The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
AndyC wrote:Irrelevant - he lived there and could walk wherever he wanted.
From a the perspective of non-LEO civilian tactics, I don't disagree. But from a legal perspective, what law did GZ break by exiting his vehicle? And how does this all add up to 2nd-degree murder, manslaughter, or even jaywalking?Cedar Park Dad wrote:A-R wrote:Cedar Park Dad wrote:Didn't turn out to be a safe confrontational distance though did it...fickman wrote:I interpret following at a safe, non-confrontational distance - or "tailing" - as very different from "chasing".Cedar Park Dad wrote:Pawpaw wrote:Can you name one person who does or did?Cedar Park Dad wrote:Do you chase people through subdivision complex?
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).
And who CAUSED the following distance to be unsafe and confrontational is the crux of the dispute in question.
All the physical evidence and much testimony points to GZ as the person who was ambushed AND no evidence nor testimony points to TM as the victim of anything other than a single GSW to the chest at muzzle-touch distance.
So, by your implication, GZ "chased" TM, caught up to him, allowed TM to knock him to the ground and beat him multiple blows to the face/head area, then murdered him?
If you were following in such a manner that lets them get that close to you, methinks you were entirely too close. Should have never left the truck.
Its going to be tough I think. If Z doesn't testify, the jury is going to look at him funny. "whats he trying to hide?" "he killed that kid, says it was self defense but won't testify?" etc. but if he does, the prosecution can tear him apart.sjfcontrol wrote:I don't expect this to happen, but...
When the prosecution rests, It would be interesting if the defense stated, "Your honor, the defense doesn't believe we can offer any witnesses better for the defense than the prosecution has already provided. We rest, also."
Agreed. Z had every legal right to do so. Absent the final moments of the confrontation and what actually occurred therein(which is the real crux of the case and there is no witness to), he had every legal right to do everything he did. Still wasn't smart.From a the perspective of non-LEO civilian tactics, I don't disagree. But from a legal perspective, what law did GZ break by exiting his vehicle? And how does this all add up to 2nd-degree murder, manslaughter, or even jaywalking?
I don't think this is a big deal. Most people know that defendants very seldom testify, and courts instruct jurors that the decision not to testify cannot be held against the defendant. If I were Zimmerman's lawyer, I'd put kidnap him and take him to an undisclosed location before I would allow him on the stand.Cedar Park Dad wrote:Its going to be tough I think. If Z doesn't testify, the jury is going to look at him funny. "whats he trying to hide?" "he killed that kid, says it was self defense but won't testify?" etc. but if he does, the prosecution can tear him apart.sjfcontrol wrote:I don't expect this to happen, but...
When the prosecution rests, It would be interesting if the defense stated, "Your honor, the defense doesn't believe we can offer any witnesses better for the defense than the prosecution has already provided. We rest, also."
I disagree. Its are argument for common sense - aka don't do this. He did his part by calling in, and should have stopped at that point.sjfcontrol wrote:The whole "he never should have left his truck" argument was made ad-nauseum over a year ago in this thread. There really isn't any reason to bring it up again. The fact is, he did what he did. Nothing that he did justified TM's use of force, much less deadly force.
I think a lot of people that are trying to "interpret" some of this just don't understand (and I am not being facetious here).Teamless wrote:She does think "Creepy xxx Cracker" is a racial statement ???? REALLY? WHAT!?
Oh My!
This girl has NO credibility,and I surely hope the jury sees that!
Agreed, there is a wide swath of this country that literally believes whites in the US cannot be victims of racism. That racism - by their believed definition - is solely a mechanism of instituionslized white oppression of minorities.ScooterSissy wrote:I think a lot of people that are trying to "interpret" some of this just don't understand (and I am not being facetious here).Teamless wrote:She does think "Creepy xxx Cracker" is a racial statement ???? REALLY? WHAT!?
Oh My!
This girl has NO credibility,and I surely hope the jury sees that!
"Some" view "racial" as having to do with whites persecuting other races.
She was told by the media, friends, etc that this was racial, so she believes it is.
"Cracker" has nothing to do with "racial" (see two lines up).
Actually, they do not. They is what you said (my emphasis)Cedar Park Dad wrote: 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).
Now this is what you say Zimmerman stated (again, my emphasis):Cedar Park Dad wrote: Do you chase people through subdivision complex?
You do understand the difference between "chased" and "followed", right?Cedar Park Dad wrote:He followed TM through the complex, lost him, and turned around when the dispatcher told him to turn around (his testimony).
ScooterSissy wrote:Actually, they do not. They is what you said (my emphasis)Cedar Park Dad wrote: 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).Now this is what you say Zimmerman stated (again, my emphasis):Cedar Park Dad wrote: Do you chase people through subdivision complex?You do understand the difference between "chased" and "followed", right?Cedar Park Dad wrote:He followed TM through the complex, lost him, and turned around when the dispatcher told him to turn around (his testimony).
So now I have a question for you. How does one "observe and report" a moving subject, if one does not "follow" the movement?
And this is your bottom line? That because Zimmerman left the truck, it was OK for Martin to ambush him, pound his face, and bash his head against the pavement?Cedar Park Dad wrote: If you were following in such a manner that lets them get that close to you, methinks you were entirely too close. Should have never left the truck.
Let's pretend it's your housing area (this is a collection of condos, not just a residential neighborhood).Cedar Park Dad wrote: I disagree. Its are argument for common sense - aka don't do this. He did his part by calling in, and should have stopped at that point.
I'll be unconcerned enough that I will continue to do what I do day to day.Cedar Park Dad wrote:So if Z is acquitted, should we be concerned about riot situations in Texas?