TexasCHLforum.com

Crossfire wrote:You guys need to tone this down. The mods are getting really weary of the personal attacks.

You know I am getting weary of them too. I was fine here until these TM and GZ threads came about. Seems that a minority opinion here is pilloried with these various pile-ons.

Adios!

gringo pistolero wrote:

Bullitt wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:If you are ever in trouble, I pray you have neighbors just like you.

I doubt God will entertain your prayers as worthy of his consideration.

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." - Luke 6:31

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." - Matthew 7:12

Is it "gringo pislotero" or "gringo sacerdote"? Hope you are having a good Sunday.

MaxBerlin wrote:

Bullitt wrote:

Tic Tac wrote:If you are ever in trouble, I pray you have neighbors just like you.

I doubt God will entertain your prayers as worthy of his consideration. Praying for the demise of another is probably an abuse of prayer.

Anyone ever pretending to know what 'god' thinks is particularly objectionable and offensive.

As are those who pray for the demise of others.

Tic Tac wrote:If you are ever in trouble, I pray you have neighbors just like you.

I doubt God will entertain your prayers as worthy of his consideration. Praying for the demise of another is probably an abuse of prayer.

ScooterSissy wrote:...I'm proud of what Zimmerman did. Were I in his place, I very well might have done the same thing. He chose not to stick his head in the sand and let his neighborhood succumb to the "law of the jungle". Yep, he paid a price for it. So did Martin and his family. Sometimes, that happens when one person chooses to obey the law, and another chooses not to.

Your "pride" in what he did is what engenders others to "go on patrol" when they are issued a CHL. It's the harbinger of vigilantism.

I wonder how many break-ins have occurred at Twin Lakes since this happened.

There's no evidence that Martin was going to break into anybody's house.

Also, one final note. If you believe that just sticking to the "me and mine" will make you immune to the type of persecution that Zimmerman has faced, you're fooling yourself.

The "if" of your premise is wrong, you only know a few snippets about what I "believe." However, risk management is something to consider when one wishes to engage in white knighthood. Given the outcome, Zimmerman has learned that lesson.

ScooterSissy wrote:...I might also point out, many of those people also think you and I are stupid for having a CHL and carrying a gun (I'm assuming you're a CHL holder). That opinion also doesn't make it true.

No, they think we are wackos and borderline criminals. Zimmerman certainly didn't add to the cause of CHL. In fact he has set it back.

I don't need to think of the "law of the jungle". We don't live by the law of the jungle. If an unknown person is following me (your use of the word "stalking" is incorrect), I do not have the legal right to attack them, no matter how much my instinct might encourage me to (mine wouldn't). The "stupid" act was Martin's. He acted stupidly when he chose to attack an armed man.

Unfortunately we do live by the law of the jungle. Don't know about you, but I don't need a 2nd Amendment to tell me how I can protect myself. Like I said, if TM had a CHL, then this whole incident would have been a Mexican standoff. The law can't address all issues, though the writers of law foolishly believe that it can.

...that you disrespecting someone is deserving of a beatdown, and that you don't have the right to defend yourself against a beatdown.

I carry for that very reason, but unlike Z, I'm not pursuing someone because I want to be the cowboy in the white hat.

Again, stupid is an opinion. I disagree with it, and you've done nothing to convince me otherwise.

Not trying to convince you of anything. However, stupid can measured by the outcome, "Stupid is as stupid does." In this case, Z was indeed stupid as evidenced by his own outcome. He could have proceeded on, then this conversation never happens.

RoyGBiv wrote:

MaxBerlin wrote:But if a girl or child or anyone is getting beaten and it looks like they be hurt, I think we have an obligation to step up. Not step out. Isn't that why we got CHLs in the first place?

No.

I got mine for SELF-defense.

I may or may not decide to come to the aid of an unrelated third-party, depending on the circumstances. But, that is most certainly not the reason I got a CHL.

That's my perspective on the matter as well.

ScooterSissy wrote: I daresay a neighborhood watch volunteer is a bit more invested than you would be then.

You are correct. His "investment" really paid off, didn't it.

Personally, I'm tired of hearing that Zimmerman was "stupid". I disagree. He followed at a distance. He didn't confront, he didn't pursue. He followed so he could answer the questions he was being asked. Then, he headed back.

If you are tired of hearing it, then you must be getting pretty tired, 'cuz a lot of people agree. Z didn't have to follow any "instructions." He got out of his car and followed and therefore didn't think. He was stupid. At that time Martin was a threat to nobody.

Unknown to him, his attacker circled back and ambushed him. That doesn't make Zimmerman "stupid", it makes him an involved neighbor.

Yes, it does make him stupid. He has no common sense. Think law of the jungle instead of this crap that's written on paper. An unknown person is stalking you, fight or flight or both? If Martin also had a CHL, then this incident becomes a Mexican standoff.

That said, were I to have a choice between a Zimmerman as a neighbor, and a "me and mine" as a neighbor, I'd pick Z.

You don't get to pick your neighbors. I count on myself, not my "neighbor," which is why I carry.

cb1000rider wrote:

Bullitt wrote:...We'd all be calling him a coward if he got back in his car and moved on if some later crime occurred...

No, I don't think I would be calling him a coward if he reported the activity to the police and just moved on. In fact we wouldn't even know about any aftermath if he had just moved on.

However, this does bring up the question of where an individual feels his duty stops, or even starts. Mine stops with my person, my immediate family, my close friends, and any who are directly around me when there is a threat to a group of which I am in, like in a bank robbery or a Luby's type shooting. But if I see some suspicious looking dude tooling down the street, I will just call the cops and leave. If I see somebody breaking into a house while I am driving down the road, then I just call the cops and leave. At one time I would interfere if I saw a man beating a woman, not anymore! She turned on me, didn't want the protection/interference. One can never tell these days what type of scum you are coming to rescue, and white knights are no longer really appreciated, even here in Texas.

nightmare69 wrote:

Bullitt wrote:I'm a conservative. In fact I am a Paleo-Conservative. I would not have done what Zimmerman did. I call the cops if there is suspicious activity, and then I move on.

He did call the cops and watched were he went.

And then he did more, like getting out of his car. Zimmerman is innocent of murder, but he is guilty of being stupid.

I'm a conservative. In fact I am a Paleo-Conservative. I would not have done what Zimmerman did. I call the cops if there is suspicious activity, and then I move on.