TexasCHLforum.com

Jaguar wrote:Sanford, FL is going to ban Neighborhood Watch members from carrying guns while on volunteer duty.

Sorry, you wouldn't catch me volunteering to watch for trouble while unarmed.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/up ... 91532-9217" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AndyC wrote:If it were me in charge, Angela Corey would be paying the fees - and from her personal bank account.

Dave2 wrote:

Keith B wrote:This topic will never make 200 pages..... Cause when it gets to 199 plus 14 posts, I'm gonna lock it!!

NOOOOO!!!!! Quick! Everyone make really really really long posts so that it'll get over 200 pages before he can lock it!

gdanaher wrote:I think the nexus of the problem is at the feet of the governor who appointed a special prosecutor who in turn overcharged Zimmerman. This was all done with the clear understanding that the Sanford PD had already conducted a thorough investigation. By overcharging, they guaranteed that Zimmerman would walk, that the general public, not being well schooled in criminal justice, would scream that this was not justice becasue justice only occurs when the lynch mob is satisfied, but in the end, the governor looks good because he 'sought justice'. There is probably some much more minor charge that might have been provable, but going the the jugular, they guaranteed a loss for the state. Now, if the whiners would only take a breath and sit back they might realize that actual justice did in fact occur because the evidence presented to the jury proved that Zimmerman was not guilty of murder 2. Maybe discharging a firearm within city limits, but not murder 2.

G26ster wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:ABC TV analysis: Zimmerman will walk....

"With all of this said, juries are notoriously impossible to predict and the deliberation process can take on a life of its own, but if they follow the letter of the law, it's hard to see, based on everything we know now, how they find him guilty of either murder or even manslaughter."

Who said this case will be decided by evidence, the letter of the law, or the deliberation process? It will be decided by emotion and self guilt IMHO. Likely a hung jury at best.

puma guy wrote: Unfortunately from my experience many prosecutors are not interested in justice. The only truth that interests them is what may support their case and they're willing to obfuscate any thing that would help prove innocence. It's about the win. Of course defense lawyers try to keep any thing that would point to guilt under the radar as well, but prosecutors have much more information and evidence. It's a game of who can use parts of the truth to the best advantage, not the whole truth.

While the analysis includes GPS locating records for Mr. Martin's phone for all of the time he was in the Sanford area, specifically absent is any such data from February 26, 2012, the date of the event," O'Mara wrote.

"Maybe it's coincidence, but I'm way past [believing it's] coincidence," O'Mara said.

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.

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I just got back from Florida last night. A couple of nights ago I had the chance to talk to a guy from Sanford, and I asked him what the prevailing opinion in Sanford is about Zimmerman's guilt/innocence, and his reply basically paralleled what most here seem to be saying: that A) Zimmerman probably should have not followed Martin, but the shooting was legitimate use of force in self-defense; B) that people in Sanford mostly believe that Zimmerman will be acquitted; and C) that Sanford PD officers still seem to think that the case was properly handled from the git-go.

I just thought that it was interesting because we're 1500 miles away, while his comments were from someone who lives in the community where the events took place.

Suits me. The fact of the matter is: we Texas CH licensees ain't got no dog in that Sanford, FL hunt.

baldeagle wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Rhetoric and opinions aside, would any of this have happened if Zimmerman had done what the Dispatcher told him to do? One guy is dead and the other will probably wish he was before it's over. ITMT, our CHL's and Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" have drawn much unwelcome scrutiny and unfavorable attention from an otherwise "sleeping dog".

That "sleeping dog" would have been awakened at some point. If not Zimmerman, some other case.

mamabearCali wrote:Conjecture has to based in fact though and supported by evidence...especially when admitted by the prosecution. A prosecutor can't just say "we think Zimmerman attacked Martin"--the question right back at him is do you have any evidence of this? The answer can't be "well just cause I have a gut feeling."

IANAL but I hve seen commentary on this by people who are. Several times I have been told that really it does not matter who engaged who first. Martin had Zimmerman on the ground (evidenced by injuries and wittness testimony). Zimmerman even if he did start Martin by say pushing him (no evidence of that, but lets say he did) had obviously wanted to disengage (screaming for help), and so with Martin's head bashing was then in the clear to use deadly force to stop from being killed.

VMI77 wrote:

A-R wrote:This quote is dangerously close to a veiled threat against Zimmerman from a sitting member of the United States Congress.

Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Florida, called Trayvon Martin a "victim of a botched police investigation full of incompetence or intelligent mismanagement." She added, "Trayvon was hunted, chased, tackled and shot. Ill-conceived laws and lax gun laws all contribute to this tragedy. Mr. Zimmerman should be arrested immediately for his own safety."

And since no one really knows what happened at this point, she is essentially a liar exploiting a tragedy to advance a political agenda that ultimately seeks to empower criminals by making their victims defenseless. Innocent African Americans will actually be the most defenseless --and that's not just ill-conceived, that's evil. She's also calling for the commission of an illegal and unconstitutional act --IOW, a crime. A crime which violates her oath of office --and doesn't that make her a Traitor? The government does not have any legal basis for arresting and imprisoning people to ensure their "safety." The left in this country is running out of ways to be more repugnant.