TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

apostate wrote:Consider the phrase, "Step off my grill, dawg." It's an idiomatic expression, not intended to be taken literally.

I have no idea how to interpret that.... Does "grill" mean a grill (for cooking), a grill (the front of a car), a grill (the front of a car for teeth), or is it an incorrect use of the verb grill (the act of cooking) or grill (to ask questions)?

Your "grill" is your teeth...so telling someone to get out of your grill or get off your grill is to tell them to get out of your face, or to get away from you, even. The word grill is used because of the metal (gold) caps that a lot of rappers get on their teeth, thus giving the allusion to the grill of a car.

When you are an aircraft maintenance sergeant in the USAF and spend some significant time driving a truck full of young mechanics around, you learn a lot of stuff about "pop culture".

gdanaher wrote:I think the nexus of the problem is at the feet of the governor who appointed a special prosecutor who in turn overcharged Zimmerman. This was all done with the clear understanding that the Sanford PD had already conducted a thorough investigation. By overcharging, they guaranteed that Zimmerman would walk, that the general public, not being well schooled in criminal justice, would scream that this was not justice becasue justice only occurs when the lynch mob is satisfied, but in the end, the governor looks good because he 'sought justice'. There is probably some much more minor charge that might have been provable, but going the the jugular, they guaranteed a loss for the state. Now, if the whiners would only take a breath and sit back they might realize that actual justice did in fact occur because the evidence presented to the jury proved that Zimmerman was not guilty of murder 2. Maybe discharging a firearm within city limits, but not murder 2.

During the Piers Morgan interview, Jeantel said that the jurors were "old school". I fear that, like the Constitution, too many join her in believing that our current justice system is arcane. Their alternative of "street justice" would be even more discriminatory but somehow they miss the point that it depends on who is administering it.

chasfm11 wrote:

gdanaher wrote:I think the nexus of the problem is at the feet of the governor who appointed a special prosecutor who in turn overcharged Zimmerman. This was all done with the clear understanding that the Sanford PD had already conducted a thorough investigation. By overcharging, they guaranteed that Zimmerman would walk, that the general public, not being well schooled in criminal justice, would scream that this was not justice becasue justice only occurs when the lynch mob is satisfied, but in the end, the governor looks good because he 'sought justice'. There is probably some much more minor charge that might have been provable, but going the the jugular, they guaranteed a loss for the state. Now, if the whiners would only take a breath and sit back they might realize that actual justice did in fact occur because the evidence presented to the jury proved that Zimmerman was not guilty of murder 2. Maybe discharging a firearm within city limits, but not murder 2.

During the Piers Morgan interview, Jeantel said that the jurors were "old school". I fear that, like the Constitution, too many join her in believing that our current justice system is arcane. Their alternative of "street justice" would be even more discriminatory but somehow they miss the point that it depends on who is administering it.

The last thing the minorities are longing to have is "street-justice". So many armed and angry business owners would not take that easily.

George Zimmerman was out of bounds in what he did and will forever live with the consequences of his decisions that night. However, there was not evidence of him committing a crime. Justice is not always fair and we should all share in the grief of a lost life.

OldGrumpy wrote:George Zimmerman was out of bounds in what he did and will forever live with the consequences of his decisions that night. However, there was not evidence of him committing a crime. Justice is not always fair and we should all share in the grief of a lost life.

TM's status is a result of the consequences of his actions too. Z was not wise but not all of his actions were "out of bounds".

Anygunanywhere

OldGrumpy wrote:George Zimmerman was out of bounds in what he did and will forever live with the consequences of his decisions that night. However, there was not evidence of him committing a crime. Justice is not always fair and we should all share in the grief of a lost life.

Unfortunatly I think that life was lost before Zimmerman ever got out of his car. Had George stayed home, had he looked right instead of left, had he stayed in the car and nothing happened that night. Mr. Martin was already on a terrible downward spiral. Could he have come out of it, maybe, but it would have taken an intervention and it does not look like anyone in his life cared enough about the young man to teach him some sense. He had been shielded from the consequences of his behavior for years (the jewelry incident is evidence of this). He thought he could act with impunity and never feel a consequence for his behavior.

Ms. Jenteel said in the interview that TM was only whooping his butt* (she used a different word). In the real world you attempt to whoop someone's butt they are permitted to fight back with whatever means they have at hand.

How sad it is that no one loved this young man enough to let him feel consequences for behavior. How sad that he had to find out this in a lethal way. Had it not been Zimmerman that night, it would have been someone else further along. He was on a path to end up dead or in prison, and it terrible that no one cared enough to stop it.

Zimmerman made foolish tactical errors. He has suffered mightily for them. Mr. Martins parents made terrible parenting choices, they are suffering for them as well. That is how life is.

Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, states he has "concerns" with the Zimmerman verdict:
http://news.yahoo.com/holder--i-share-c ... 41065.html
Concern for Trayvon, Justice for Trayvon? What about Justice for: Ed, Jacqueline, Dane, Gizelle, Peter, Aurelia, Jeremiah, Marissa, Fernando, April, Angel, Shaneda, Kevin, Denise, Miguel, Jonylah, Vincent, Hadiya or any of the other over 200 murder victims in Chicago this year?
http://homicides.suntimes.com/photo-gallery/2013/

sjfcontrol wrote:I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked buy Martin. There is nothing in hard evidence that indicates that Martin was ever attacked by George.

Infact the only physical evidence at all were the injuries. GZ had a displacement fx of the nose, multiple bruises and lacerations to the head. The ONLY injury TM had besides the bullet wound was abrasions, to what? His knuckles.

Added in Edit:
I worked a few extra hours yesterday at the station and had purposefully avoided conversations about the Zimmerman trial. But it was not to be as several members were pushing to get me engaged. I won't drag out the whole exchange but here are a few things I found incredulous:

• That so much of what is "known" by people I would rate as highly intelligent and reasonable was obviously what was fed to them through the media. As passionate as they were none had obviously researched or cared enough to listen to the actual proceedings.
• The continued assertion that this 17 y.o 6'1" 160 pound man was a child. I asked them if they knew what I was doing when I was 17, 6'1" and 170#? I was going to jump school in the U.S. Army.
• That the contents of his phone didn't matter. But knowing that information, knowing it was withheld from the jury that the jury after listening to all of the tapes ad nauseum, hearing all of the testimony and seeing all the pictures ruled "not guilty". Yet they can stand and be piously sure that GZ is guilty of murder.
• That it started with GZ. Reductionism demonstrates it started wit TM's past crimes and his displcement due to suspension from school. If THAT hadn't happened he wouldn't have been there to be seen or followed in the first place.
• That somehow, being followed gives one the right to double back (though many argue that TM didn't double back despite Jenteel's testimony) and start whoopin' on somebody and subsequent to that, a butt whoopin' doesn't mean you can shoot somebody.

I am saddened, sickened and disheartened. I don't know where this is leading, but its not good.

baldeagle wrote:

Valor wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: That's actually incorrect. Her testimony was that Trayvon said "get off, get off".

If you've been around young people who use "street lingo", "get off" has nothing to do with physically being atop someone. It's akin to saying "get out of my face".

Are you saying Zimmerman got close enough to Trayvon causing Trayvon to ask Zimmerman to get out of his face? Therefore, it is reasonable Zimmerman could have given Martin a shove or grab his arm, thus Martin returning with a blow to the nose. We only have one person able to give account. Going back to the original question regarding if Martin committed a felony; there is reasonable doubt that he did not. Just as there was reasonable doubt Zimmerman did not murder Martin. Let's see how the civil trial go, if there is a trial.

There won't be one. Zimmerman is immune from civil suit.

Is that a law in Florida?

OldGrumpy wrote:George Zimmerman was out of bounds in what he did and will forever live with the consequences of his decisions that night. However, there was not evidence of him committing a crime. Justice is not always fair and we should all share in the grief of a lost life.

Zimmerman put himself into a bad position and was not prepared to defend himself which caused him to use deadly force. Unless he goes into some serious hiding, I believe Z is doomed.

texanjoker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Valor wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: That's actually incorrect. Her testimony was that Trayvon said "get off, get off".

If you've been around young people who use "street lingo", "get off" has nothing to do with physically being atop someone. It's akin to saying "get out of my face".

Are you saying Zimmerman got close enough to Trayvon causing Trayvon to ask Zimmerman to get out of his face? Therefore, it is reasonable Zimmerman could have given Martin a shove or grab his arm, thus Martin returning with a blow to the nose. We only have one person able to give account. Going back to the original question regarding if Martin committed a felony; there is reasonable doubt that he did not. Just as there was reasonable doubt Zimmerman did not murder Martin. Let's see how the civil trial go, if there is a trial.

There won't be one. Zimmerman is immune from civil suit.

Is that a law in Florida?

I looked it up back when all this started, I believe its immunity "from civil liability" under Stand Your Ground. The way I read that is they can still sue, but the default judgement will be in favor of Zimmerman if not summarily dismissed.

Dragonfighter wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Valor wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: That's actually incorrect. Her testimony was that Trayvon said "get off, get off".

If you've been around young people who use "street lingo", "get off" has nothing to do with physically being atop someone. It's akin to saying "get out of my face".

Are you saying Zimmerman got close enough to Trayvon causing Trayvon to ask Zimmerman to get out of his face? Therefore, it is reasonable Zimmerman could have given Martin a shove or grab his arm, thus Martin returning with a blow to the nose. We only have one person able to give account. Going back to the original question regarding if Martin committed a felony; there is reasonable doubt that he did not. Just as there was reasonable doubt Zimmerman did not murder Martin. Let's see how the civil trial go, if there is a trial.

There won't be one. Zimmerman is immune from civil suit.

Is that a law in Florida?

I looked it up back when all this started, I believe its immunity "from civil liability" under Stand Your Ground. The way I read that is they can still sue, but the default judgement will be in favor of Zimmerman if not summarily dismissed.

That is good for him. I heard something that the family had already received 1 million from the HOA and that would effect a suit against Zimmerman.

texanjoker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Valor wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: That's actually incorrect. Her testimony was that Trayvon said "get off, get off".

If you've been around young people who use "street lingo", "get off" has nothing to do with physically being atop someone. It's akin to saying "get out of my face".

Are you saying Zimmerman got close enough to Trayvon causing Trayvon to ask Zimmerman to get out of his face? Therefore, it is reasonable Zimmerman could have given Martin a shove or grab his arm, thus Martin returning with a blow to the nose. We only have one person able to give account. Going back to the original question regarding if Martin committed a felony; there is reasonable doubt that he did not. Just as there was reasonable doubt Zimmerman did not murder Martin. Let's see how the civil trial go, if there is a trial.

There won't be one. Zimmerman is immune from civil suit.

Is that a law in Florida?

Yes.

http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl- ... -of-force/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This was an interesting thread to follow during the trial. And somewhat so immediately before & after the verdict. But since some of you seemed determined to attempt to retry the case in a way similar to how the mainstream media was covering it, I'll bow out now. But before I do, let me leave y'all with something:

jus·tice
/ˈjəstis/
Noun
Just behavior or treatment.
The quality of being fair and reasonable.

re·venge
/riˈvenj/
Noun
The action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for a wrong suffered at their hands.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

apostate wrote:Consider the phrase, "Step off my grill, dawg." It's an idiomatic expression, not intended to be taken literally.

I have no idea how to interpret that.... Does "grill" mean a grill (for cooking), a grill (the front of a car), a grill (the front of a car for teeth), or is it an incorrect use of the verb grill (the act of cooking) or grill (to ask questions)?

Your "grill" is your teeth...so telling someone to get out of your grill or get off your grill is to tell them to get out of your face, or to get away from you, even. The word grill is used because of the metal (gold) caps that a lot of rappers get on their teeth, thus giving the allusion to the grill of a car.

When you are an aircraft maintenance sergeant in the USAF and spend some significant time driving a truck full of young mechanics around, you learn a lot of stuff about "pop culture".

There was a photo on Trayvon's phone of him with a fake "grill" on his teeth. Apparently he had this remove able dental device he could put in for times he wanted to "dress up" parties, dates, etc. Like most things about Trayvon's life this was not known to the jury or the public in general, since most media outlets did not publish it.