TexasCHLforum.com

Since this thread has died down a bit this fine Saturday morning, as many of us head outside to do some overdue yard work, I thought I might send something out to our volunteer jurors, and invite comment when they come back in exhausted.

The Houston Chronicle has an OpEd this morning by a Texas law professor. It raises some interesting points, regardless of what your position might be on the difficult issues we have near worn out here on the forum. What think?

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/ar ... 498736.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

57Coastie wrote:The Houston Chronicle has an OpEd this morning by a Texas law professor. It raises some interesting points, regardless of what your position might be on the difficult issues we have near worn out here on the forum. What think? Jim

It is an interesting editorial, but I didn't find anything in the piece that addressed anything new to me.

57Coastie wrote:Since this thread has died down a bit this fine Saturday morning, as many of us head outside to do some overdue yard work, I thought I might send something out to our volunteer jurors, and invite comment when they come back in exhausted.

The Houston Chronicle has an OpEd this morning by a Texas law professor. It raises some interesting points, regardless of what your position might be on the difficult issues we have near worn out here on the forum. What think?

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/ar ... 498736.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

I think that article is EXTREMELY biased and wears it political viewpoint right out in the open. I've already been chastised for being dogmatic, but I am too old to change, so I'll just let it fly. I think this world would be a LOT better off, in general, if everyone just left everyone else alone...but mostly the bad guys don't do that...they usually seek others out to cause problems and do harm, unprovoked, for their own gain and enjoyment. And the mighty, wise, and elite legal scholar who wrote that missive seems to think that its quite okay for the bad guys to be able to do that and that any citizen who defends themselves better have tried to run away at top speed first, or already be in the process of bleeding from having their backsides whooped before they THINK about using force or deadly force to defend themselves and then they better use JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT of force or they are the in the wrong...instead of the bad guy (or gal, I wouldn't want to discriminate) who started it having to be the one to worry. I guess I'm just living in the wrong era.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I think that article is EXTREMELY biased and wears it political viewpoint right out in the open.

It is an Opinion Editorial, so it is supposed to be bias. Yes the author does come across as biased, but as I said, it that is nothing new to me.

WildBill wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:I think that article is EXTREMELY biased and wears it political viewpoint right out in the open.

It is an Opinion Editorial, so it is supposed to be bias. Yes the author does come across as biased, but as I said, it that is nothing new to me.

The problem I have is that when something is put into "print" by a news media outlet, it gives it an air of authority...that is, it becomes "fact". I know what the page says, but its just not the same as you and I and the other members of this forum having a discussion (or argument) about the subject. WE can take or leave whatever is said because its just us "talking" (though sometimes heatedly)...when the media puts it up, it is them TELLING the public who reads it that is the way it IS...IMHO, of course. (I remembered a phrase I haven't heard in a while..."yellow journalism".)

*EDITED TO ADD FINAL SENTENCE*

Heartland Patriot wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:I think that article is EXTREMELY biased and wears it political viewpoint right out in the open.

It is an Opinion Editorial, so it is supposed to be bias. Yes the author does come across as biased, but as I said, it that is nothing new to me.

The problem I have is that when something is put into "print" by a news media outlet, it gives it an air of authority...that is, it becomes "fact". I know what the page says, but its just not the same as you and I and the other members of this forum having a discussion (or argument) about the subject. WE can take or leave whatever is said because its just us "talking" (though sometimes heatedly)...when the media puts it up, it is them TELLING the public who reads it that is the way it IS...IMHO, of course.

That is my opinion as well, but they own the newspaper and we don't. A letter to the editor is our only option to get our views stated, but it doesn't have the same impact as the original editorial.

It is also the only way to properly vindicate the balance between the normal expectation that citizens refrain from using violence against one another, and the very limited exception of absolute necessity that justifies such violence.

This statement in the closing of the editorial sums up the mind set of Professor Corn when he describes "self defense" as "violence against one another".

57Coastie wrote:Since this thread has died down a bit this fine Saturday morning, as many of us head outside to do some overdue yard work, I thought I might send something out to our volunteer jurors, and invite comment when they come back in exhausted.

The Houston Chronicle has an OpEd this morning by a Texas law professor. It raises some interesting points, regardless of what your position might be on the difficult issues we have near worn out here on the forum. What think?

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/ar ... 498736.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

The picture was kind of cool with the state of Florida as the trigger of the gun. For being biased at the conclusion is was fairly neutral in the beginning. Compared to Nancy Grace it was extremely neutral.

Here are some things I think all of us have learned at Trayvon and Zimmerman's expense.

1. Don't be batman.

2. Neighborhood watch captain is a job you don't want.

3. If you shoot someone outside your house or property, you will probably be charged with a crime.

4. If you shoot someone, and the police do not take lots of photos of you and your injuries, and do not take your blood, ask them to do it, and if they refuse, have it done on your own. Ask for copies and make sure you don't hide them from the press.

5. Everything else we have talked about over the years: Calling 911, retreating, only shooting if our life was truly in danger, shooting only if the BG was very close,
waiting for the police to arrive, saying I was the one who called 911, saying I was in fear of my life, saying I will sign a complaint. All of this will not keep you out of jail, if: the BG is not armed with a weapon, and has determined supporters.

6. Better to be tried by 12 than killed by one.

Thanks to the intrepid work of "new" media, it now appears that Trayvon's phone conversation with his "girlfriend" on the night he was shot is a total fabrication. http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... se-truths/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It not only never happened, a number of details of the Crump press conference were lies as well.

Wow!

But did anyone stop to ask what he was talking about? Tea and Skittles is street lingo for “Marijuana and DXM, somtimes known as ecstasy“.

57Coastie wrote:The Houston Chronicle has an OpEd this morning by a Texas law professor. It raises some interesting points, regardless of what your position might be on the difficult issues we have near worn out here on the forum. What think?

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/ar ... 498736.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After reading that, I think we need to change the stupid laws that let a special olympics prosecutor substitute their prejudice for facts and maliciously prosecute someone for political gain. Florida should repeal the idiot that let her "stand her ground" and prosecute someone even though all of the eyewitnesses and physical evidence in the affidavit is consistent with the defendant's story that it was self defense. That's what I think.

Lord have mercy this thing has so many twists and turn. I did not know about the euphemisms....now I am wondering if there really was a bag of skittle and a bottle of tea--would be interesting to find out.

I had always wondered about the G/F call because I know if I was talking to my husband in my earlier days and he had said someone was following him and did not get back to me after we hung up, I would have called his parents, the police, the hospitals.....I would not have sat on my laurels and gone "oh well--ho hum." Likely I would have told him to get off the phone with me and call the police.

So now we wait.....and I feel sorrier and sorrier for Zimmerman by the day. Poor fellow.

mamabearCali wrote:Lord have mercy this thing has so many twists and turn. I did not know about the euphemisms ... now I am wondering if there really was a bag of skittle and a bottle of tea--would be interesting to find out.

Skittles and a bottle of Coke would be more believable.

WildBill wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Lord have mercy this thing has so many twists and turn. I did not know about the euphemisms ... now I am wondering if there really was a bag of skittle and a bottle of tea--would be interesting to find out.

Skittles and a bottle of Coke would be more believable.

The "bottle" being very small and containing a white powder?

Apparently the Skittles and Arizona Tea story is also a fabrication. There is no 7-11 in Sanford, FL. https://twitter.com/#!/JHenline/status/ ... 1203779585" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UPDATE: Apparently this guy is full of baloney. I checked and found a 7-11 at 1125 Rinehart Road, which is not far from the Retreat View Circle complex. Certainly within walking distance for a young healthy male.

When I first did the search for 7-11's in Sanford, I used 7-11's own website. I have since figured out their store locator doesn't work at all. (It also found no 7-11's in Richardson, TX, which I know to be false.)

baldeagle wrote:Thanks to the intrepid work of "new" media, it now appears that Trayvon's phone conversation with his "girlfriend" on the night he was shot is a total fabrication. http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... se-truths/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It not only never happened, a number of details of the Crump press conference were lies as well.

Wow this is a pretty intense blog.

He seems to point to the legal team as wanting Zimmerman arrested so that they could sue for damages. Without an arrest Florida statutes do not allow a civil suit to be brought. For example you kill or wound a burglar in your house, you are not arrested, burglar or relatives are barred from bringing suit. Apparently it does not matter if you are convicted of the crime only arrested. Once arrested you can be sued. Zimmerman has no money, but HOA and the City does or has insurance.

The special prosecutor did not have any evidence of Zimmerman not acting within the law, until the attorneys for the Martin's made statements about Dee Dee, Trayvons supposed girlfriend, who related her telephone conversation with Trayvon just before the shooting. The Special Prosecutor made reference to these statements in her charges. Per the blog it is all bogus as there was not the physical time for the attorneys to get this information prior to their news conference.

Certainly very interesting.

Apparently the Martin PR team has been cleansing everyone's twitter and facebook accounts, to fit the story, but hard to do in today's internet world and researchers are able to find a completely different story.