TexasCHLforum.com

Crossfire wrote:You guys are all starting to annoy the bejeebers out of me. You have managed 193 pages without a lock in this thread, but you are all pushing the envelope now.

WildBill wrote:

George Zimmerman wrote:Trayvon Martin's death was God's will.

A really stupid thing to say IMO. If I were GZ's lawyer I would not have allowed him to say that on TV.

sjfcontrol wrote:He'd have to be really out of it if he thought anything he might have in his pocket would beat what he had on his hip. No, I think he was going for a misplaced phone, just like he said. He did pass several lie and voice-stress tests.

canvasbck wrote: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.

Oldgringo wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:I shall quote the supreme court on pornography......it is hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.

Isn't that also true of beauty?

VoiceofReason wrote:So jocat54 you presume he is guilty until proven innocent?

ScooterSissy wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

jocat54 wrote: Do we know for sure Z broke no laws? I don't.

I don't think we will ever know for sure who assaulted who.

You're correct, we don't know. And until someone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he did break a law, he's innocent. That's the way our system is supposed to work.

There, I fixed it for you. Reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty only apply when there isn't a political agenda involved. The Duke lacross case was a fine example of where it didn't work because of a political agenda. Fortunately, that initial injustice was later reconciled. I'm not so sure a similar result is going to happen with this case.

You are correct, and I almost went back and edited it myself. If that really was the way our system worked, Zimmerman would not be behind bars right now. That is what people should be incensed about - that the rabble rousers and their "I wanna get re-elected" follwers have polluted the system. If the laws are bad (and I don't happen to think they are), change the laws - but don't persecute/prosecute someone who acted within the law.

C-dub wrote:Haven't read this thread in about 60 pages. Did I miss anything?