TexasCHLforum.com

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I'm thinking "observe and report"

2. IIRC neighborhood watches are typically not armed with anything more than pepper spray and a cellphone. They also buddy team when possible or don't get out of vehicles.

This bit of supposition has always bothered me.

1. NW is NOT nevessarily the same as COP (Citizens on Patrol).
2. Zimmerman was not "patrolling" the area. He was on his way to the grocery store when he noticed the suspicious person.
3. Being a member of NW does not preclude a licensed person from legally carrying a gun during his normal daily routine.

This supposition is trumped up to give the appearance that Zimmerman was doing something unusual or even "against the rules" by carrying his handgun that night. It is bogus on its face.

I participate in my neighborhood watch and I carry my handgun on my person everywhere it is legal to do so.

baldeagle wrote:The second thing was her discussion of the phrase "creepy xxx cracka". She stated that "cracka" was a common term in her culture for white people.

So her testimony is that Mr. Martin racially profiled Mr. Zimmerman. And that Mr. Martin used a racial slur in the moments before the attack.

Tic Tac wrote:

baldeagle wrote:The second thing was her discussion of the phrase "creepy xxx cracka". She stated that "cracka" was a common term in her culture for white people.

So her testimony is that Mr. Martin racially profiled Mr. Zimmerman. And that Mr. Martin used a racial slur in the moments before the attack.

Not exactly. She testified that "cracka" was not a racial slur and was not offensive. Of course I doubt the jury saw it that way....

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I'm thinking "observe and report"

2. IIRC neighborhood watches are typically not armed with anything more than pepper spray and a cellphone. They also buddy team when possible or don't get out of vehicles.

This bit of supposition has always bothered me.

1. NW is NOT nevessarily the same as COP (Citizens on Patrol).
2. Zimmerman was not "patrolling" the area. He was on his way to the grocery store when he noticed the suspicious person.
3. Being a member of NW does not preclude a licensed person from legally carrying a gun during his normal daily routine.

This supposition is trumped up to give the appearance that Zimmerman was doing something unusual or even "against the rules" by carrying his handgun that night. It is bogus on its face.

I participate in my neighborhood watch and I carry my handgun on my person everywhere it is legal to do so.

Do you chase people through subdivision complex?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Do you chase people through subdivision complex?

Can you name one person who does or did?

Zimmerman has been accused of doing that, but NONE of the evidence supports that claim.

I dont understand why the prosecution keeps calling witnesses for the defense!

This last guy. Very well spoken. Very precise. Explains what he saw, and what he didn't see. Puts Martin on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman yelling for help. MMA style "ground and pound" on the sidewalk. Pretty much the perfect defense witness.

Also, kinda the anti-theses to "Dee Dee" or whatever her name was the other day.

Pawpaw wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Do you chase people through subdivision complex?

Can you name one person who does or did?

Zimmerman has been accused of doing that, but NONE of the evidence supports that claim.

His own statements support that claim. He followed TM through the complex, lost him, and turned around when the dispatcher told him to turn around (his testimony).

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Do you chase people through subdivision complex?

Can you name one person who does or did?

Zimmerman has been accused of doing that, but NONE of the evidence supports that claim.

His own statements support that claim. He followed TM through the complex, lost him, and turned around when the dispatcher told him to turn around (his testimony).

I interpret following at a safe, non-confrontational distance - or "tailing" - as very different from "chasing".

fickman wrote:I interpret following at a safe, non-confrontational distance - or "tailing" - as very different from "chasing".

Same here.

Boy o' boy has this one been a doozie. It's almost like the prosecution doesn't even want to win this case when presenting these witnesses (maybe they don't, after all it appears justifiable. They certainly weren't too quick to arrest; because deep down they knew the stand your ground law was on Zimmerman's side? The only reason this ended up in court is because of the social media storm that ensued after the incident). Zimmerman's defense keeps turning them in their favor.

bauer wrote:Boy o' boy has this one been a doozie. It's almost like the prosecution doesn't even want to win this case when presenting these witnesses (maybe they don't, after all it appears justifiable. They certainly weren't too quick to arrest; because deep down they knew the stand your ground law was on Zimmerman's side? The only reason this ended up in court is because of the social media storm that ensued after the incident). Zimmerman's defense keeps turning them in their favor.

If Zimmerman is telling the truth (all the evidence I'm aware of suggests he is), Stand Your Ground doesn't even apply... He was pinned down on the ground and couldn't get away.

bauer wrote:Boy o' boy has this one been a doozie. It's almost like the prosecution doesn't even want to win this case when presenting these witnesses (maybe they don't, after all it appears justifiable. They certainly weren't too quick to arrest; because deep down they knew the stand your ground law was on Zimmerman's side? The only reason this ended up in court is because of the social media storm that ensued after the incident). Zimmerman's defense keeps turning them in their favor.

I've seen defense attorneys in this spot before. Where the defendant is slam-dunk guilty with all the evidence in the world and (apparently) refuses to listen to council and wants to arrogantly (and with futility) fight the charge.

Not having a decent case to make can make a great attorney look incompetent.

In this case, the detectives and the DA had looked at the case and decided there was nothing to pursue. It's now obvious they did a thorough investigation before making this decision. Then, bowing to media pressure, the state stepped in and forced them to prosecute.

I do think the state attorneys are trying their best, but they knew back when they decided not to press charges that the case wasn't very compelling. Now they're indirectly showing us all how they arrived at that conclusion.

This is my first post on this thread, and I'm too lazy to read all 132 pages to see if this has been discussed, but here is my question to those of you who understand Florida law better than I:

The DA charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree homicide, not a hate crime. 1. Why doesn't the judge throw out the racially charged testimony, since even the DA felt this was a case of murder, not a crime committed motivated by racism. Isn't the judge responsible for keeping irrelevant testimony out of the courtroom? 2. Why doesn't the defense object every time even a small suggestion of racism as a motive is brought up? The jury should be clearly told this is not a question of whether Zimmerman was racist, racially profiled, etc., but a question as to whether he committed murder.

Again, maybe I'm not looking at this correctly, but I have wondered this all week.

Rrash wrote:This is my first post on this thread, and I'm too lazy to read all 132 pages to see if this has been discussed, but here is my question to those of you who understand Florida law better than I:

The DA charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree homicide, not a hate crime. 1. Why doesn't the judge throw out the racially charged testimony, since even the DA felt this was a case of murder, not a crime committed motivated by racism. Isn't the judge responsible for keeping irrelevant testimony out of the courtroom? 2. Why doesn't the defense object every time even a small suggestion of racism as a motive is brought up? The jury should be clearly told this is not a question of whether Zimmerman was racist, racially profiled, etc., but a question as to whether he committed murder.

Again, maybe I'm not looking at this correctly, but I have wondered this all week.

I think they are trying for anything they can get.

I loved the last witness. It even looked like he was trying to tone down his testimony to just the bare facts, and then the prosecution shot themselves in the foot by bringing his first written statement into the equation. It's important that he wrote it the night of the event, and it matches almost exactly with Zimmerman's version.

There's also this (some language in this clip, but still hysterical):
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/06/27/hil ... sy-friend/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;