TexasCHLforum.com

Dadtodabone wrote:Wow, Ranger School from BCT! So they've eliminated Airborne School, RIP, the 75th and BOLC? Man, that's what I call streamlined.

Dadtodabone wrote:...Recruit/Basic Training(Boot Camp) varies between the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. I believe the Navy and the Coast Guard process is 8 weeks and then off to school for your MOS specific training. Marine Recruit Training is 12 weeks(4 week modules X 3). The Air Force has a 63 day program so 9 weeks.
(Please take it easy on me if I get parts of this skewed Sergeant Major Marquez)
The Army's Initial Entry Training program is a horse of a different color. Basic Combat Training is 10 weeks followed by Advanced Individual Training that can last 5 to 52 weeks. Army recruits remain under a "firmer" level of military discipline during AIT than those in the other branches who have left basic for schools. The BCT/AIT are both part of Initial Entry Training. So you could say that "Boot Camp" for certain MOSs can last for 6 months or more.
The Army also has OSUT. In some MOSs, both the BCT and AIT sections of IET are performed back-to-back at the same location, with the same instructors, and the same recruits. Thus, One Station Unit Training. The Infantry MOS, 11B, consists of the usual BCT followed by five weeks of AIT, all at Fort Benning.
Other examples of MOSs that utilize OSUT are:
Cavalry Scouts 19D Fort Benning, Tank Crewmen 19K Fort Benning, Combat Engineers 12B Fort Leonard Wood, Bridge Crewmen 12C Fort Leonard Wood, Military Police 31B Fort Leonard Wood.

Valor wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
1. You continually ignore the fact that the only illegal act was committed by Martin when he assaulted Zimmerman. The evidence supports this and the jury had to believe that Zimmerman did not provoke the confrontation in order to find he engaged in lawful self-defense thus finding him not guilty.

2. In your item number 2 you claim Zimmerman was "wrong." What do you mean by "wrong" in this context? His actions certainly were not unlawful, so you must be applying your personal standard of conduct. If it's not your personal standard, then what do you mean by "wrong?"

3. Doing something unwise doesn't make you a "batman" as you falsely claim. By your theory, I would have been playing "batman" when I, on at least a half dozen occasions, have followed drunk drivers while reporting them to the police. Only two of those times occurred when I was a police officer (off duty). Don't tell me that's different from the Zimmerman/Martin matter. It isn't. I was following them because the dispatcher kept asking me for locations. At any time the drunk could have taken the offensive against me forcing me to defend myself, just as Martin attacked Zimmerman when he was on his way back to his vehicle.

4. Why you persist in using pejorative descriptions like "batman" when describing acts that are entirely lawful is beyond comprehension.

Chas.

1. I am not ignoring this fact. As “Billitt" stated, Zimmerman could have been committing harassment in the fact that based on an ear witness’s testimony Martin felt a creepy individual continued to follow him causing Martin to feel threaten. Martin would have to testify to Zimmerman’s actions to have harassment charges filed (But we will never get that statement). The lead detective during the interrogation specifically stated to Zimmerman that he believed Martin was terrified of Zimmerman based on his behavior. Regarding the confrontation, on Cooper’s exclusive interview with juror B37, she stated they only considered events from when the proven punch was thrown. Not who initiated the confrontation.

2. “Wrong” not unlawful. I clearly stated my personal view as well as many on this very thread have in other threads, and stated in the CHL course I took; “when carrying, avoid confrontations as best possible.” He had already taken the “right” course of action, reporting suspicious behavior. “Wrong” was when he departed the vehicle and went in the direction Martin, this alleged nefarious character, had disappeared. So I change my “wrong” comment to “imprudent”. In a court of law, that could translate to “negligent”. So much so, the homeowner’s association settled out of court.

3. Following someone that is committing an act that could immediately endanger others at a safe distance is a noble act. However, it could also be an imprudent one if the noble individual themselves create a negligible event (I won’t list all the possible scenarios). Some agencies require their officers while off duty to retain their lawful powers. Therefore, you were not playing Batman due to your lawful right in 2 of the 6 occasions. The other four are debatable.

4. After all the pejorative descriptions like “thug” referencing Martin, I am called out for using “batman” to describe a vigilante. That sir, is not beyond my comprehension. And ahead of the pile-on; it was not proven or was it prudent in a court of law to label Martin a thug, only that Zimmerman felt fear for his life or grave bodily damage to justify using deadly force.

03Lightningrocks wrote:...Oh.. The reason I told you I was a military brat would not have to be explained if you spent any time beyond the six month boot camp. Military families movie all over the country. That was the point... Sorry it went over your head... But not real surprised.

A few posts back you said you were done here.

Valor wrote:Those who believe Zimmerman was not imprudent in getting out of his car, would you have done it, unarmed? I realize some of you won’t leave your couch unarmed, but humor me. Ahead of your responses, if you believe someone is of nefarious character, why would you create a situation that could lead to a confrontation? Regardless of you having a legal right, especially without a damsel in distress; why would you???

I realize some of you won’t leave your couch unarmed

ScooterSissy wrote:...Exactly which action of Zimmerman's were "unjustifited"? Zimmerman said...

philip964 wrote:

wow.

03Lightningrocks wrote:...I grew up a military brat. Traveled all over... we moved to a city not far from you, Pasadena Texas. Where I spent five years having to fight my way home from school at least three days a week. But still, never managed to become a Trayvon...I watched all the "gangsta shows". I just never had the desire to fantasize it ...I see no need in getting on the Internet and pretending I am some kind of "tough guy". It is pointless since nobody believes that stuff anyway...

Keith B wrote:OK, this thread is about to be locked. Stop the personal attacks. Any more and there could be potential bans of individuals as well. Stop now.

AndyC wrote:Show where the law that Rotten Apple posted indicates that, as he stated, the "act of following someone (w/o additional elements) is a crime."

I think that he's proving his point - you, not so much, I'm afraid.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Funny thing is, amyone who claims to be from the "mean streets" would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trayvon was a thug and had every intention of , at the least, beating this cracka down. And possibly stealing his wallet to finance his drug habit. Fact!!!!

RottenApple wrote:So why don't you actually find a law, in any state, where the mere act of following someone (w/o additional elements) is a crime. You made the assertion. Prove it.

Beiruty wrote:Bullit,

Why TM did not hang-up with RJ and called 911 when he saw the creepy guy following his tail?

RottenApple wrote: Actually, no it wouldn't. If your google-fu were strong, you'd have searched before opening your....well....flexing your fingers. Under Florida law, neither harassment or stalking fits. And if you check the laws in the other 49 states, you won't find a single one that calls following a person harassment or stalking. At least not without additional actions to go with it.

Florida Penal Code 784.048

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.