Pass a law to ban this:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/26...acked-her-home

In article ,
says...

Pass a law to ban this:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/26...acked-her-home

And a gun locked in a safe would have prevented this HOW?

On 6/27/13 8:17 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

Pass a law to ban this:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/26...acked-her-home

And a gun locked in a safe would have prevented this HOW?



Love the name of that URL: "Fox News Insider." Is that where the crazies
get their "news"?

On 6/27/13 11:29 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:17:58 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Pass a law to ban this:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/26...acked-her-home

And a gun locked in a safe would have prevented this HOW?

You buy a safe that is quick opening like this

http://www.gunsafes.com/GunVault-Min...1000C-DLX.html

Put it in your "safe room" (with a door that locks) and retreat there
and lock the door when you first think you are in trouble.
That buys you the 5 seconds you need to open the safe and retrieve
your gun. It also gives you a very good legal defense if the bad guy
kicks in the door and you shoot him, even in the "obligation to
retreat" states.

A big dog will give you even more time.


None of this is necessary, of course, if you come across a kid on the
street carrying a soft drink and a bag of candy. Just shoot him. Make
sure you are in Florida, of course.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ...

None of this is necessary, of course, if you come across a kid on the
street carrying a soft drink and a bag of candy. Just shoot him. Make
sure you are in Florida, of course.

-------------------------------------------------------

Been watching the trial this morning. Tough call on the witness. On
one hand she comes across as being genuine, but she also comes across
as being somewhat arrogant and disrespectful. Not sure how the jury
is going to be influenced.

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:54:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Been watching the trial this morning. Tough call on the witness. On
one hand she comes across as being genuine, but she also comes across
as being somewhat arrogant and disrespectful. Not sure how the jury
is going to be influenced.

===

She seems to have "remembered" a lot of extra details since her
original depositions. I wonder who coached her.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:54:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Been watching the trial this morning. Tough call on the witness. On
one hand she comes across as being genuine, but she also comes
across
as being somewhat arrogant and disrespectful. Not sure how the jury
is going to be influenced.

===

She seems to have "remembered" a lot of extra details since her
original depositions. I wonder who coached her.

------------------------------------------

According to her, "she got some sleep".

She sure sounds like she was counseled and maybe even coached though.
She seems unable to recall, speak coherently to general, softball
questions or even understand them. But when it comes to critical
elements of the case, she seems to become much more attentive, alert
and specific in how she answers. If her answers accurately reflect
her recollections, that's good. But if they are based on being
"schooled" in preparation of her court testimony and not necessarily
what she remembers, then this trial is a joke.

On 6/27/2013 12:10 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:54:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Been watching the trial this morning. Tough call on the witness. On
one hand she comes across as being genuine, but she also comes across
as being somewhat arrogant and disrespectful. Not sure how the jury
is going to be influenced.

===

She seems to have "remembered" a lot of extra details since her
original depositions. I wonder who coached her.


I am getting the feeling she feels she is somewhat of a thug, for the
jury it could mean that her friends are thugs too... It only backs up
the impression the pre-trial publicity on his cell phone videos, drug
use, school suspensions, etc propagated...

On 6/27/2013 11:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 6/27/13 11:29 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:17:58 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Pass a law to ban this:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/26...acked-her-home


And a gun locked in a safe would have prevented this HOW?

You buy a safe that is quick opening like this

http://www.gunsafes.com/GunVault-Min...1000C-DLX.html

Put it in your "safe room" (with a door that locks) and retreat there
and lock the door when you first think you are in trouble.
That buys you the 5 seconds you need to open the safe and retrieve
your gun. It also gives you a very good legal defense if the bad guy
kicks in the door and you shoot him, even in the "obligation to
retreat" states.

A big dog will give you even more time.


None of this is necessary, of course, if you come across a kid on the
street carrying a soft drink and a bag of candy. Just shoot him. Make
sure you are in Florida, of course.

It's not quite that simple. There is some necessary preparation. First
you need to position the 200lb kid face down on the pavement and get him
to scrape his knuckles. Then you need to bloddy the back of your head
and break your nose. Finally, you need to lie on your back, shimmy under
the boy thug and carefully place a 9mm slug in his chest cavity. All
while no one is looking.

On 6/27/2013 3:59 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:42:10 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 6/27/13 11:29 AM, wrote:

None of this is necessary, of course, if you come across a kid on the
street carrying a soft drink and a bag of candy. Just shoot him. Make
sure you are in Florida, of course.

You keep leaving out the "punch in the nose" and "beat your head on
the concrete" part


And make sure Al Sharpton doesn't come in and coach your main witness
into changing her testimony left and right....