very weird, lots of slowdowns by 10-20mph for no apparent reason other than standing waves from people being too bunched up. Each time this happened hs relied on the fact he was actually riding on the white line between lanes to give him stopping distance. There are old riders, and there are bold riders....

One shot deals. No good. Shotgun taser is the only multi-shot I'm aware of. I have a taser myself.

Murder 2, for following someone, which is not illegal?

No opportunity? Seriosuly? M had the opportunity to NOT punch Z in the nose, pin him down "MMA style" and punch him until he had two black eyes and gashes in the back of his head from his head hitting the sidewalk... A missed opportunity there, don't you agree? How about responding verbally, like "I'm visiting family", "none of your business" etc? Your mistake is the most sense you've made so far.

The police reports, autopsy, labs, witness interviews etc are all available for download. They paint a very different picture than the media-fueled Zimmerman-hatefest started out with. Unless that prosecutor has video of an execution-style slaying hidden up her sleeve the jury is going to acquit Z faster than you can say "Media Persecution"

What should his duties have been? And how is that different from someone who is not in the neighborhood watch? The next big question... Did Z "follow" or "chase" M? And what is the distinction between? I believe the distinction is whether Z was walking or running. So which was it? Chasing is a threatening action (although no a violent on, and not grounds to attack someone) and Following is perfectly legal. We've already had to deal with the supporter-invented and media-perpetuated assumption that Z had his gun out was he was approaching Martin. Let's not forget it was Martin's lawyer who said Stand-Your-Ground was a NON-rebuttable presumption of innocence. He's either a liar or a bad lawyer. Think about it for a second: If the lawyer truly believed that SYG was a non-rebuttable presumption of innocence then he is arguing that Z could never be charged. Not only is SYG a *rebuttable* presumption of innocence, but SYG is a non-issue in this case because the evidence released so far is showing that at the time of the deadly force there was no opportunity to retreat. Also, the original officer said that if Z had stayed in his car to wait for police, or simply engaged M in dialog expressing concern, then the situation could have been avoided. Martin's GF said that she heard the words "What are you doing here?" before the phone went dead. That sure as heck sounds like "engaging M in dialog" to me.

I'm not letting you drag me in again. And the word is "maim".

I just hit that point where I realize I've been wasting my breath talking to you. You have no clue about guns, no clue about law and no clue about self-defense.

Can't wait until it's released 25 years from now.

I use jacketed unicorn tusk too. Jacketed in fairy wings. When they hit the bad guy then don't kill him, then inspire him with a sense of social joy and make him want to hug me, not rob me. After sharing his deepest,darkest feelings and experiencing the joy of getting it off his chest we sing kumbaya for hours until he falls in a magical dream-filled sleep full of friendly dragons and pixies. Then I taze him in the mansack.

My carry guns are loaded with the ammunition most likely to stop the threat as quickly possible. If the BG dies as a result of me stopping him attacking me then that's unfortunate.

Fixed. Carrying hollowpoints makes no difference in his intent. Bullets are deadly - period. There's no such thing as super-deadly bullets. If you think that Ball ammo is designed to wound not kill then you're ludicrously misinformed. Think about this... In .380 auto many people carry ball ammo because HP expands too quickly to penetrate deeply enough to be reliably effective. In that case, ball ammo is carried for it's superior penetration, and is the mythical "super-deadly bullet". If Z was carrying explosive-tipped incendiary rounds, then yeah, maybe the article has a point. But he's not. he's carrying HP, the standard round used by police and CCW'ers alike.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/18/justice/florida-teen-shooting-details/index.html?hpt=ju_c2 This is the tidbit I have been waiting for. Now, can he PROVE this? I've wanted to know right from the start exactly when the gun came into play. Another thought just occurred... If Zimmerman was following Martin with the gun in his hand, such that Martin felt he had to use violence to defend himself, then would he not have said something to his girlfriend? If some guy was following ME with a gun and I was on the phone then that's the first thing I would mention. Or hang up and dial 911. If Martin was in fear of his safety then I why wouldn't he ask his girlfriend for some kind of help, like to call his dad. Or hang up and call his dad who was nearby - or call 911. Basically, the media would have us believe that Zimmerman chased him down with gun out and in his hand, yet Martin made no attempt to summon help via his phone, and instead continued the conversation with his girlfriend - and ultimately willingly engaged in the confrontation that led to the shooting (Telling his girlfriend that he is not going to run any more). None of those behaviors are consistent to being chased by a man with a gun in his hand.

Carb'd = don't touch the airflow. Even a K&N panel filter will require a rejet on some bikes.

But while we're at it... I sold a car with a shuddering trans. Was very clear on it - even gave the guy a new vacuum modulator (which is what I thought the problem was). The bill of sale clearly stated as-is. The only way to make it safer was I could have written "Trans flares on 2-3 shift when cold". The guy said he was a mechanic and could put a junkyard trans in it for a couple of hundred bucks so he was fine with that. One of the reasons they don't enforce warranties on as-is sales is that the buyer could easily replace a good part with a bad part and then make you pay for it. Example: i have a Subaru with a bad manual transmission. I go out and buy an identical car with a good trans, switch transmissions and then take the purchased car (now with bad trans) back to the seller and demand my money back, or the cost of a trans repair. Refund? Good used transmission for free. Seller pays for repair? I now have a 10k car that I got for 8k that I can sell for a 2k profit AND a new trans. Bargain.

Twice in the last 3 days I've seen guys riding with 8-10yo kids on the back with no gear on the kid. Just a helmet. Now I ride with my 8yo on the back so that's not my problem. An adult can make a conscious, free choice for himself if he wants to gear up or not, but I think taking a child on a bike with no gear is ludicrous.

This is OhioRiders. Maturity is for squares.

Someone needs to design a hybrid handlebar setup for it - telescoping so you can switch between clip-on low or touring-high.

What would? No pic?

Crap. How can I be expected to find the existing story when it's posted with none of the correct keywords, doesn't quote any part of the story and it's different URL?

You been stalking my facebook again?

http://www.kctv5.com/story/18426323/man-dies-while-receiving-lap-dance

I just watched an interview with a Martin family lawyer. They acknowledge now that Martin attacked Zimmerman but argue that Martin "had to" attack Zimmerman because Zimmernan was "chasing him with a gun". This goes back to one of the first question I asked... *When* did the gun come into play? Did he have it in his hand as he was following Martin? Or did it stay in the holster until Martin had already started the physical confrontation? Just because I have something on me while I follow someone doesn't mean I followed them "with an X". If I have a leatherman on my belt then would you say I Followed them with a knife?" What about "Followed them with a pair of boxer shorts"?? If the Martin family wants me to believe that Martin struck Zimmerman in self defense because Zimmerman "Followed Martin with a gun" then they will have to prove to me that Martin KNEW Zimmerman had a gun. I believe the fact that Martin stopped running and turned around to face Zimmerman is strong evidence that Martin did not know about the gun. So then what? Did Zimmerman produce the gun while they were standing face-to-face talking and Martin attacked Zimmerman upon seeing the gun? Then Martin is acting in self defense and Zimmerman is the initiator of the violent part of the confrontation. Did Martin attack Zimmerman simply because he was being followed? It's not illegal for follow someone in public, so Zimmermand actions, while unwise, would not be ground to attack him - making Martin the instigator and Zimmerman would be defending. The attorney also said that Zimmerman's injuries are not life threatening. They don't have to be - you can use deadly force when you have an honest fear of serious injury or death. Imagine yourself pinned to the ground and punched hard enough to leave black eyes, broken nose and cuts on your head - now do you think it was reasonable for Zimmerman to feel he was at risk of serious injury or death? I've had my nose broken before - it's not fun. It was while sparring. Now, I stayed in and kept sparring, but that's because it's a (relatively) controlled environment and my life is not in danger. Given that same bell-ringing injury (and the loss of breathing through the nose) I can certainly understand why someone with a broken nose and pinned to the floor being punched is going to be in extreme fear.