tuna55
PowerDork
7/16/13 1:06 p.m.
yamaha wrote:
Brandishing in some states is "Reckless use of a firearm", and WHEN convicted would result in loss of firearms ownership. It is not a risk worth taking.
He's exactly right here. Let me confirm what a lot of gun owners have already said.
You present your weapon when you are certain it is necessary to shoot it to stop a threat to yours or another life. Never beforehand. Never to fire a warning shot, never to wave it around. You make the decision before you reach.
Brandishing is a terribly easy thing to have accused against you, even by the very person you're defending yourself from.
The best answer my cop friend has managed to come up with is yo take a defensive posture, put one hand on your weapon (still concealed), one hand out in front, with all of your courage, shout "STOP!", leaving the would-be attacker no doubt as to what he/she is about to cause without revealing, threatening or brandishing. They keep coming, then you draw and fire to stop the threat.
Bobzilla wrote:
Datsun1500 wrote:
Do I think Zimmerman shot in self defense? Yes. Do I think Zimmerman provoked the attack? Yes.
I don't think he should get charged with murder, but I am still amazed by the people that think Zimmerman did nothing wrong.
He went after a kid, that kid fought back and died. He gets away with no penalty. That is wrong.
That's not what the trial showed to have happened. But you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong you are.
Agreed.
At what point does it become OK to take a verbal conflict and escalate it to a Physical one, and who is then responsible for that escalation? Is it the person that threw the first punch or the person that said the first word?
The evidence presented was apparently consistent with Zimmermans acounts of the exchange. It is possible he approached Martin with the gun already out, made threat of physical harm while brandishing, and Martin was reacting with physical violence out of self defense. It's also possible things went down exactly as Zimmerman said they did.
It appeared that Martin approached Z. But again, you can cling to whatever belief you want. It's a free country.
yamaha wrote:
In reply to nocones:
The key has always been "reasonable" on those.....to think that something bad happens somewhere, but ALL of us must bear the burden is insane.
It would be no different if every time a drunk driver killed someone we must all pay in higher fines, more restrictions and more "Safety".
tuna55
PowerDork
7/16/13 1:27 p.m.
Listen, guys. Pay attention.
Zim should not have gotten out of the car. Got it, he's not blameless. he did, though, some stuff happened, and the other guy got shot.
The stuff is impossible to "know". The police got the story and bought it and didn't charge him. The jury then got involved, got the story, and didn't charge him. There is not enough evidence to suggest that Zim started that fight. There never will be, even if it is true that he did. Assuming his side is true, then he had every right to end it the way he did.
Datsun1500 wrote:
Bobzilla wrote:
Datsun1500 wrote:
Do I think Zimmerman shot in self defense? Yes. Do I think Zimmerman provoked the attack? Yes.
I don't think he should get charged with murder, but I am still amazed by the people that think Zimmerman did nothing wrong.
He went after a kid, that kid fought back and died. He gets away with no penalty. That is wrong.
That's not what the trial showed to have happened. But you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong you are.
Zimmerman had a choice to confront Martin. Martin did not have the same choice.
Zimmerman approached Martin. Martin did not approach him.
Zimmerman made a choice to get out of his truck, and that led to a fight. What choice did Martin make? Walking to someones house?
It does not matter who made it physical, if Zimmerman did not get out of his truck, Martin would be alive. What is the counter? If Martin was not walking in that neighborhood, he would be alive? Is that the counter?
Again, man. You're ignoring the facts and repeating the misinformation that has been thrown out by irresponsible members of the media as fact. Can I politely suggest watching the interview with Zimmerman, as it may clear a few things up for you? This is, of course, the story according to him, but it jibes with the eyewitness's account...which is why, after 5 hours of grilling by the local PD, they did not arrest him.
This "A black kid was just walking down the street, minding his own business, and this white guy jumped out of the car, started a fight, and shot him" nonsense is JUST THAT; nonsense. Sadly, it's sparked a lot of animosity and violence, and probably ruined the life of a guy who was just trying to do his job...a guy who mentored black kids, and organized protests against the local PD for beating a homeless black man to death.
The counter is had martin not punched Zimmerman he either would still be alive or Zimmerman would be in jail.
It is not a reasonable response to a verbal confrontation to engage in a physical one. Simply initiating a non physical confrontation does not make you responsible for the results if it turns physical. What you seem to be implying is that had Martin beaten Zimmerman to death you would simply say oh well Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his truck.
tuna55 wrote:
The best answer my cop friend has managed to come up with is yo take a defensive posture, put one hand on your weapon (still concealed), one hand out in front, with all of your courage, shout "STOP!", leaving the would-be attacker no doubt as to what he/she is about to cause without revealing, threatening or brandishing. They keep coming, then you draw and fire to stop the threat.
I have seen something like this before and it seems like a pretty good solution. I would think this would be part of the CC permit training.
tuna55
PowerDork
7/16/13 1:55 p.m.
aircooled wrote:
tuna55 wrote:
The best answer my cop friend has managed to come up with is yo take a defensive posture, put one hand on your weapon (still concealed), one hand out in front, with all of your courage, shout "STOP!", leaving the would-be attacker no doubt as to what he/she is about to cause without revealing, threatening or brandishing. They keep coming, then you draw and fire to stop the threat.
I have seen something like this before and it seems like a pretty good solution. I would think this would be part of the CC permit training.
DOH! Wrong reference - it was, the cop guy who assisted with my CWP class, not cop buddy, wrong cop!
SVreX
MegaDork
7/16/13 2:16 p.m.
In reply to Datsun1500:
GZ was head of the neighborhood watch group. There is no "off duty" for a volunteer position.
He was running a personal errand at that moment, but anyone who had the responsibility for being head of the neighborhood watch group would have stopped if he saw something suspicious, whether or not they were "on duty" at that moment
SVreX wrote:
In reply to Datsun1500:
GZ was head of the neighborhood watch group. There is no "off duty" for a volunteer position.
He was running a personal errand at that moment, but anyone who had the responsibility for being head of the neighborhood watch group would have stopped if he saw something suspicious, whether or not they were "on duty" at that moment
If by head you mean "only" member of that group, then yes, he was a SELF appointed head of that "group".
Neighborhood watch isn't a 9-5 "job". It's just that, a group that keeps an eye out. He had organized the neighborhood watch, and on the night in question spotted a suspicious person walking down the sidewalk BEHIND condo's at twilight in the rain.
yamaha
UberDork
7/16/13 2:23 p.m.
Yes yes yes, we've already heard that....
SVreX wrote:
In reply to Datsun1500:
GZ was head of the neighborhood watch group. There is no "off duty" for a volunteer position.
He was running a personal errand at that moment, but anyone who had the responsibility for being head of the neighborhood watch group would have stopped if he saw something suspicious, whether or not they were "on duty" at that moment
I don't live in a neighborhood, or have a "Watch group", but all of my neighbors (self included) would immediately call the cops on suspicious activity. You don't have to be part of a NW.
ELEVEN berkeleying pages?!
I heard the Dept of Social Justice (aka. DOJ) is fixing to charge Zimmerman with carrying concealed racism. Due to the nature of his skin color it is obvious he is racist, had an obligation to put it on display, and failed to do so. Secondary charges are to include involuntary racism
SVreX
MegaDork
7/16/13 2:34 p.m.
Cone_Junky wrote:
If by head you mean "only" member of that group, then yes, he was a SELF appointed head of that "group".
If you say so.
I know that's what some of the media say.
That's not what his neighbors say.
Zimmerman's fellow watch captain
Datsun1500 wrote:
Zimmerman had a choice to confront Martin. Martin did not have the same choice.
Zimmerman approached Martin. Martin did not approach him.
Zimmerman made a choice to get out of his truck, and that led to a fight. What choice did Martin make? Walking to someones house?
It does not matter who made it physical, if Zimmerman did not get out of his truck, Martin would be alive. What is the counter? If Martin was not walking in that neighborhood, he would be alive? Is that the counter?
Ignoring the other things & focusing on the bold:
why intellectually do you seem to think TM had no power in this situation in any shape?
I graduated from Seminole High School in Sanford, Florida.
I'm also reading Will D. Campbell's "Brother to a Dragonfly." It's a memoir of his growing up in the South and going on to become the chaplain at Ole Miss in the late 1950s, where he became involved in the Civil Rights movement. He's gorgeously honest about the world he grew up in. He also details how the white landowners in the South returned the poor blacks and the poor whites to servitude within a generation of reconstruction by setting the two factions against each other.
Both of these experiences make me very sad about what's happened/happening in Sanford--and also aware that offering my summary judgement or a quick, pithy observation would be offensive.
This is history, like it or not, and history has a weird way of worming itself out of the pigeonholes and hard lines we try to nail it into. Sometimes, though, if you open yourself up to all of its sides, you can get a glimpse of its true nature. Otherwise, you're just its bitch.
Margie
SVreX wrote:
Cone_Junky wrote:
If by head you mean "only" member of that group, then yes, he was a SELF appointed head of that "group".
If you say so.
I know that's what some of the media say.
That's not what his neighbors say.
Zimmerman's fellow watch captain
Stop bringing facts into this. They have no place in this discussion.... that was shown to be true pages and pages ago.
Sorry, I think I overwrote my response. What I meant to say was, "Really, stop now."
Margie
SVreX wrote:
Cone_Junky wrote:
If by head you mean "only" member of that group, then yes, he was a SELF appointed head of that "group".
If you say so.
I know that's what some of the media say.
That's not what his neighbors say.
Zimmerman's fellow watch captain
I stand corrected. I should have just continued to not give a E36 M3 about this whole trial.
