TexasCHLforum.com

RottenApple wrote:

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;

Wouldn't have made a difference in the Zimmerman case. Zimmerman wasn't on duty.

baldeagle wrote:

kragluver wrote:This may have already been posted here. Read Mas Ayoob's 12-part (so far) commentary on the trial. It is very informative.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAy ... osecution/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That was great stuff, and he's not done yet. Next up - Angela Corey.

psijac wrote:I would like to encourage everyone to write a letter the her employer. Remind them that you love Texas and the environment but cannot in good conscience donate your time for hard earn dollars to this charity so long as their employees are so blatantly racist

baldeagle wrote:

Jaguar wrote:So yeah, she maybe was being sarcastic, but according to the press she was representing the pro-Zimmerman folks. She was a plant, mission accomplished. Vile and disgusting woman.

Actually, she was with the NBPP on the Trayvon Martin supporter's side of the street. The media didn't bother to report that, because it didn't fit their predetermined narrative.

Keith B wrote:I wasn't supporting her, I think she probably a plant. Or, sh was so stupid that she didn't understand what she was doing.

Keith B wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07 ... -activist/

A woman holding a racist sign and shouting a racist chant at Quanell X's march on Sunday in Houston was an Austin based left wing plant, her picture was picked up and distributed world wide as a pro Zimmerman supporter.

This story busts her cover.

She was interviewed and said that her sign was meant to be sarcastic and pointing out that there were others at the rally that were racist and proud of it, and that she was not one of them.

New York Daily News wrote: One woman in the Zimmerman group held a sign that said, "We're racist & proud."

Austin resident Renee Vaughan echoed the sign’s ugly sentiments by yelling, "We're racist. We're proud. We're better because we're white," at the Martin group as they passed, according to the Chronicle.

Houston Chronicle wrote: Members of this group held signs that read: 'We're racist and proud,' 'Remove the Black Panthers from the U.S.A.' and 'If Zimmerman is a "White Hispanic" then President Obama is a "White Black."'

Mail Online wrote:Members of this group held signs that read: 'We're racist and proud,' 'Remove the Black Panthers from the U.S.A.' and 'If Zimmerman is a "White Hispanic" then President Obama is a "White Black."'

[and captioned the photo]
Opposition: A woman holds a sign up as the G. Zimmerman River Oaks Stand Your Ground group holds a counter demonstration to Houston community activist Quanell X's group march in the River Oaks community in Houston on Sunday

sjfcontrol wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:And now the ACLU has withdrawn its demand that the feebs investigate Z again: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/f ... 94518.html. Seems the ACLU has a long-standing policy of NOT recommending double-jeopardy trials, and their current director got caught up in the insanity and forgot the policy. They have now sent a letter to AG Holder about it:

Methinks the rats are deserting a sinking ship.

Perhaps they've seen the light...... Naaawww!

sjfcontrol wrote:

texanjoker wrote: Never said I would. This case is very troubling. A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk. Z's statements calling him a punk and that they always get away were prior to whatever happened that lead to the shooting. Z says that Martin is running away. I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide. I personally believe Z did in fact continue to chase Martin and probably caught up to him. At that point who confronted who? Did Martin sucker punch him for no reason w/o saying anything? Only Z knows. I believe that Z then got his rear end handed to him and that Z was the person screaming for help. He put himself in a position and was not prepared for what transpired. I wish I was the fly on the wall to know what really happened and how they finally met. I am glad I am not on that jury. But then the jury has heard the case in court vs. the media and internet hype and will make their decision based on that which has got to be easier to the constant media attention to this case. I wish them the best as that has got to be a hard decision.

Sounds like you've got reasonable doubt to me -- you'd have to find him not-guilty.

By the way. Suppose it happened just the way you describe, and Z did follow and perhaps even confront M. Assuming the M threw the first punch, and then proceeded to "hand his rear end to him", did Z at that point forfeit his right to self defense?

sjfcontrol wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Which makes me wonder why the judge needs a conference with the attorneys.

Maybe to explain what constitutes "reasonable" to the prosecution?

Whatever it means, it's now too late for the lawyers to do anything about it.

sjfcontrol wrote:Which makes me wonder why the judge needs a conference with the attorneys.