TexasCHLforum.com

Superman wrote:Lawmakers trying to get Justice Dept. to look into all "Stand Your Ground" type laws:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03 ... latestnews

This is exactly where I predicted this was going. Gun owners who fell for the media hyperbolism fell right into the anti-gunner's trap.

Plus, with the new testimony out that supports the evidence, it looks like Florida's initial aggressor statute covers Zimmerman because Martin used excessive force that a reasonable person could conclude presents a danger of death or great bodily harm. If the grand jury hears the testimony of the witness saying he thought Zimmerman was dead or dying, it's all over for the case against him.

Time to fight back on this, folks.

More information: http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm ... 2_4m2JSR8E

"George Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, and had an injury to the back of his head, he was attacked by Trayvon Martin on that evening," Sonner said. "This was a case of self defense."

When asked why Zimmerman went after Martin, even though a 911 dispatcher told him not to, Sonner said: "Those are questions that will be answered."

{snip}

Sonner insisted that Zimmerman is not a racist, pointing out that he and his wife mentored for two black children for free.

"When I asked this mother [of the mentees], who trusted [Zimmerman and his wife], and she's an African-American, if she trusted George Zimmerman, she said she did, and I asked her if there was anything that caused her to believe that she was a racist, and she said, 'Absolutely not.' And I said, went further, 'Did you ever hear him use racial slurs in any time that you'd been around him?' And she said, 'no' as well," Sonner said.

{snip}

"There are people who have accused George of profiling, well, I would think as a watch commander you are keeping an eye out for people you don't recognize in your neighborhood," Oliver said.

"The reason why he was following this suspicious person that he saw was because the neighborhood had a rash of break-ins," he said. "George had no intention of taking anyone's life. He cried for days after."

Oliver said the headlines have taken a toll on Zimmerman, his wife, and his family.

"He's moved, they've disconnected their phone numbers, they're in hiding, they're fearful," Oliver said.

Meanwhile, the racist group New Black Panthers has put a $10,000 reward on Zimmerman's head. That is tantamount to solicitation of murder. If anyone harms a hair on Zimmerman's head before this dustup is resolved, the NBP leaders should be tried and imprisoned. If he is killed, they should get the death penalty for cold bloodedly conspiring to have him murdered.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1050370

The new Black Panther Party offered a bounty of $10,000 Saturday for the “capture” of a Florida neighborhood watch captain who killed unarmed teen Trayvon Martin.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” leader Mikhail Muhammad said after announcing the reward for George Zimmerman at a protest in Sanford, Fla.

Muhammad called on 5,000 black men to mobilize and capture the neighborhood watch volunteer.

“If the government won’t do the job, we’ll do it,” Muhammad said, leading chants that included “freedom or death” and “justice for Trayvon.”

Muhammad said New Black Panther’s chairman, Malik Zulu Shabaz of Washington, was taking donations from black entertainers and athletes.

RIGHT BLASTS OBAMA FOR HIS COMMENTS ON SLAIN TEEN

The group hopes to collect $1 million off the outrage by next week.

New Black Panthers members pointed to what they called the inaction of government officials — from Sanford city officials up to the governor — and accused them of lying and delaying justice.

They also said Angela Corley, the newly appointed special prosecutor, was an enemy of the black community.

“She has a track record of sending innocent young black men and women to prison,” Muhammad said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the New Black Panther Party, a black-separatist group created in 1989, “virulently racist and anti-Semitic.”

For the record, the Southern Poverty Law Center is ultra, ULTRA liberal.....so when even they call the NBP party virulently racist, you know it has to be true. These would be the same jack wagons who stood outside of polling places with billy clubs to intimidate white voters......and the Holder "Justice" department refused to investigate it. I predict that if they hurt Zimmerman, they'll walk with no punishment, as long as Holder is in office............yes, the same Holder who authorized the sale of weapons to narco traffickers, and who obstructed the investigation into it. That Holder. He's a racist SOB too.

OldCannon wrote: It's interesting how this has progressed though. One thing that's clearly in Zimmerman's favor though: Al Sharpton's batting average is abysmal when he decides to back a "cause" and fans the flames of media attention. Still, that man has more teflon than the entire Apollo missions put together.

I remember when the first Texas CHL shooting occurred. The DMN was quick to say that the licensee did not retreat, that the "victim" was unarmed, upstanding and simply wanted to "discuss" the incident. As facts came out, little things like the Samoan fellow was pushing 400# and had a long history of aggravated assaults; that the shooter 175# was prevented from getting out of the car by the Samoan fellow and that the bigger guy had started pummeling him through the window...oh yeah, the car was boxed in and could not maneuver; the story got pushed further and further back until he was no-billed by the grand jury which got a six line blurb in the op-ed section. I also recall how, at the time of the first reports, even CHL instructors were decrying the shooter's "criminal" actions and predicted that he would burn. They too had joined the public outcry for "justice" among the cacophony of anti's, "We told you so." I also remember the deafening silence when he was cleared and how the press started to minimally report on any CHL shootings in Texas where justification was apparent. But no one came back and said, "Gee, we were wrong." I expect no less in this case.

Link to the NBP "Wanted" poster -- Dead or Alive...

http://www.black-and-right.com/wp-conte ... d-dead.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sjfcontrol wrote:Link to the NBP "Wanted" poster -- Dead or Alive...

http://www.black-and-right.com/wp-conte ... d-dead.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is a felony. Who will be going to prison for it? Nobody.

Well, I hope that all the people whom have jumped the gun here saying that Zimmerman was "playing police" or not acting responsibly, have seen the light in the reports now coming out of Fl. If what I am reading is correct, Zimmerman was accosted by the "child" when all he was doing was taking an interest in his actions. Simply following someone is not "playing police", not when you are trying to protect your community. It is not breaking the law to take an interest in others actions, it is however breaking the law to mount and pummel someone. Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts / bruises.

It seems that racial and anti-gun focus groups, and even some pro-gun / chl ppl, have jumped the gun here and now those focus groups are going to ride the wave in as far as they can. If Treyvon turned and attacked Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman took an interest in his actions, then I think the community really needs to step up and aid Zimmerman against this political machine that wants to nail him to the wall.. and for what? Bad decision making? I'd say it is in our interest to protect the integrity of the "stand your ground" laws.

The thing people need to understand is the Stand Your Ground laws were just as much there for Martin as they were for Zimmerman. IF Zimmerman approached Martin and started the encounter, then Martin had a right to stand his ground and try and try to defend himself if he was attacked. And, if this was the case, then Zimmerman would NOT have had the right to defend himself, even if loosing the fight.

Likewise, while not a smart move to exit the vehicle and approach a person, if Zimmerman only approached and was not threatening or attacking Martin, but Martin attacked him, then Zimmerman had the right to defend himself as necessary to prevent serious bodily harm from Martin.

Until ALL of the eyewitness accounts are out, and the investigations have completed, I will not form an opinion one way or the other on who is at fault and if it was a justified shooting. There is just too much that we don't know at present.

What I DO hope is that any evidence they have is irrefutable so that it either totally exonerates or truly condemns Zimmerman on his actions. Especially if he is found justified, unless that hard evidence is there, he is going to be a target the rest of his life. AND if this IS the case and he was truly justified, then I think the media should outright have to have to pay for his protection program for the negative spin that they have put on this all along and riled up the masses.

Wow great post KeithB. Agree with every word.

bzo311 wrote:Well, I hope that all the people whom have jumped the gun here saying that Zimmerman was "playing police" or not acting responsibly, have seen the light in the reports now coming out of Fl. If what I am reading is correct, Zimmerman was accosted by the "child" when all he was doing was taking an interest in his actions. Simply following someone is not "playing police", not when you are trying to protect your community. It is not breaking the law to take an interest in others actions, it is however breaking the law to mount and pummel someone. Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts / bruises.

It seems that racial and anti-gun focus groups, and even some pro-gun / chl ppl, have jumped the gun here and now those focus groups are going to ride the wave in as far as they can. If Treyvon turned and attacked Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman took an interest in his actions, then I think the community really needs to step up and aid Zimmerman against this political machine that wants to nail him to the wall.. and for what? Bad decision making? I'd say it is in our interest to protect the integrity of the "stand your ground" laws.

...the error here is that you ignore the fact that Z joined Neighborhood Watch...professed himself to be a leader...then by his own lips, followed, chased, and accosted a "suspicious" person...violating basic rules of N.W., went armed on duty...against N.W. rules, and refused to back off when the police dispatcher told him to...instead of cooperating with Law Enforcement, he wanted to BE the law enforcement...he started the whole thing in motion..."taking an interest in his actions" would have meant observe and report, and keep his big mouth shut...in this respect...we have not jumped the gun...in guessing what happened after Z accosted and questioned the deceased, we may have...whatever happened to Z or whatever happens to him in the future...he brought on himself...

...the ins and outs of Fla. law about who was the aggressor or did he try to disengage matter not a whit...he was playing police and assuming authority he never had...and that's why it happened...had he made the phone call and went on about his business...none of this would have happened...THAT fact is not in dispute...

bzo311 wrote:Well, I hope that all the people whom have jumped the gun here saying that Zimmerman was "playing police" or not acting responsibly, have seen the light in the reports now coming out of Fl. If what I am reading is correct, Zimmerman was accosted by the "child" when all he was doing was taking an interest in his actions. Simply following someone is not "playing police", not when you are trying to protect your community. It is not breaking the law to take an interest in others actions, it is however breaking the law to mount and pummel someone. Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts / bruises.

It seems that racial and anti-gun focus groups, and even some pro-gun / chl ppl, have jumped the gun here and now those focus groups are going to ride the wave in as far as they can. If Treyvon turned and attacked Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman took an interest in his actions, then I think the community really needs to step up and aid Zimmerman against this political machine that wants to nail him to the wall.. and for what? Bad decision making? I'd say it is in our interest to protect the integrity of the "stand your ground" laws.

I disagree. I do still believe Zimmerman was “playing police” and it was his actions that lead to the encounter in the first place. For instance, what was Martin doing that made him suspicious? It is not illegal to walk home from the store in a hoodie is it? At this point, nobody knows how the fight started, but we do know that Zimmerman called in to report a suspicious person who was breaking no law and then proceeded to follow/chase Martin after he ran away.

As I have stated before. I see no problem with the law. But I will not step up and aid Zimmerman in any way, nor do I have any obligation to do so. It is not protecting the integrity of the law if it’s not applied justly. There are way too many questions surrounding this case for it not to have been sent to the GJ weeks ago. That would have avoided the media circus we have now.

Jusster

Jusster wrote:I do still believe Zimmerman was “playing police” and it was his actions that lead to the encounter in the first place. For instance, what was Martin doing that made him suspicious? It is not illegal to walk home from the store in a hoodie is it? At this point, nobody knows how the fight started, but we do know that Zimmerman called in to report a suspicious person who was breaking no law and then proceeded to follow/chase Martin after he ran away.

As I have stated before. I see no problem with the law. But I will not step up and aid Zimmerman in any way, nor do I have any obligation to do so. It is not protecting the integrity of the law if it’s not applied justly. There are way too many questions surrounding this case for it not to have been sent to the GJ weeks ago. That would have avoided the media circus we have now.

Jusster

Agreed.

If Zimmerman had read the Neighborhood Watch Handbook, followed the suggestions, and then obeyed the 911 operator when told to hang tight until an officer arrived, this likely would never have made the news. If i am new to a neighborhood, it's night time, raining, and some guy is following me down the street, I might bet a little nervous too, and maybe even turn and demand why I was being followed.

The police chief was a recent replacement. His predecessor had problems and this guy was here to clean house. I'm pretty sure that here in Texas, any kind of shooting would get referred to the grand jury just as normal practice. Obviously not in Florida, but it would have saved the chief's job and saved the reputation of the local police.

Jusster wrote:

bzo311 wrote:Well, I hope that all the people whom have jumped the gun here saying that Zimmerman was "playing police" or not acting responsibly, have seen the light in the reports now coming out of Fl. If what I am reading is correct, Zimmerman was accosted by the "child" when all he was doing was taking an interest in his actions. Simply following someone is not "playing police", not when you are trying to protect your community. It is not breaking the law to take an interest in others actions, it is however breaking the law to mount and pummel someone. Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts / bruises.

It seems that racial and anti-gun focus groups, and even some pro-gun / chl ppl, have jumped the gun here and now those focus groups are going to ride the wave in as far as they can. If Treyvon turned and attacked Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman took an interest in his actions, then I think the community really needs to step up and aid Zimmerman against this political machine that wants to nail him to the wall.. and for what? Bad decision making? I'd say it is in our interest to protect the integrity of the "stand your ground" laws.

I disagree. I do still believe Zimmerman was “playing police” and it was his actions that lead to the encounter in the first place. For instance, what was Martin doing that made him suspicious? It is not illegal to walk home from the store in a hoodie is it? At this point, nobody knows how the fight started, but we do know that Zimmerman called in to report a suspicious person who was breaking no law and then proceeded to follow/chase Martin after he ran away.

As I have stated before. I see no problem with the law. But I will not step up and aid Zimmerman in any way, nor do I have any obligation to do so. It is not protecting the integrity of the law if it’s not applied justly. There are way too many questions surrounding this case for it not to have been sent to the GJ weeks ago. That would have avoided the media circus we have now.

Jusster

IMO, Playing police would mean that Z would have stopped and questioned Trayvon, maybe tried for apprehension. Did he do that?. Second, it isn't against the law to trail someone whom you think is suspicious, nor is it a justifiable means to attack someone; just because they were following you? By your admission, Z instigated the confrontation, so by following someone you, for whatever reason is your own, deem suspicious then you're asking for a a broken nose...? Sorry, but simply trailing someone is a non-aggressive act that does not justify an aggressive solution, therefore I don;t see why we're saying Z automatically is the aggressor, without any details as to whom actually 'threw the first punch".

speedsix wrote:

bzo311 wrote:Well, I hope that all the people whom have jumped the gun here saying that Zimmerman was "playing police" or not acting responsibly, have seen the light in the reports now coming out of Fl. If what I am reading is correct, Zimmerman was accosted by the "child" when all he was doing was taking an interest in his actions. Simply following someone is not "playing police", not when you are trying to protect your community. It is not breaking the law to take an interest in others actions, it is however breaking the law to mount and pummel someone. Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts / bruises.

It seems that racial and anti-gun focus groups, and even some pro-gun / chl ppl, have jumped the gun here and now those focus groups are going to ride the wave in as far as they can. If Treyvon turned and attacked Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman took an interest in his actions, then I think the community really needs to step up and aid Zimmerman against this political machine that wants to nail him to the wall.. and for what? Bad decision making? I'd say it is in our interest to protect the integrity of the "stand your ground" laws.

...the error here is that you ignore the fact that Z joined Neighborhood Watch...professed himself to be a leader...then by his own lips, followed, chased, and accosted a "suspicious" person...violating basic rules of N.W., went armed on duty...against N.W. rules, and refused to back off when the police dispatcher told him to...instead of cooperating with Law Enforcement, he wanted to BE the law enforcement...he started the whole thing in motion..."taking an interest in his actions" would have meant observe and report, and keep his big mouth shut...in this respect...we have not jumped the gun...in guessing what happened after Z accosted and questioned the deceased, we may have...whatever happened to Z or whatever happens to him in the future...he brought on himself...

...the ins and outs of Fla. law about who was the aggressor or did he try to disengage matter not a whit...he was playing police and assuming authority he never had...and that's why it happened...had he made the phone call and went on about his business...none of this would have happened...THAT fact is not in dispute...

Sorry, but it is up for dispute. Yes, he could have made a phone call and went home. But DID HE BREAK A LAW by continuing to trail Treyvon? In your opinion (which is disputable) he is wrong for continuing, and I can agree it was poor judgement, but he is within his right to follow what he may deem a threat to his community. the error here that you seem to be missing is that it isnt the act of following someone that led to the shooting, it was the act of aggression, the "first punch", so to speak, that led to the shooting. Without that, there would not have been one; right?

gdanaher wrote:If Zimmerman had read the Neighborhood Watch Handbook

Irrelevant if Z was running an errand and saw someone he thought suspicious on his return home....as the police report apparently says --then he wasn't acting in any neighbor watch capacity, wasn't "on watch."

gdanaher wrote:then obeyed the 911 operator when told to hang tight until an officer arrived

Where's your evidence he was told to "hang tight." According to a statement by the city Manager, the 911 operator said "we don't need you to do that" and did not issue any command or lawful order to Z not to do anything.

gdanaher wrote:maybe even turn and demand why I was being followed

And you'd be within your rights to do so. What you would not have a right to do is throw a punch at the guy just for following you or not showing you the respect you think you deserve.

gdanaher wrote:in Texas, any kind of shooting would get referred to the grand jury just as normal practice

I think it's up to the DA. In the Florida case, the DA reviewed the incident and declined to follow up with charges.

...the "facts" keep changing like a kaleidoscope(yes, I had to look it up), but if NW "Captain Z" had followed his training...page 1, let alone the rest of it...it wouldn't have happened...he was playing police or he never would have been following, much less chasing(as evidenced by his breathless 911 conversation which prompted the dispatcher's question...) anyone...whether or not he spoke to the deceased, he was still all wrong for doing ANYTHING but calling it in...and he knew it...the conversation/conflict/battle/shooting could not have happened if he'd just done what the NW rules said...and he was acting as a NW watch person, whether he was on a scheduled patrol or not...no following...no confrontation...he was just wrong...from his own lips...
...try trailing someone on a dark night through any neighborhood, much less chasing them if they run, and see what it gets you when the police show up...they're not going to hold with "not breaking any law"...this guy knew better...he hadn't even seen him doing anything wrong...just walking...(unless he changes that part of his story,too...)

...we have only ONE witness (so far) of who touched, hit, or shoved who first...but that's not relevant to what I'm saying here...he went against all his training and played police, following and chasing a "suspect"...who hadn't DONE anything but walk down the street...or it wouldn't have happened...making a call from his car wouldn't have caused what followed...no matter whose version or which "reliable" witness account you choose to believe...and you're either a NW captain or a "concerned citizen"...but not both...whether or not you're wearing your cape...can't have it both ways...