TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

speedsix wrote:...Zimmerman was in no way conceivable "standing his ground"...he was playing police...and pursued the boy even after being told not to...he does not represent most responsible CHLers and we have no moral or ethical responsibility to support him...
...as to the fight to preserve "Stand your ground"-type laws...certainly...

This misrepresents the facts. First of all, Stand Your Ground never entered in to the Zimmerman trial and was not part of the defense strategy. The judge chose to include the verbiage in the jury instructions, but that's the only time the law even entered the case. Secondly, Zimmerman wasn't playing police, he was playing observer, which is what he was supposed to be doing. Thirdly, there was zero evidence, ZERO, entered during the trial that he pursued Trayvon. The media keeps repeating that lie, and that's exactly what it is, a lie. Finally, if Zimmerman's case isn't a perfect example of self defense, I don't know what is. How many blows to the head do you think someone should have to absorb, EVEN IF THEY STARTED THE FIGHT, before they have a right to defend themselves against great bodily harm or death?

If we can't stand up for Zimmerman, then why carry a weapon?

A-R wrote:Not sure if this has been posted before (can't keep up with this ever-expanding thread), but found this video on CNN today:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

speedsix wrote:...if you would stay on the subject of the post you challenged, then you could admit that this: "It most CERTAINLY IS about force of law. The end results, whether it be a murder conviction or an acquittal, or no charges filed, its ALL about the force of law." is not true or applicable to what I posted...nor what I just replied...you're ignoring both posts' content and talking about the events that happened AFTER what I posted about...because it "sounds good"...I wasn't talking about anything in what you said here...and you know it...you're trying to justify what he did initially...and you can't...so you have to go back to something else...

...he was wrong...he started it...he ignored everything he'd been told in training...was told by the dispatcher not to follow(semantics aren't important...we all know what she communicated...and he said OK)...and still, backed up by the latest "true story" issued by police...followed for several minutes...ANY communication...ANY asking what the guy was doing there...was totally wrong...like I've been saying it was...and THAT'S what started this fiasco...whether he's charged, convicted, acquitted, or rewarded for what might have happened after...that's not what I was talking about...clearly...and what I WAS talking about is not about the force of law...

speedsix wrote:...they'd tell the person found following someone who "looked suspicious" that that was a great way to start trouble...and tell them to mind their own business...report things that seemed suspicious and stay out of it...for sure...just like the NW rules were written...by the police dept who sponsored them...it's not about force of law...it's about doing what he was taught to do and not doing what he was taught not to do...similar to a security guard's acting outside his authority or a cop acting outside his...if he's going to be part of the solution...there are rules to follow...instead, he chose to be part of the problem...and look what he caused...by his actions...even BEFORE he opened his mouth...it's common sense...or, in this case...complete lack of it...observe and report as he was taught to do...we wouldn't be having this discussion...he started the whole thing...and what happened afterwards...we may never get the truth of...

...don't start none and there won't BE none surely applies to this case...the descent into chaos isn't surprising...

speedsix wrote: but if NW "Captain Z" had followed his training...page 1, let alone the rest of it...it wouldn't have happened...he was playing police or he never would have been following, much less chasing(as evidenced by his breathless 911 conversation which prompted the dispatcher's question...) anyone...whether or not he spoke to the deceased, he was still all wrong for doing ANYTHING but calling it in...and he knew it...the conversation/conflict/battle/shooting could not have happened if he'd just done what the NW rules said...and he was acting as a NW watch person, whether he was on a scheduled patrol or not...no following...no confrontation...he was just wrong...from his own lips...

...try trailing someone on a dark night through any neighborhood, much less chasing them if they run, and see what it gets you when the police show up...they're not going to hold with "not breaking any law"...this guy knew better...he hadn't even seen him doing anything wrong...just walking...(unless he changes that part of his story,too...)

A-R wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Plus, they plan to turn him over to federal authorities..........on exactly what federal charges?

Killing the President's son of course - try to keep up

The Annoyed Man wrote:

A-R wrote:Wondering if Zimmerman will again have to "stand his ground" if these thugs attempt their "citizens arrest". Sounds like a modern day lynch mob in the making.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mili ... r-15931351" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are they going to go there armed? If not, they're going to have an awfully hard time actually arresting him without getting shot. And if they DO go there armed, then they are going to themselves be guilty of some very serious felonies. What a bunch of morons. It would be reassuring to know that the Sanford PD is going to intercede to stop such an attempt before things get out of control.

Plus, they plan to turn him over to federal authorities..........on exactly what federal charges?

RockingRook wrote:What Zimmerman did was not "stand your ground", it was MURDER pure and simple.

Chuck

“He’s kind of stretching a whole bunch of things. And if he has a gun, that’s premeditated,” Peaden said. There’s nothing in the Florida law that allows him to follow someone with a damn gun.”