TexasCHLforum.com

HerbM wrote:Saying that Zimmerman is (automatically) at fault for "being there" is akin to blaming the rape or mugging victim for walking down the street -- it's wrong -- when the criminal attacks.

That's a terrible comparison. You're saying that a CHL holder has no special responsibilities? Ideally, that's the way it should be, but in the real world, the mere fact that we have CHL classes where they teach you about the responsibilities says otherwise.

Do you have a law degree? The rest of your post is exactly what I'm pretty tired of hearing from internet forums. Everyone's citing code, but there's a huge difference between reading code and the interpretation of that code in case law.

So the AP story said this:

"The investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest, Christopher Serino, told prosecutors that the fight could have been avoided if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement. He said Zimmerman, after leaving his vehicle, could have identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and talked to him instead of confronting him."

In my CHL class, 90% of the classroom discussion was about "don't put yourself in a situation where you have to use a gun to begin with." As pointed out by Detective Serino, Zimmerman had options not to be there. Doesn't that nullify self defense and everything else that's clouded this case?

Stand Your Ground, race, pot, skittles, Zimmerman getting a whoopin'... that's all moot because Zimmerman put himself in that situation. Yes, there may not be physical evidence, but there is eyewitness statements from Zimmerman himself. Detective Serino put that in the report based on Zimmerman's statements.

I'd love to hear a lawyer's opinion on this. I've always thought that the legal intricacies and definitions of this case are going to tick off both sides.