TexasCHLforum.com

Pawpaw wrote:The only fair fight is the one you win.

texanjoker wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

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.

Yep, and there lies the irony of all this. A solution that doesn't fit any problems.

I am not sure how they run their program, but a neighborhood watch person is never "on duty." They are trained to be good witnesses and notify the police if they see something suspicious.

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;

Bullitt wrote:[Actually if your reading & comprehension skills were strong you would comprehend better what I wrote and what this statute states, "opening your....well....flexing your fingers..." apparently has backfired on you.

Like I said, a jury could call it either way. 1a is sufficient to prove the point and we don't even need to read the rest of the statute. The dispatcher has nothing to do with it, who by the way also told Z he didn't need to be following TM. Following TM could be said to have caused emotional distress, and following certainly served no legitimate purpose. There is no evidence to suggest that TM was in the neighborhood to commit a crime.

But nice try!

Bullitt wrote:You can google as well as I can. But generally it would go under stalking, and since the statutes are not really clear on harassment or stalking being that we are not under Contintental/Roman/Napoleonic code, it would be for a jury to decide.

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. [Zimmerman was asked to get descriptive information regarding the suspicious person, therefor his following Martin DID serve a legitimate purpose.]
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. [Fails the stalking test as Z only followed Martin once.]
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.
(7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).
(9)(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.
(b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.
History.—s. 1, ch. 92-208; s. 29, ch. 94-134; s. 29, ch. 94-135; s. 2, ch. 97-27; s. 23, ch. 2002-55; s. 1, ch. 2003-23; s. 3, ch. 2004-17; s. 3, ch. 2004-256; s. 17, ch. 2008-172; s. 2, ch. 2012-153.

Blindref757 wrote:http://criminaldefenseblog.blogspot.com ... erman.html

Real tweets by real people...Americans!


@A1Black_: RT @_surlySprite: They need to APPEAL THIS VERDICT AND GO TO THE SUPREME COURT Don't Stop until Justice is Served for T…

@34thwarrior: Trayvon parents should appeal this to the next level

@_CharNae: Trayvon Martin parents better appeal this case! I would NOT let nobody off for killing my child! heck TF NO!

@_shVn: Trayvon's parents can appeal this verdict and try to get justice again! Lets pray they do and it turns out right this time! Rip

Sport Coach wrote:Incredible the difference between "reporting" on the different channels - CNN and Fox. Robert Zimmerman was a model of calm and accurate discussion, replying to Piers Morgan's baiting and inaccuracies. My jaw dropped when Morgan claimed the 17-year-old boy was only armed with a bag of Skittles to which Zimmerman replied Martin was armed with a concrete sidewalk and bone-breaking fists.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

old farmer wrote:
May both families have peace. A death of an individual is sad and may he rest in peace.

REALLY?? Since when do we care about a thug that gets himself killed when he is attacking an innocent person?? I seem to remember hundreds of posts on this forum where everyone chimed in with "good, one less criminal" or some other expression of satisfaction that the good guy won.

What? This time it's different?? Baloney! Why is it any different than the hundreds of other thugs who meet their demise by way of a good citizen defending himself?

Pawpaw wrote:How long do you folks think it will take for the rioting to begin?

The Zimmerman trial jury paused their deliberations at around 6:00PM EST to present Judge Nelson with a question:

“May we please have clarification on instructions regarding manslaughter?”

Nelson announced the question to the parties in open court, and has now recessed court 30 minutes to address the issue with the jury.

The verdict form is here. Final Jury Instructions here.

The implications of this question can only be addressed speculatively. It does, however, strongly suggest that murder 2 has been discarded from the jury’s consideration. All six jurors may be seriously considering manslaughter, or it may be a situation in which 5 jurors believe manslaughter does not apply (presumably because the State has failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt) but find they are having trouble convincing the 6th jury of the same.

texanjoker wrote:A off duty cop is taught to be a good witness first. Chasing somebody in this case would have been a poor decision as there was no life or death emergency.

texanjoker wrote:Here is an interesting thought.....

if the jury returns a guilty verdict today, is GZ going to be immediately taken back into custody? I've seen it go both ways.

A-R wrote:I was right there with him until this idiotic statement:

Liberal and conservative news TV and radio have played to the racial theme, too. The left, notably Rev. Al Sharpton, have made the case a crusade for racial justice. The right-wing media, especially talk radio, has responded by making Zimmerman a hero. In fact, Zimmerman’s lawyer, Mark O’Mara, created an online site that attracted more than $145,000 from people who somehow made Zimmerman into their champion, possibly their great white hero.

And now the media, especially some conservative talk radio outlets, are fixated on the possibility of race riots if Zimmerman is acquitted. Meanwhile, Twitter and other social media sites are full of threats from angry black people to kill Zimmerman if he is not held accountable by a jury for killing Martin.

Zimmerman should have listened to the 911 emergency dispatch operator who told him to stop following Martin.

Valor wrote:Correct, he was only told his "following" was not needed. Many keep stating he was told not to follow. One is a directive the other is a suggestion. What I do question, if he admits to following, doesn't that contradict Zimmerman statement he got out of the vehicle to get an address?