TexasCHLforum.com

Heck mamabear, lately it is hard to get unbiased news from many of the main organizations. I was listening to BBC on my satellite radio a few weeks back and was stunned that all they did was tell the story and move on. I don't know if they are always unbiased, but it sure would have been hard during the time I listened to them finding an opinion interjection.

speedsix wrote:...Shepard Smith makes Giraldo Rivera look like a professional, unbiased reporter, by comparison...and that's grading on the curve...his coverage of the Joe Horn event was idiocy...

Heck... Bill O. Isn't sounding very fair and balanced about it all either. They are about to try and use this to take our self defense rights down a notch. I sure hope and pray the rest of the country see's it for what it is... An isolated situation that is not reflective of the majority of gun owners.

Good lord!! It is all over fox news as well! At least fox news is not convicting Zimmerman without a trial. He has to be wishing he had just stayed in the car at this point. The usual "activists" are milking the racial angle for everything they can get out of it.

The question we should all be asking now is, who or what is going to be the politicians "sacrificial lamb"? Politicians can't resist a good tragedy.

Maybe instead of attacking me for saying Zimmerman and other CHLers should not attempt to be police officers, you folks may want to figure out how we can all keep the dogs from taking away our right to defend ourselves.

Beiruty wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:I don't think the situation meets the requirements for stalking.

Cool... Then you would have no reason to be concerned. Me... I call it stalking the minute I realize they are watching my every move and even going so far as to follow me around.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.

According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking."[1]

Be careful what you do, FBI and LEOs can stalk your tail and bug your car with a tracking device with impunity.

I would laugh if it weren't true! But when law enforcement does it, they call it "surveillance" and they do it in a way as to not cause a violent episode.

MeMelYup wrote:I don't think the situation meets the requirements for stalking.

Cool... Then you would have no reason to be concerned. Me... I call it stalking the minute I realize they are watching my every move and even going so far as to follow me around.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.

According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking."[1]

A-R wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:
Maybe we should post up the thread a guy made speaking of dropping his laser on two dudes in a parking lot. simply because they walked in his general direction?

Been done, not many seemed interested in responding ...

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=53890" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I saw the thread after I made my post. I would have responded but my "fan base" can be quite emotional at times. I didn't see much point in bringing them on you and your thread.

I have decided to just stay off the Zimmerman threads. I will lurk them and leave it at that. My only point in posting that was to get folks to realize trayvon had no way of knowing if Zimmerman was a good guy or a bad guy. In the thug world, which Zimmerman is as much a part of as trayvon, it is known that the game is survival of the fittest.

On this thread I will tell you that if I spot someone stalking me, I will attempt to get away by turning here and there. If I see that they are determined to stalk me... I will hide and if they get close to being on me... I will get the drop on them if possible. Since I am not cop, apprehension is not one of my options. Since I believe in survival... It might get real nasty.

The part that stinks and makes playing cop a problem... Is neither guy thinks he is the bg and both guys think the other one is up to no good. Lesson...let the cops do the stalking.... That is what we pay them for.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Hoosier Daddy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:As long as my attacker is able to get up, me giving up the advantage and allowing them up may cost me my life. I have no choice other than to continue until the threat is rendered harmless.

Don't try that in Oklahoma. http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmac ... le/3571542" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Texas law is much the same.

Seriously??? You folks don't understand the difference in my comment and this guy in Oklahoma continuing the attack AFTER his attacker was rendered incapacitated??? What the guy in Oklahoma did was take it to the point of revenge. What I said was that I have the right to make sure my attacker is no longer a threat. At that point, I will stop defending myself.

At the very least... try to use examples that fit the comments I made. What I said in my post was EXACTLY correct and I never supported taking it further than necessary to end the threat. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure I made a post on the thread concerning that situation, stating I thought it was wrong to "finish the bg off". Secondly... We are now posting links to stories of a guy trying to rob a pharmacy in a thread about a guy following a different guy around the neighborhood for no other reason than he didn't like the way the guy was dressed.

Maybe we should post up the thread a guy made speaking of dropping his laser on two dudes in a parking lot. simply because they walked in his general direction? Maybe a link to the thread where the poster was going to draw down on a Christian who was approaching with a cd about Jesus. How about the motorcycle guy with the "evil looking" ski mask waiting to use the air hose at the gas station.

Sorry folks... You can't have it both ways. If everyone is going to give kudos to the folks freaking out in the above situations, don't try to act like trayvon was wrong to think Zimmerman was a threat to him. Yep...Zimmerman had every legal right to stalk trayvon.. That does not mean it was a good idea. Anyone who has ever been in a real fight for their lives knows there is no such thing as a fair fight. Are you going to wait for the bad guy to shoot you before you fire at him? Zimmerman probably won't go to jail for acting stupid... But it doesn't change that what he did lead to the situation at hand.

This argument some of you want to make about what is justified is inconciquential to whether or not Zimmerman should have been acting in a way to cause a situation to get escalated. That is like me intentionally ramming a person who runs a red light when I could have stopped and pretending my actions didn't cause the collision.

I realize many of you have never been in a situation where defending your life might have been necessary. I wish I could say the same thing. Have any of you been in a battle for your life while a person is pounding you in the head with a ball bat?
Show of hands.... How many have had a gun put in their back and had all their money stolen because they were aware that the guy with the gun had the jump on them? Anyone here been chased down the freeway by a guy trying to line you up for a blast from a shotgun... While your child was sitting in the seat beside you? How about all of the above?

Maybe your perspective of having a person following you around late at night will change slightly. Maybe your thoughts about following someone around at night will take a different perspective. The problem gentlemen.... Is that both guys are thinking the other guy is the bad guy.

In situations like this one... Neither guy thinks they are the bad guy. Both are concerned the other is up to no good. Don't go on a Tiger hunt, corner a tiger and act surprised when the tiger tries to eat you!

You can't have it both ways folks. You notice someone stalking you while you are all alone at night and you are a fool if you walk up to them like one of the kids from Southpark and ask... Wad Up fella? Most of you know this. I have been around this forum long enough to watch many of you congratulate people for situational awareness in far less threatening situations.


The very problem with trying to intervene in possible criminal situations is that if the guy you are stalking isn't up to anything illegal, they are going to think THEY are the good guy.

I realize I got off the original topic but since the thread and the op has taken it this direction I figured it would be OK for me to defend myself when a post is made in an attempt to discredit a comment I made earlier.

The Annoyed Man wrote:
03LightningRocks, you've described your past experiences to me, and I tend to agree with you that he should have never followed Martin. I'd be willing to bet that if you could ask Zimmerman that question today, he would agree with you. This is why our CHLs are not batman licenses, and unless it really is a matter of life and death for someone you love or you're pretty sure is an innocent victim, it is better not to play-act at being a cop and restrict yourself to being a good witness.

Funny... that was the only point I have been trying to make all along. When we bring up a self defense situation to discuss on this forum, we should discuss what the actors could have done to stay out of the situation as well as the legalities of what they did.

Beiruty wrote:we do not know if GZ talked to the TM before the shooting, or it was the case that after losing the trail of TM, GZ turns back to go to his car. At that time, TM would approach from the back and asks GZ, "Do you have a problem. GZ: No and reaches for his cellphone. TN: "Now you have a problem" and attack TM with a punch to the nose....and the rest is history.

LOL... I love that. I have actually been in that situation. "what you looking at?" . "one of the dumbest looking people I have ever seen". "you have a problem with me?"... "now I do". That is typically when all the girls start screaming at the two guys to knock it off as they charge each other windmill swinging....LOL.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I do have a question... so if I am attacked and I turn the tables on my attacker, does the law not allow me to continue until the percieved threat is no longer a threat. At this point it has turned into revenge if I continue to attack? Then of coarse the question becomes, when is my attacker no longer a threat to me? My answer may be different than maybe a person of less ability to defend themselves. For me, that level would be incapacitation... how ever I must accomplish this goal. As long as my attacker is able to get up, me giving up the advantage and allowing them up may cost me my life. I have no choice other than to continue until the threat is rendered harmless.

One thing I know from this case... make sure the other person is dead so you only have one story to worry about.

03Lightningrocks, I don't know if this is true or not, but according to Zimmerman's family, the two of them tussled on the ground for a bit while Zimmerman screamed for help, but that he did not go for his gun until Martin tried to take it from him, telling Zimmerman words to the effect of "tonight you're gonna die.". IF that is true, then Zimmerman didn't "turn the tables" on Martin. IF that is true, then he was losing a fight and about to be killed with his own gun, and he did what he had to do to live. End of story. I'm not going to argue if he had any business following Martin based on being either a neighborhood watch captain, off-duty or not, or simply being a concerned resident. I'm perfectly willing to concede—particularly in hindsight—that it was probably not a wise thing to do. Not illegal, but not wise either. If you ever have a chance, and this is relevant to this thread, you owe it to yourself to take one of Charles Cotton's "use of deadly force in Texas" seminars. It is an eye-opener.

Among other things you'll learn (which you probably already know) is that fighting words that cause a fight to which you respond with deadly force will severely compromise your defense if you shoot somebody under those conditions. But the takeaway that I got from that seminar is that there is room there. If you provoke a fight with words, the other guy takes it to you, and you shoot him, you've got big problems; BUT, if you provoked a fight with words, the other guy doesn't do anything right away, you cool off and you leave, and after you have turned to go and are walking away and he then assaults you, you might have some wiggle room there to defend yourself, including with deadly force if it becomes necessary. And how things will go for you depends a lot on whether or not your witnesses outnumber his witnesses, and whether either yours or his are reliable witnesses. And this is where we find ourselves with Zimmerman, if his shooting happens in Texas.

For what it's worth, here is my take on the events as they unfolded:

1. Zimmerman, an off-duty neighborhood watch captain of a gated community is getting in his car to go to the market when he notices a "suspicious" (to him) unknown character whom he does not recognize to be a resident loitering around the parking lot inside of this gated community. In this context, "suspicious" means "thuggish-looking," which was a look and persona that Martin definitely cultivated. As a neighborhood watch captain, Zimmerman would likely know most of the residents, including some of the black residents to whom he is personally close as both a good friend and a mentor to their children.
2. Zimmerman exits his car to follow Martin to see what home he is going to. When it becomes apparent that Martin is not going to any home but is just bumming around the parking lot, Zimmerman's suspicions increase.
3. Zimmerman then confronts Martin verbally. We don't know yet what exactly was said. We will only ever know Zimmerman's version of the conversation if he is forced to testify. If the rest of his testimony is corroborated by witnesses, then there is some reason to give his narrative the benefit of the doubt; yet, we will never know for certain. However, I can hypothesize that it went something like this:
   
   Zimmerman: "Can I help you?"
   Martin: "No," or "Get lost," or "I'm trying to find a friend's house." (Let's give Martin the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the latter.)
   Zimmerman: "Well, this is a private gated community, and unless you either live here or know who you are going to visit, you'll have to leave." Or...."We don't need any [insert racist expletive here] hanging around here, you better go!" (Again, lets give Martin the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the latter.)
4. Zimmerman turns and walks back to his vehicle.
5. A few seconds later, Martin has (per eyewitnesses) assaulted Zimmerman from behind.
6. Martin gotten Zimmerman on his back, is pounding his head into the pavement, is beating the snot out of him, and he sees Zimmerman's gun and goes for it, telling Zimmerman "you're going to die tonight!
7. Martin and Zimmerman struggle over Zimmerman's gun (according to Zimmerman's testimony to both police and to his family and friends).
8. Zimmerman gets it turned toward Martin and pulls the trigger.
9. Martin dies almost instantly from a single 9mm shot at contact distance.

Now, play this back in a Texas courtroom—since that is the title of this thread—and ask yourself if a Texas grand jury would likely indict or no-bill Zimmerman. It really all pivots on an unknowable exchange of words that took place between Zimmerman and Martin in the moments before the scuffle. But we do know that Zimmerman had turned and was walking away. Therefore, at the very worst, even if he spoke "fighting words" during that vocal exchange, he had backed down and was walking away. That gives him a modicum of wiggle room. At the very least, if he did not speak fighting words but merely instructed Martin that he had to move on, then all of the responsibility for this would rest on Martin's shoulders as being the initiator of an assault.

I think Zimmerman walks if it is in Texas. They only have word from one person about who intiated the attack. Now if Martin had managed to live and was claiming GZ tried to subdue him... different story... maybe a coin toss.

Don't make the mistake of thinking I believe Zimmerman should be in jail for being a moron. Quite the contrary... I don't think they have evidence in the slightest to throw him in jail. If he does go to jail, it will be because of politics. That does not change my belief, based on a few very serious, personal situations of my own, that Zimmerman should not have risked his life in that situation by leaving the vehicle.

sjfcontrol wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:03 -- this thread is supposed to be about an analysis of the Zimmerman/Martin shooting against texas laws. You have already made your point in other threads about what you think. Unless you want to discuss the subject with respect to chapter 9 of the penal code, please go back to those other threads. Your posts are off topic here.

My post does have to do with the penal code.


If I am attacked first, when does the law say I have to stop defending myself? Is it when the threat is no longer a threat? Or is it when I believe the threat is no longer a threat. My post was exactly related to this thread.

DId you read the second post in this thread? PC9.32 tells you precisely when deadly force is justified, and when it ceases to be. You can use deadly force when you REASONABLY believe it is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. (Assuming that the other is not committing various violent crimes). Also, the use of force is NO LONGER JUSTIFIED (and therefore deadly force is no longer justified) once the other other party abandons his use of force, or indicates a willingness to do so. Please read the analysis if you still have questions.

P.S. Maybe YOU missed MY post?

Yes... the over analysis threw me for a loop. I get it now. So if Trayvon thought Zimmerman was ca[pable of getting up and resuming the attack, he would be justified in continueing the attack. That is what I was thinking. Thanks so very much for the enlightenment.

Absolutely right! That is precisely what I and PC 9.31 says.

Thanks Again...

sjfcontrol wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:03 -- this thread is supposed to be about an analysis of the Zimmerman/Martin shooting against texas laws. You have already made your point in other threads about what you think. Unless you want to discuss the subject with respect to chapter 9 of the penal code, please go back to those other threads. Your posts are off topic here.

My post does have to do with the penal code.


If I am attacked first, when does the law say I have to stop defending myself? Is it when the threat is no longer a threat? Or is it when I believe the threat is no longer a threat. My post was exactly related to this thread.

DId you read the second post in this thread? PC9.32 tells you precisely when deadly force is justified, and when it ceases to be. You can use deadly force when you REASONABLY believe it is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. (Assuming that the other is not committing various violent crimes). Also, the use of force is NO LONGER JUSTIFIED (and therefore deadly force is no longer justified) once the other other party abandons his use of force, or indicates a willingness to do so. Please read the analysis if you still have questions.

P.S. Maybe YOU missed MY post?

Yes... the over analysis threw me for a loop. I get it now. So if Trayvon thought Zimmerman was ca[pable of getting up and resuming the attack, he would be justified in continuing the attack. That is what I was thinking. Thanks so very much for the enlightenment.

bayouhazard wrote:My proposed theory is supported by as much evidence as any of the theories that George drew first blood.

Personally I think there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll.

Very true. You may be right... but Jack Ruby made sure we would never here the full story on that one...

03Lightningrocks wrote:I do have a question... so if I am attacked and I turn the tables on my attacker, does the law not allow me to continue until the percieved threat is no longer a threat. At this point it has turned into revenge if I continue to attack? Then of coarse the question becomes, when is my attacker no longer a threat to me? My answer may be different than maybe a person of less ability to defend themselves. For me, that level would be incapacitation... how ever I must accomplish this goal. As long as my attacker is able to get up, me giving up the advantage and allowing them up may cost me my life. I have no choice other than to continue until the threat is rendered harmless.

One thing I know from this case... make sure the other person is dead so you only have one story to worry about.

Maybe you missed the post. That might explain the rude response you made.