TexasCHLforum.com

More here:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/tra ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I apologize if this is already posted. I have followed this thread closely and did not see it.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ScooterSissy wrote:

howdy wrote:I learned and always taught that the sure sign of a great Pilot is someone who uses his superior brain to avoid situations where you might have to use your superior skill.

As a CHL Instructor, I have been using the Zimmerman case as a "teaching moment" to show where you can be doing everything legally and still find yourself in a very difficult position. I was taught in my initial CHL class and again during CHL Instructor school that we should avoid as much as possible situations where the use of my handgun might be required. I won't go to River Oaks this week-end even though it would be perfectly legal.

As a CHL holder, I hold myself to a higher standard when it comes to obeying the law. The State of Florida's entire case was Z's " following, getting out of his car, confronting and killing TM. We know that it was all legal, but Z almost went to jail for the rest of his useful life and he will never walk the streets like you and me. Argue these points all you want. The proof is in the pudding. What Z did was not very bright and I for one will not imitate it.

If you had normal business needs in River Oaks this weekend, would you cancel them?

More to the point, if you had normal business needs (and we'll count "volunteer work" as business needs) in River Oaks going forward, would you quit whatever activity it was permanently, so as to never have to be in that dangerous area again?

That is what the Zimmerman critics are stating - that because he had a CHL, he should have given up being a neighborhood watch member.

That was the legitimate purpose had had for following Martin. That alone puts one in an elevated position of danger because face it, thugs don't like to be followed and/or identified.

Putting himself in that particular elevated position of danger was not illegal, it wasn't wrong, and it wasn't stupid.

I don't blame anyone for choosing not to do so, but nor should Zimmerman be "blamed" for doing it!

Where they are marching is in a subdivision, so that question and my statement stand. I would cancel a visit there for a social event but my chances of being invited there are slim and none. I do understand your question and it would be like a bad weather day, I would not go.

River Oaks is anything but dangerous. It is the most exclusive area of Houston and they have their own patrol.
This is a one time event, so NEVER going back is not relevent.

I haven't heard anyone say that being a neighborhood watch volunteer and having a CHL is not compatable. He was armed on the way to Target, not patroling as a neighborhood watch.

I am a 911 Volunteer Paramedic. I purposely do things with elevated danger, are perfectly legal, and sometimes not too bright. I try to minimize the not to bright things. I see people in EMS, both volunteer and paid, do some incredibly stupid things that are all very legal.

I am glad we have people who volunteer to be neighborhood watch, Firefighters, EMS, Police Officers, etc. It makes for better communities. I agree that Z should not be blamed for doing what he did. Sometimes we don't live in a fair world.

I learned and always taught that the sure sign of a great Pilot is someone who uses his superior brain to avoid situations where you might have to use your superior skill.

As a CHL Instructor, I have been using the Zimmerman case as a "teaching moment" to show where you can be doing everything legally and still find yourself in a very difficult position. I was taught in my initial CHL class and again during CHL Instructor school that we should avoid as much as possible situations where the use of my handgun might be required. I won't go to River Oaks this week-end even though it would be perfectly legal.

As a CHL holder, I hold myself to a higher standard when it comes to obeying the law. The State of Florida's entire case was Z's " following, getting out of his car, confronting and killing TM. We know that it was all legal, but Z almost went to jail for the rest of his useful life and he will never walk the streets like you and me. Argue these points all you want. The proof is in the pudding. What Z did was not very bright and I for one will not imitate it.

I think I'm going to hurl. The procecution rebuttal started off saying this was a confrontation being an adult man and a child. He continued to use the world child. He has used it three times since I started tying this. (Make that 4 times)

Let me speak from the experience of a professional jury member (Been on 6 juries including 2 murder trials. I have that "face" they all love) The jury has only heard all this stuff ONE time. I can guarantee they will not discuss all that we are discussing here. Maybe one or two heard Z's friend contradict GZ about TM reaching/grabbing his gun. I doubt they can remember what was said 10 days ago about when Z got out of the car and what he did after he got out. I believe the most important part of the trial will be the lawyers closing statements and the Judges instructions. Z's lawyer laid out a great case to have a bench verdit of not guilty and the Judge ignored it. Call it politics or whatever.

The lawyers forget that the jury only has the information that they hear in court. They can't listen to CNN and Nancy Grace at night to put a liberal slant on the case. On both murder trial juries, we all worked hard to come to the correct verdict. I remember having evidence in the jury room and we had no clue what it was or how it tied into the case. We would be sent out of the courtroom while the lawyers discussed a point of law, and on our return, the lawyers would just skip to the next area and leave us wondering what happened to their last point. The talking heads say the jury members are taking notes. That is OK except they are probably not listening to the current testimony while they write. This is going to be a hung jury. That is all the procecution can hope for. They will retry it and correct their mistakes from this trial. They will interview these jurers and see what helped and what hurt. The procecution has the money and the time. They will eventually win.

First off, I think he is an innocent man and should walk. That being said....AndyC does have a point. We teach in CHL classes to avoid the confrontation. I heard one TV pundit saying "I bet he would never have left his car IF he was not carrying that gun. He knew he could win any fight that might ensue" I think this is a very reasonable statement and one the procecution might use effectively to get at least a manslaughter conviction.

Experience is gained by making mistakes and mistakes are made from lack of experience. This whole case should be a learning point for all of us.

texanjoker wrote:Tried not watching any, but did today. Having spent a lot of time in court over 20 plus years I can say that IMO Zimmerman's attorneys are doing a good job to show reasonable doubt. They were not confrontational and very methodical to get the statements they needed clarified. The officer testifying that he took Zimmerman into custody at gun point did a great job. He clearly articulated it was normal procedure, it was dark and you needed a flashlight to see. That is crucial to dispute the witnesses that claimed the deceased was on the bottom. The MMA statements were great, and the fact that witness was consistent since day one is even better.

I do wonder though, where is the uproar for the police taking Zimmerman into custody at gun point? I mean shouldn't they have known he was just a CHL holding neighborhood watch citizen and disregarded basic officer safety practices "rlol" ?

Maybe if he would of had his CHL badge...

I think this is an interesting statement in the article:

"ABC News has exclusively obtained a sample of Martin's voice and sent the short sample, gathered as evidence from Martin's cell phone, to a forensic analyst. Kent Gibson of Forensic Audio tells ABC News that a comparison of Martin's voice, Zimmerman's voice and the screams on the 911 tape, indicate the voice is more likely to be Zimmerman than Martin by a significant margin"