TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:http://www.ktrh.com/pages/michaelberry. ... e=11512641

Zimmerman faked the car accident per a liberal radio host. No way this thread is not going to 200.

03Lightningrocks wrote:One thing for sure. He certainly doesn't mind helping when he perceives a person is in trouble.

philip964 wrote:Bottomline, NOT GUILTY of 2nd degree, I agree with. However, To me Zimmerman's actions were what we might expect a CHL neighborhood watch person would do. Not prudent, but not really out of line for what his neighbors expect him to be doing.

What is surprising has been the reaction to the shooting. It appears that the majority of the public and the newsmedia believes that a CHL is only to fire his gun, if the other person is armed and he is in fear of his life.

After this incident, I cannot imagine a CHL firing their gun in any situation out side of their home and not being initially arrested, especially if they are Caucasian and the person shot at is any other race.

He has been a lightning rod for the CHL community. We have all learned from his mistakes. It will cause us to hesitate in the future, only time will tell if that will work in our favor.

Imagine the outrage today, if Z had fired twice? What would be the reaction if TM was an honor student and was really college bound?

Bullitt wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:...Oh.. The reason I told you I was a military brat would not have to be explained if you spent any time beyond the six month boot camp. Military families movie all over the country. That was the point... Sorry it went over your head... But not real surprised.

Sorry you outed yourself as Pasadena's pogie bait, eh? Boot camp is eight weeks, not six months. You got a DD214 or not? Now quit trolling. Just stick to the subject.

A few posts back you said you were done here.

I sure did say that, but since you and SS decided to reply in continuance, here I am again. I'm prepared to end the dialog as long as you quit calling on me to answer. But you can't resist can you? Especially if you think I am not here so that it looks to the others like you have the last victorious word. Surprise, this is a discussion board. There is no victor.

Valor wrote:Those who believe Zimmerman was not imprudent in getting out of his car, would you have done it, unarmed? I realize some of you won’t leave your couch unarmed, but humor me. Ahead of your responses, if you believe someone is of nefarious character, why would you create a situation that could lead to a confrontation? Regardless of you having a legal right, especially without a damsel in distress; why would you???

Valor wrote:4. After all the pejorative descriptions like “thug” referencing Martin, I am called out for using “batman” to describe a vigilante. That sir, is not beyond my comprehension. And ahead of the pile-on; it was not proven or was it prudent in a court of law to label Martin a thug, only that Zimmerman felt fear for his life or grave bodily damage to justify using deadly force.

MeMelYup wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Bullitt wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:...Exactly which action of Zimmerman's were "unjustifited"? Zimmerman said...

Oh, did Zimmerman testify? My bad

See if you can tell the difference between these two:

Zimmerman said
Zimmerman testified

No, Zimmerman did not testify. He did exactly what I claimed he did, he said he did not confront. Then the prosecution submitted that statement as evidence. There was no evidece that disputed that, but plenty that supported it.

But, I agree with you, it's "your bad". You keep making that claim, that he confronted, with absolutely nothing to back it up.

If you listen to what is being said, most people are quoting the news papers and magazines. Not what the trial transcripts indicate.

• No 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman to do anything. Zimmerman didn't call 911, he called the non-emergency number
• The police dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman not to follow; he told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that". Testimony in court indicated that the dispatchers tell callers that to avoid liability if something happened while following. (Side note here - my adult daughter was involved in a hit and run. She followed the girl that hit her and called 911. 911 told her the exact same words "we don't need you to do that". She did anyway. When the police were arresting the girl, they said "We're glad you were able to follow her.")
• Martin did not buy tea, he bought a soft drink called Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail (Skittles and that drink are 2/3 of the ingredients needed for a drug cocktail called "Lean").
• Zimmerman said to the dispatcher (in the unedited version of the tape) "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." Though no one testified about it, the ME's report showed that Martin did have THC in his system.

• Martin purchased his candy and drink, and then took 40 minutes to make a 10 minute trip, in the rain (giving credence to Zimmerman's story that he "he's just walking around".
• Martin's "not girlfriend" testified that he put up his hood on the way home because of the rain, but that wasn't the truth. He had his hood up when he bought his items in the store. One would have to wonder why the "enhanced" version of the truth. I suspect it's so the argument could be made that Zimmerman easily recognized he was black. "Following a black kid" sounds so much jucier than "following someone covering their head with a hoodie" - but I'll grant you it's just speculation on my part.
• Martin's "not girlfriend" testified that he was almost at his father's girlfriend's house. When Martin confronted Zimmerman, he was about 70 yards from there, but only about 30 yard's from Zimmerman's truck (which lends credence to Zimmerman's story that he was on the way back to his truck)

mojo84 wrote:What good is doing to retry the case on here? Wasn't the guy already acquitted using our country's judicial system?

Bullitt wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:...Exactly which action of Zimmerman's were "unjustifited"? Zimmerman said...

Oh, did Zimmerman testify? My bad

Bullitt wrote:

philip964 wrote:

wow.

As a CHL holder, I'm not so wowed by the video and the announcer falls into the same trap as the other media idiots. "Zimmerman, a white Hispanic." 'Fraid not. Zimmerman has a mother who is just about 100% Amer-Indian Peruvian, and his father is "white." That makes Zimmerman just like most Latinos, a mestizo. Just because the miscegenation is only one generation back, and the last name is German, that doesn't make him white. Why in this case is Zimmerman afforded "white" status? There are other comments in there that could have a truck driven through them.

Again, I agree with the verdict of NOT GUILTY. TM was probably not what we would consider a model character, no doubt. That's not sufficient to justify Zimmerman's actions. However, as far as the incident of the shooting goes, this will be an endless debate. The events for me are triggered when Zimmerman decides to get out of his car to Pursue & Confront, an irresponsible action for a CHL holder IMO. The kill site is not anywhere near a place where Zimmerman would need to be in order to get a street name or an approximate location, and he doesn't have to obey any dispatcher directives either.

Bullitt wrote: Lol! You must not be from the "mean streets." Beating a "cracka" down and doing drugs aren't even on the list to qualify as a "thug." That's baby stuff!

howdy wrote:I learned and always taught that the sure sign of a great Pilot is someone who uses his superior brain to avoid situations where you might have to use your superior skill.

As a CHL Instructor, I have been using the Zimmerman case as a "teaching moment" to show where you can be doing everything legally and still find yourself in a very difficult position. I was taught in my initial CHL class and again during CHL Instructor school that we should avoid as much as possible situations where the use of my handgun might be required. I won't go to River Oaks this week-end even though it would be perfectly legal.

As a CHL holder, I hold myself to a higher standard when it comes to obeying the law. The State of Florida's entire case was Z's " following, getting out of his car, confronting and killing TM. We know that it was all legal, but Z almost went to jail for the rest of his useful life and he will never walk the streets like you and me. Argue these points all you want. The proof is in the pudding. What Z did was not very bright and I for one will not imitate it.

Bullitt wrote:

RottenApple wrote: Actually, no it wouldn't. If your google-fu were strong, you'd have searched before opening your....well....flexing your fingers. Under Florida law, neither harassment or stalking fits. And if you check the laws in the other 49 states, you won't find a single one that calls following a person harassment or stalking. At least not without additional actions to go with it.

Florida Penal Code 784.048

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

Actually if your reading & comprehension skills were strong you would comprehend better what I wrote and what this statute states, "opening your....well....flexing your fingers..." apparently has backfired on you.

Like I said, a jury could call it either way. 1a is sufficient to prove the point and we don't even need to read the rest of the statute. The dispatcher has nothing to do with it, who by the way also told Z he didn't need to be following TM. Following TM could be said to have caused emotional distress, and following certainly served no legitimate purpose. There is no evidence to suggest that TM was in the neighborhood to commit a crime.

But nice try!

which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.