TexasCHLforum.com

Yeah, I miscounted. I'm ashamed of me.

And now................PAGE 200!!!!!

Why do all of the folks who are criticizing GZ's actions hone in on the "we don't need you to do that" statement?

Prior to that statement, the dispatcher had twice instructed Z to let them know if the person did anything else or which direction he was going. I don't remeber the exact words that were used, but on two occasions he was given instructions that required him to keep TM in sight to comply with those instructions. It was after these instructions and before the "we don't need you to do that" instruction that Z got out of his truck.

During the charging conference, the judge has clearly stayed in the Prosecution's pocket. Unbelievable how biased she is. Below is one of the tweets from legal insurrection.

Rumored: Nelson to consolidate jury instructions to read simply: "You must find the defendant, George Zimmerman, guilty"

sjfcontrol wrote:Jeez Louise! So they both have blood from each other on their clothing. I would think that would be pretty much expected. Is it really necessary to go through each little stain? I'm bored.

Now I'm going to get in trouble for spending all day at work watching the trial AND I'm going to get in trouble for sleeping at work.

Keith B wrote:Could they have 'purposely' done this to try and get a mistrial? That way they avoid a not guilty verdict and also save face on the past things that have gone down from their office. They then fire the person who 'screwed up' as a scape goat and claim it was an error. It then ends up in a mistrial and they can then choose to not go after him again and he just floats.

That would not be a good thing for Zimmerman. He needs a verdict found not guilty and justified in using self defense. If he doesn't get it, then there will always be that cloud over him that it wasn't a good shoot.

The best outcome for GZ would be to have the case thrown out at the "stand your ground" hearing, then GZ does not have to face a trial and is immune from civil suits. I think a criminal trial and aquittal would be better for GZ than the mistrial.

I watched the entire interview last nigh on Hannity. I was kind of struck by one of the (several) tactical errors that Z made. It is a good tactical lesson for everyone.

According to his story, Z had moved back to his street when M confronted him. M asked “do you have a <expletive> problem?” Z stated that he reached into his pants pocket for his cell phone to call 911 and was momentarily surprised because he forgot that he had placed the phone in his rain jacket pocket. That was when M struck him in the nose and began the physical assault. He stated that M was within arms length of him at the time that M asked the question about Z having a problem.

Basic tactical training would tell us to create distance as soon as the threat is realized. While Z was telling the story, I could see myself backpedaling as soon as M “appeared” within arms length while placing my hand on my weapon, or possibly drawing the weapon at that time. What Z did was stand flat footed and reach into his pocket for a phone. Creating distance and placing your hand on your weapon or drawing not only would have given Z a tactical advantage; it would have lessened the chance of M turning the confrontation into a physical one.

I’m not trying to condemn or condone the actions of either person here, just trying to find some of the lessons to be learned from the confrontation.