EAA bans guns at OSH

[jtheune]

Not true. There are plenty of facts available. Not all of them, of course, but enough to know that the investigation wasn't handled properly and that Zimmerman was the bad guy. Just how bad we don't know yet, but it's obvious he created a situation he didn't have to be in.

How do you know he was the bad guy? The one police report that I saw released said the cop saw that Zimmerman had a injury to his face and the back of his clothes were wet and dirty indicating he had been on his back on the ground. He was acting as a watch person and he approached someone he thought was suspicious. From there on not a lot is known for sure. As far as arresting him, the crime was not observed and he has a reasonable defense. He has acknowledged his actions and so I think the next step is for the grand jury to hear the case and make a recommendation to prosecute or not. At this point about the only fact that is known to be true is that someone was killed. Beyond that it's a lot of speculation and conjuncture.

 

[weilke]

Wanna bet?

Even if no charges are filed, there WILL be a wrongful death civil action coming.

If he is deemed to have used justifiable force, none of that will happen to him.

This is the law:

[SIZE=-1]776.032 [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]—[/SIZE][SIZE=-1](1) [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.[/SIZE]

The family can still use the HOA for allowing that paranoid looney nutcase to be affiliated with the neighborhood watch.

 

[FlySince9]

How do you know he was the bad guy? The one police report that I saw released said the cop saw that Zimmerman had a injury to his face and the back of his clothes were wet and dirty indicating he had been on his back on the ground. He was acting as a watch person and he approached someone he thought was suspicious. From there on not a lot is known for sure. As far as arresting him, the crime was not observed and he has a reasonable defense. He has acknowledged his actions and so I think the next step is for the grand jury to hear the case and make a recommendation to prosecute or not. At this point about the only fact that is known to be true is that someone was killed. Beyond that it's a lot of speculation and conjuncture.

I agree the media needs to back off a bit, but the thing that makes this his fault (Zimmerman) is that the dispatcher told him NOT TO FOLLOW the individual, and he ignored that order. He injected himself into a situation he was told by authorities to stay out of. Community watch folks should do nothing more that "WATCH" and call the police when necessary. They should NEVER confront an individual for any reason.

 

[jtheune]

I agree the media needs to back off a bit, but the thing that makes this his fault (Zimmerman) is that the dispatcher told him NOT TO FOLLOW the individual, and he ignored that order. He injected himself into a situation he was told by authorities to stay out of. Community watch folks should do nothing more that "WATCH" and call the police when necessary. They should NEVER confront an individual for any reason.

It was not a order it was a suggestion and sorry that does not make it Zimmerman's fault. While you may feel that no one should confront a person who he thinks is breaking the law in his community it is not against the law to do so. Now what happened in that engagement is still to be determined but at this point we only have Zimmerman's' word of what happened. let's wait for the facts to emerge before we do the whole judge and jury thing here.

 

[dell30rb]

My University is very publicly free of weapons and simultaneously free of armed invaders. We have hired an armed protective force that does serve as a deterrent to such behavior. We call them police. I honestly feel sorry for some of your guys. You live in a horror nightmare world of your own creation.

Police did a great job here.

Police took nearly six minutes to enter the barricaded building. When they could not break the chains, an officer shot out a deadbolt lock leading into a laboratory; they then moved to a nearby stairwell.[12] As police reached the second floor, they heard Cho fire his final shot;[12][41] Cho's body was discovered in Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's classroom, room 211.[37]

In that time, he expended nearly 200 rounds of ammo, shot 47 people and killed 30. Cops didn't show up until it was all over.

I was in school at the time. I visited VT frequently - my best friend from high school went there. Knew two of the people who were killed.

It was not a great feeling going to classes after that. There are some strange people that go to universities. At any given time there are between 5-6 cops on patrol at my school of 20,000.

I think its crazy that its 100% legal in our state to carry concealed firearms if you have a permit, but it is illegal to do so on state property.

 

[steingar]

If you want, I can start posting up news stories of folks needlessly killed by guns. It isn't hard, they number in the thousands every year. Yeah, bad things can happen if you don't have a gun. They can happen if you do. And a whole set of bad things can happen if you have a gun that can't if you don't.

Like I said, lots of us live with neither guns nor incident for years and years. I don't want to interfere with anyone's gun ownership. But when folks start ranting about not being able to schlep their pieces to Disneyland, it gets a bit much.

 

[FlySince9]

It was not a order it was a suggestion and sorry that does not make it Zimmerman's fault. While you may feel that no one should confront a person who he thinks is breaking the law in his community it is not against the law to do so. Now what happened in that engagement is still to be determined but at this point we only have Zimmerman's' word of what happened. let's wait for the facts to emerge before we do the whole judge and jury thing here.

I agree.

 

[dell30rb]

Like I said, lots of us live with neither guns nor incident for years and years. I don't want to interfere with anyone's gun ownership. But when folks start ranting about not being able to schlep their pieces to Disneyland, it gets a bit much.

When you call those who choose to carry a firearm to protect themselves from crime that happens every day "I honestly feel sorry for some of your guys. You live in a horror nightmare world of your own creation."

It gets a bit much. I think you have the wrong impression.. most don't load up ol sally and then walk around like a deer, stopping to scan for predators every ten seconds.


I don't have a CCW permit or carry a gun. I own guns for hunting which will do just fine for home defense. I like my ability to defend my home, which is in a secluded area. In public, my day to day routine does not have me in any areas of town where I feel I should have a gun, though there have been exceptions to that. For example, one summer when my uncle had me working on some rental properties he owned - some in higher crime areas.

Also you could include schools and universities in that. Probably I am paranoid because I was acquainted with two people who were shot in the VT killings. But it does seem that the 18-23 year old age is not the most stable time in life.. with the added pressure of moving away from home and school work.

 

[Gerhardt]

It was not a order it was a suggestion and sorry that does not make it Zimmerman's fault. While you may feel that no one should confront a person who he thinks is breaking the law in his community it is not against the law to do so.

First, what law could Zimmerman have possibly thought Martin was breaking? Walking at night in Zim's neighborhood while being black?


1. The dispatcher told him he didn't have to follow the guy, that police were on the way. He chose to do so anyway.
2. It was dark out and Martin was on the phone w/ his girlfriend and told her that a guy was following him and that he was concerned about it. At this point we know Zimmerman was the pursuer and Martin was the one being stalked.
3. Zimmerman was armed. Martin was armed only with a cell phone, candy and a soft drink.
4. After the shooting Zimmerman told police he had exited his vehicle only because he wanted to find out what street he was on. He's the neighborhood watch captain, if he didn't know where he was.... So we know that he doesn't have a problem lying to the police .
5. We know that he had a previous arrest for assaulting a police officer and another arrest for domestic violence against a girlfriend, so it's obvious he's prone to violence.

Those are enough facts for a reasonable person to surmise that it was Zimmerman's fault.

 

[Tom Gresham]

I agree the media needs to back off a bit, but the thing that makes this his fault (Zimmerman) is that the dispatcher told him NOT TO FOLLOW the individual, and he ignored that order. He injected himself into a situation he was told by authorities to stay out of. Community watch folks should do nothing more that "WATCH" and call the police when necessary. They should NEVER confront an individual for any reason.

The actual words of the dispatcher were, " . . . we don't need you to do that . . . "

Hardly an order.

The full 911 recording is available.

http://www.freelibertywriters.com/storage/george-zimmerman-call-to-police.mp3

Might be worth the four minutes to listen to that before making up your mind -- either way.

The transcript of the call is here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/326700/full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf

 

[FlySince9]

The actual words of the dispatcher were, " . . . we don't need you to do that . . . "

Hardly an order.

The full 911 recording is available.

http://www.freelibertywriters.com/storage/george-zimmerman-call-to-police.mp3

Might be worth the four minutes to listen to that before making up your mind -- either way.

The transcript of the call is here:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/326700/full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf

I haven't made up my mind... But if it were me, that would have been enough for me to back off.

 

[jtheune]

First, what law could Zimmerman have possibly thought Martin was breaking? Walking at night in Zim's neighborhood while being black?


1. The dispatcher told him he didn't have to follow the guy, that police were on the way. He chose to do so anyway.
2. It was dark out and Martin was on the phone w/ his girlfriend and told her that a guy was following him and that he was concerned about it. At this point we know Zimmerman was the pursuer and Martin was the one being stalked.
3. Zimmerman was armed. Martin was armed only with a cell phone, candy and a soft drink.
4. After the shooting Zimmerman told police he had exited his vehicle only because he wanted to find out what street he was on. He's the neighborhood watch captain, if he didn't know where he was.... So we know that he doesn't have a problem lying to the police .
5. We know that he had a previous arrest for assaulting a police officer and another arrest for domestic violence against a girlfriend, so it's obvious he's prone to violence.

Those are enough facts for a reasonable person to surmise that it was Zimmerman's fault.

Fortunately your not judge and jury on this because you have injected a lot of personal opinion and added information that has not made any of the other reports that have been published.

1. Hi can follow someone he suspects of being a criminal, that is not against the law nor does it make him guilty of anything.
2. No that is not true, that is your opinion. Following someone does not make you a stalker.
3. He did not have a gun, that does not make him unarmed. He was not a small person and could have ( and perhaps did ) attach using his fists and feet.

Can you provide cites for 4 &5 since they don't appear in the reports I can find online

 

[jtheune]

I want to make this clear. I don'[t know if he is guilty or not. Maybe he is but I'm not going to make that decision based on what we have seen so far.

 

[steingar]

When you call those who choose to carry a firearm to protect themselves from crime that happens every day "I honestly feel sorry for some of your guys. You live in a horror nightmare world of your own creation."

It gets a bit much. I think you have the wrong impression.. most don't load up ol sally and then walk around like a deer, stopping to scan for predators every ten seconds.

I should then clarify. If you want your gun in your household, I won't say boo. Not for me, but you're entitled. If feel the need to carry one in your car because you drive around the dodgy parts of town, you won't hear me say a thing. If you feel you have to keep one in the airplane because you might have to land in the wilds of Montana or Detroit, I won't say anything.

But this whole thread is about Oshkosh. Forgive me, but if there is one place on planet Earth where you don't need a weapon, I'd say it's Oshkosh. Those who feel unprotected because they don't have a weapon in their possession in such a place prompted that comment. Sorry there is a time and place for everything, including disarmament.

One question I would ask. I've heard some say they need a gun to protect themselves from the wild on the way in. Reasonable. Don't their aircraft have locks? if not , what do they do about all their avionics?

 

[roncachamp]

If you want, I can start posting up news stories of folks needlessly killed by guns. It isn't hard, they number in the thousands every year. Yeah, bad things can happen if you don't have a gun. They can happen if you do. And a whole set of bad things can happen if you have a gun that can't if you don't.

Please tell me the whole set of bad things that can happen to me if I have a gun that can't if I don't.

 

[Ghery]

When I think of the shooting sports, I think of the fellow I interviewed last weekend. He's part of the Army Marksmanship Unit and headed to the London Olympics. Or I think of Kim Rhode, who I've know since she was 13. Kim will be trying to set an individual record at the Olympics this year. If she gets a medal, she will be the first person in an individual sport to earn an Olympic medal in five consecutive Olympic Games. She got her first (gold) a few days after her 17th birthday. Her event was women's trap, but after they eliminated that event, she made the very difficult switch to skeet, and will most likely medal in that. A most impressive young lady, to be sure.

And I think of a lady I shot against in college (and never beat) who took a bronze in LA in 1984. And she was with the USAMTU back then, as well. And all my friends over the years who I've shot against with black powder (Civil War).

Shooting sports are great.

I suspect most of the participants on this board are free from acquaintances with murderous intent. I doubt strongly I would willingly associate myself with someone who can elicit that degree of loathing in another. I sincerely hope that your conversation with the police was rhetorical in nature.

No acquaintances, but a 2nd cousin who was the victim of one such person. Gun laws prevent crime? Let's see, conviceted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of the 1968 Gun Control Act. Yup, that stopped him. Pistol equipped with a silencer not registered under the requirements of that 1930s law? Violation #2. Oh, and even in California murder is against the law. Violation #3. Did they stop it from happening? Nope. Did my cousin willingly associate with this person? Not unless you consider having been the prosecuter who put him away years earlier as a willing association.

If you want to not have guns, your choice. If I want to have them for whatever reason, my choice. It's a free country.

And, EAA has the right to make the call on their property. You and I may not agree with that choice, but it is their's to make. Heck, my employer won't even allow me to have one in my locked car in the parking lot. Their choice. I can comply or find employment elsewhere.

 

[dell30rb]

But this whole thread is about Oshkosh. Forgive me, but if there is one place on planet Earth where you don't need a weapon, I'd say it's Oshkosh.


One question I would ask. I've heard some say they need a gun to protect themselves from the wild on the way in. Reasonable. Don't their aircraft have locks? if not , what do they do about all their avionics?

I'll agree with you there, I would never feel the need to carry a concealed gun at Oshkosh. However I think its silly to ban concealed guns. I do have a problem with the restriction of concealed weapons on publicly owned land. It is a creeping erosion of the privileges granted by the CCW permit. The point of the permit is to provide regulation (background checks, training) but allow citizens to carry for self defense in public places if they wish.


I have actually never flown an airplane that locked. The locks are mostly broken on all the club planes.

 

[dell30rb]

And, EAA has the right to make the call on their property.

I agree that privately owned business on private property can make their own calls. Isn't the airfield publicly owned though?

 

[airguy]

That depends on the state you're in and its laws. Many states are now adopting "Castle Laws", and others that protect you from civil suits in the even it is a "good shoot". Still, it is going to cost you $$$ for other reasons.

Yup. Even if it's painfully obvious that castle doctrine applies, your going to be investigated and (in Texas at least) your case will end up before a grand jury for them to indict or no-bill you. That will incur some significant legal fees even if everything goes your way.

 

[steingar]

Please tell me the whole set of bad things that can happen to me if I have a gun that can't if I don't.

Your child could take it to school and shoot someone, you could murder someone and then commit suicide, you could shoot your children then yourself, your child could shoot him or her self with your gun, your child could shoot your other child, you could commit suicide, really lots of things. I could go on, but I have things to do.

 

[weilke]

Yup. Even if it's painfully obvious that castle doctrine applies, your going to be investigated and (in Texas at least) your case will end up before a grand jury for them to indict or no-bill you. That will incur some significant legal fees even if everything goes your way.

And that's ok. Life begins at conception right, and it is holy and something we need to protect. Society values life and peace, and that is why the actions of someone who takes a life are subject to judicial review.

What happened in FL is that lobbyists wrote a bad law that short-changes the judicial process and bumbling clueless lawmakers and a governor signed off on it. They were told by law enforcement that it would hinder the investigation and prosecution of crimes, yet they passed it anyway. What we are seing now is the predictable outcome of bad law.

 

[Skylane81E]

Your child could take it to school and shoot someone, you could murder someone and then commit suicide, you could shoot your children then yourself, your child could shoot him or her self with your gun, your child could shoot your other child, you could commit suicide, really lots of things. I could go on, but I have things to do.

Even as a gun-nut I have to agree here and say "Duh." Owning a gun is a very real responsibility.

 

[Bob Noel]

And, EAA has the right to make the call on their property. You and I may not agree with that choice, but it is their's to make.

I'm pretty sure most people here on POA don't dispute that EAA has the right to make that choice.

What hasn't happened is someone providing a coherent reason for the EAA choosing to ban firearms.

 

[steingar]

Even as a gun-nut I have to agree here and say "Duh." Owning a gun is a very real responsibility.

Agreed. If you own one, if is utterly fine by me. Indeed, I would go to some lengths to protect your right to own one. But there are adverse consequences that can occur that are far less likely for those without firearms.

Which is more likely (adverse events with or sans firearms) is a reasonable question with no clear answer. However, what is clear is adverse consequences are almost entirely restricted to the firearm-owning community. I recall the figure (though would be at pains to back it up) that firearm ownership increases the odds of firearm tragedy by several orders of magnitude.

That is, a firearm-toting individual shooting up non-firearm individuals is far less common than a firearm-toting individual harming a member of his or her family or close associate. All that said, the odds of an armed individual to see any sort of adverse consequence is quite low, I am told there is a firearm for every man, woman, and child in the US. However, only a tenth of one percent of these are involved in gun tragedies on a yearly basis.

I suspect strongly that if the kinds of tragedies witnessed at Virginia tech and Northern Ohio were the norm (firearm wielding individuals harming the unarmed) firearm ownership in this country would be far, far more restrictive than it is now.

 

[callmesven]

Today I'm going to the museum. I better bring my gun in case a gun battle breaks out.

 

[Gerhardt]

I'm certainly a firearms enthusiast. And I carry almost everywhere it's not prohibited. I honestly don't think I'll ever need to remove my guns from their holsters. I carry on the off-chance that I'm wrong. But I certainly don't feel threatened or dangerously exposed when I don't carry.

I have no problem leaving my guns in the truck when going to a business with a no-firearms placard, or to any one of the other places where CCW is prohibited. I respect businesses' requests to not carry, as well as the EAA's request in this case. I've never understood someone getting upset because a business doesn't want people packing guns in their store. I certainly don't understand someone getting upset because an organization has requested that civilians not be armed at their crowded family-oriented event.

 

[weilke]

I'm certainly a firearms enthusiast. And I carry almost everywhere it's not prohibited. I honestly don't think I'll ever need to remove my guns from their holsters. I carry on the off-chance that I'm wrong. But I certainly don't feel threatened or dangerously exposed when I don't carry.

I have no problem leaving my guns in the truck when going to a business with a no-firearms placard, or to any one of the other places where CCW is prohibited. I respect businesses' requests to not carry, as well as the EAA's request in this case. I've never understood someone getting upset because a business doesn't want people packing guns in their store. I certainly don't understand someone getting upset because an organization has requested that civilians not be armed at their crowded family-oriented event.

You are waaay too reasonable here.

 

[fgcason]

When you call those who choose to carry a firearm to protect themselves from crime that happens every day "I honestly feel sorry for some of your guys. You live in a horror nightmare world of your own creation."

It gets a bit much. I think you have the wrong impression.. most don't load up ol sally and then walk around like a deer, stopping to scan for predators every ten seconds.

I don't have a CCW permit or carry a gun. I own guns for hunting which will do just fine for home defense.

That's one of the points that is often missed. Just because you have a gun or carry does not immediately mean you're out looking for a reason to shoot someone at the slightest perceived provocation. Actually if you have guns, you're more likely to be better aware of your surroundings to avoid situations where it might be needed. That's probably why the news isn't full of CCW shootings every 10 minutes. Gun toting honest people avoid those situations in the first place or back out of the area when they realize they're somewhere that's not safe.

A gun is just a tool. That's all it is. Nothing more. It's a specialized tool however so is a torque wrench.

The people I know who carry or have a gun available tends to treat it socially much like a tool. It's buried in your toolbox or under the sofa or where ever and it's not talked about or paraded around or played with. Unless you're out wrenching on something (harmless target practicing) it doesn't exist in society except that the person who has it knows it's available on demand.

People freak out about guns yet they don't worry about wrenches or screwdrivers or a handful of sockets or keys or 2x4's or hammers. Seriously I can easily deliver fatal damage to someone right now where I'm sitting by taking 2 steps and coming up with a big screwdriver and a large combination wrench. Half an hour ago it was a sledge hammer and bricks. Full swing with a 20lb sledge to the side of the head will deliver the same real world damage as a 44 at 3 feet. (Real world damage meaning actual survivability of the target, not mathematical energy nitpicking whiney stuff)

It's about the mindset, not the actual tool.

Guns and tools don't kill people. People kill people. I don't see anyone banning all people from attending mass get togethers like OSH or football games or times square on new years.

 

[N801BH]

And that's ok. Life begins at conception right, and it is holy and something we need to protect. .

.

OH boy... So , if life begins at conception why does the government not prosecute all crack head pregnant mothers, or obese pregnant mothers, or any other woman carrying a baby with a medical issue that would transfer to the unborn baby.. That would be child abuse,, right . Maybe all the religious organizations that want to inject themselves in private peoples lives can come forward with billions of dollars to subsidize the money the feds will have to pay out for kids born with defects, only then would I let them practice what they preach.........Otherwise STFU.

Hello spin zone..

 

[steingar]

That's one of the points that is often missed. Just because you have a gun or carry does not immediately mean you're out looking for a reason to shoot someone at the slightest perceived provocation. Actually if you have guns, you're more likely to be better aware of your surroundings to avoid situations where it might be needed. That's probably why the news isn't full of CCW shootings every 10 minutes. Gun toting honest people avoid those situations in the first place or back out of the area when they realize they're somewhere that's not safe.

My quote was because we're talking about Oshkosh. A gigantic aviation gathering full of families and pilots, not narcos and gang bangers. That's why I made the comment that I did.

 

[gprellwitz]

I'm pretty sure most people here on POA don't dispute that EAA has the right to make that choice.

What hasn't happened is someone providing a coherent reason for the EAA choosing to ban firearms.

Well, aside from the fact that they are under no obligation to GIVE such a reason, if you're interested, then ask Jeff Skiles! He's now in charge of the Museum!

 

[roncachamp]

Your child could take it to school and shoot someone,

I have no children in school.

you could murder someone and then commit suicide,

I couldn't commit murder.

you could shoot your children then yourself,

How does that differ from the previous example?

your child could shoot him or her self with your gun,

My child wouldn't have access to my gun.

your child could shoot your other child,

See previous response.

you could commit suicide,

I could if I wanted to. But in that case I would have achieved the outcome I desired which makes it a good thing.

really lots of things. I could go on, but I have things to do.

The count is zero so far, I'm confident it will remain there.

 

[weilke]

.
OH boy... So , if life begins at conception why does the government not prosecute all crack head pregnant mothers, or obese pregnant mothers, or any other woman carrying a baby with a medical issue that would transfer to the unborn baby..

The goverment already does that to some extent and there are plenty of zealots who wish to see this expanded.

The point was that if you take a life, you may have justify your actions in front of the representatives of your community, be it a grand-jury or at trial. If that part of the process gets eliminated for a subset of homicides, we will see more homicides.

 

[Tom Gresham]

For those who have more than a passing interest in the subject of defensive gun uses, this is long, but very well done.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

 

[N801BH]

The goverment already does that to some extent and there are plenty of zealots who wish to see this expanded.

The point was that if you take a life, you may have justify your actions in front of the representatives of your community, be it a grand-jury or at trial. If that part of the process gets eliminated for a subset of homicides, we will see more homicides.

Agreed...

 

[Bob Noel]

Well, aside from the fact that they are under no obligation to GIVE such a reason, if you're interested, then ask Jeff Skiles! He's not in charge of the Museum!

I don't believe anyone is claiming that you or anyone else is under any obligation to "GIVE" a reason. For sure and for certain I'm not making any such claim.

Now back to argueing over ridiculous strawman...

 

[roncachamp]

The goverment already does that to some extent and there are plenty of zealots who wish to see this expanded.

The point was that if you take a life, you may have justify your actions in front of the representatives of your community, be it a grand-jury or at trial. If that part of the process gets eliminated for a subset of homicides, we will see more homicides.

Unless that life is taken due to an abortion, of course.

 

[denverpilot]

We're up to abortion now. Can someone mention a certain German Dictator to officially end this thread now?

 

[N801BH]

We're up to abortion now. Can someone mention a certain German Dictator to officially end this thread now?

Ok.. you axed for it....

HITLER.......

 

[roncachamp]

We're up to abortion now. Can someone mention a certain German Dictator to officially end this thread now?

I'll bite, Paul Ludwig Hans Anton von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg.