TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

baldeagle wrote:You guys will love this one. George Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder'

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

Apparently there is no minimum IQ required for jury duty.

She did what the instructions said regardless of her personal opinion - for that a I applaud her.

If she had kept her mouth shut instead of saying on national TV she thinks Zimmerman is a murderer, THEN I could've applauded her.

This video is guaranteed to do two things:

1. Make your blood boil

2. Push this thread well past 200 pages

I can't embed from my phone, so if someone else can embed this one ...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bullitt wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:...but mine never said anything like using your gun to stop a "but kickking" was "escalation"...

The butt-kicking wasn't the escalation of Zimmerman so far as we know, since Martin couldn't testify we don't even know if it was Martin's escalation. For all we know, Martin may have been defending himself with all he had available, his fists.

The escalation I am referring to is Zimmerman getting out of the car and continuing to be a participant in the events that would lead up to a physical confrontation. He had plenty of opportunity NOT to participate in the chain of events leading up to the physical confrontation. Had he received good CHL training, or internalized any good training that he did receive, he would have known this from the very start.

While I agree with the verdict of NOT GUILTY, as a CHL holder I am disgusted with Z's actions of escalation. He's no hero in my book, like some of you seem to opine.

1. Who is calling Zimmerman a "hero"? That's a far cry from defending the legal actions of one man against half a country of race baiters, self- defense haters, and the lemmings who follow them.

2. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that Martin was defending himself from anything. Martin had ZERO injuries except the fatal GSW and the marks on his knuckles. Zimmerman was the victim - with injuries to prove it - until the gun shot.

And before you ignorantly say Martin was defending himself from Zimmerman's following/pursuing/chasing/stalking behavior (whichever exagerated descriptor best fits your narrative), please remember back to your CHL class use of force justification training and remember that physical violence is NOT justified in response to any of the descriptors above.

Bullitt wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Those that object to the verdict are unwilling to admit that Treyvon decided to teach the "spooky <redacted> cracker" a lesson, and unexpectedly found himself outmatched...

Actually Zimmerman was "outmatched" and was getting his butt kicked fair and square. Oops! Z had a gun <eyes-rolling>.

This is just the type of escalation that good CHL training seeks to prevent. Maybe that training was lost on those who are championing Z's actions.

"butt kicked fair and square" only occurs in a sanctioned sporting event.

On the street, kicking someone's butt without legal justification (regardless of fairness) is assault.

And I not only learned not to escalate, I teach others to do so. What we KNOW (for fact) that Zimmermam did was not a good decision, but it was not criminal. The only criminal escalation was when Martin turned a misunderstanding into physical violence.

Bullitt wrote:

Keith B wrote:...Bottom line, the jury heard all of the evidence, determined that that for whatever reason Zimmerman was justified in defending himself in shooting Martin. End of story. Or at least it should be.

Yeah, right. The jury heard it in the OJ case too.

I agree with what valor and texasjoker stated. IMO, Zimmerman exercised poor judgement.

Someone stalks me through a neighborhood, and I might do the same as Martin, only I'll be carrying too.

And if you did - given same set of facts/circumstances - then YOU will be either dead, or on trial for murder or agg assault.

Phillip, that's an interesting devils advocate version.

One problem that leapt out to me. GZ didn't have a few minutes to get his story straight before police arrived, the first officer was there within seconds of fatal shot - less than a minute for sure.

Redneck_Buddha wrote:Beware the social justice government complex.

Fixed it for ya

Valor wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked buy Martin. There is nothing in hard evidence that indicates that Martin was ever attacked by George.

The evidence only show that Zimmerman was assaulted. It is reasonable that Zimmerman could have unlawfully accosted Trayvon. There was an ear witness that gave testimony Trayvon stated, "get off me!". If the police would have arrived prior to the shooting, the courts would have sorted out who was the aggressor.

No, the evidence also shows Martin was NOT assaulted, other than the gunshot and some marks on his hands. Zimmerman had the well- documented injuries to his face and back of his head and no marks on his hands.

So how and where did Zimmerman EVER assault Martin before the fatal shot.

Been thinking this myself. While I realize this is not what this means "legally", in a nutshell if the jury acquitted Zimmerman they in effect "convicted" Trayvon of a crime. Unlike most murder cases, the fact that Zimmerman killed Trayvon was not in doubt. So - unlike the OJ trial - this was not an acquittal based on "reasonable doubt" whether the accused was the killer. They knew that going in. If you kill someone, the only legitimate reasons under Florida law are excusable, justified, or accidental. The other two don't apply to the circumstances. Thus only justified fits. And the only way you can be justified killing someone is if they're committing a felony against you that places you in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death.

Thus Zimmerman could ONLY be acquitted if Trayvon was committing a felony against him.

Trayvon was a felon.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/07/15/jo ... t-innocent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://radio.foxnews.com/2013/07/15/tra ... -innocent/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sharpton said Trayvon committed no crime. It’s clear from the evidence that the jury thought he did, in fact, commit the crime of assault when he punched George Zimmerman, got him on the ground and began beating him. If Zimmerman hadn’t had a gun, and had gone home with a concussion and a broken nose Trayvon would likely have been charged with assault.

10 pm on a Saturday night ... perfect timing for the start of riots

Maybe they think they'd get a different result from confronting a follower because they're carrying a gun?

/libtard mentality

I found the portions TAM alluded to worth reading. That this whole case is a racist, political prosecution.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Juan Williams has a take: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/ ... z2YkqNCKvV

George Zimmerman faces life in jail as a jury considers second-degree murder charges against him for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But thanks to the media he is already sentenced to life in the American public's mind as a racist.

You can tell that he's not sympathetic to Z, but he does get it right about media's pollution of the process.

I was right there with him until this idiotic statement:

Why did he have a gun if he was simply part of a neighborhood watch program? 

Good analysis by John Lott

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/ ... man-trial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;