The "let's all beat this dead horse" thread.

If I pull my gun, I am prepared to kill, but I am not intending to kill.

I might shoot someone in self-defense (and they might die), but I don't think you can kill someone in self-defense. That would make it premeditated.

In reply to yamaha:

I agree.

I was fixing my own wording.

mtn wrote: (I don't own a gun, have never taken any gun safety courses, and what I am stating here is from what I have learned on this message board)

Then you probably shouldn't comment.

In reply to SVreX:
Ehh, maybe not premeditated if someone not known......that looks like a shoe in for at least manslaughter I though.

Bobzilla wrote:

mtn wrote: (I don't own a gun, have never taken any gun safety courses, and what I am stating here is from what I have learned on this message board)

Then you probably shouldn't comment.

[shiny happy person mode]

Do you know how discussions work? I made a point, others refuted it, I came out of it with a little more knowledge. Perhaps you should look up how discourse happens before you try to engage in it yourself.

[/shiny happy person mode]

In reply to mtn:

Bob's a ginger, I expect nothing less out of him......

Grizz wrote: Most of the time it doesn't require anything more than pulling the gun.

This is my question / concern with this situation. It seems to me if GZ had simply announced he was armed (and maybe shown / pulled the gun as necessary) when the confrontation happened, it seems very unlikely TM would have assaulted him. (however that played out, we only have GZ version)

Is anyone familiar with CC permit training? Is this part of the training? It seems to me, using the presence of the gun to avoid a situation is the best use of the gun (no one gets shot).

In reply to aircooled:

Yeah, sure, as long as Martin announced he was planning on assaulting Zimmerman.

Don't know about CC training, but I was trained that if a firearm is pulled in a self defense situation it's with the expectation that the other person will die if the trigger is pulled. That is why pulling a firearm is the absolute LAST resort, NOT the first. Real life ain't that Hollywood E36 M3 that gets people in trouble.

aircooled wrote: This is my question / concern with this situation. It seems to me if GZ had simply announced he was armed (and maybe shown / pulled the gun as necessary) when the confrontation happened,

That could easy be turned into brandishing a weapon. A felony.

I am not saying he had to pull the weapon. Simply stating "I am armed" would suffice. Maybe showing the weapon? (like I say, I have no idea if this is part of the training / protocol)

If not, then move on to the next step as necessary. It seems to me, if you have to wait until someone is on top of you hitting you until you can make use of you weapon, it greatly reduces it's usefulness, and in this case, may have made the situation worse (possibly turning a beating into a killing).

Curmudgeon wrote: Don't know about CC training, but I was trained that if a firearm is pulled in a self defense situation it's with the expectation that the other person will die if the trigger is pulled. That is why pulling a firearm is the absolute LAST resort, NOT the first. Real life ain't that Hollywood E36 M3 that gets people in trouble.

+1

I was taught not to point a weapon at anything unless I plan to destroy it and not to point it until the decision has been made to do so.

In reply to aircooled:

Nope, because if in an altercation with a baddie, the last thing you want to do is mention you're armed......that can always lead to a quick draw. It is pointless, reckless, and also a way of intimidation that can be frowned upon. If you carry a weapon for self defence, it should only be used for that. Period.

On a side note, 1911's make berkeleying awesome bottle openers for beer.

OK, I understand.

So, in the situation as presented, the "proper" protocol is to wait for the bad guy to jump at you / hit you?, and hope he misses?

Seems a bit strange to me.

Anti-stance wrote:

aircooled wrote: This is my question / concern with this situation. It seems to me if GZ had simply announced he was armed (and maybe shown / pulled the gun as necessary) when the confrontation happened,

That could easy be turned into brandishing a weapon. A felony.

Ding

http://thegrio.com/2012/11/20/71-year-old-black-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-jury-rejects-stand-your-ground-claim/

Of course, it's all racism, and not that the black dude escalated the situation by brandishing a weapon.

aircooled wrote: OK, I understand. So, in the situation as presented, the "proper" protocol is to wait for the bad guy to jump at you / hit you?, and hope he misses? Seems a bit strange to me.

Actually, in the situation presented you hope your SA has kept you from getting "jumped". But once you are attacked, then all bets are off. Even with a SYG law in place, retreat is always the preferable way out. when you're in the position of not being able to retreat (as in this case, held down, being beaten, etc) then the firearm has become the last option.

Hence the "Last resort" we keep saying. It's there to keep you from dying, that's it.

Hmm, OK. Seems like a hard situation to work out in very short time, with a high stress level.

Grizz wrote: http://thegrio.com/2012/11/20/71-year-old-black-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-jury-rejects-stand-your-ground-claim/ Of course, it's all racism, and not that the black dude escalated the situation by brandishing a weapon.

OK, that is a bit strange to me also (ignoring the racism crap). Is this guy saying that in an argument, he showed the other guy his weapon and the other guy proceeded to try and choke him?! Hey, it might just be me, but if someone shows me a gun, that last thing I am going to do is approach him and try and choke him!

Sounds more like that maybe they didn't think his story was entirely truthful. Or maybe blamed him for some of the escalation of the situation (I would not think SYG would apply in that case). I think there is more to this story then being presented.

Besides, the brandishing charge is a misdemeanor. Probably worth the risk to avoid getting beaten, shot, or having to shot someone else. He also clearly did not have a CC permit.

aircooled wrote:

Grizz wrote: Most of the time it doesn't require anything more than pulling the gun.

Is anyone familiar with CC permit training required? Is this part of the training?

Why would their be any kind of training. That would violate the 2nd amendment.

In reply to aircooled:

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.

By the sounds of it, I will guess there is alot more to that one as well. The brandishing part is seen as a threat, therefore making SYG completely null and void there.

In reply to Datsun1500:

He took another life.......however, what we are saying is he has been cleared of the charges brought against him thus far.

To be honest, to think he "Got away scot free" is absurd. Even in self defence, taking another life is a hard burden to tolerate. Add in the BS political part of it, the racist pricks and what not, and he won't be able to go many places without being heckled.

In reply to nocones:

Conceal Carry/Concealed weapons training for does not violate the right to bear arms.

It is very loose standard block of training to apply for the permit. The training is based around some federal and mostly state guidelines for concealing a weapon. The training (based on the state) is onle one part of the process.

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.

Sorry for some reason the Board ate my Trollmode tags on that. I'm only half joking from various 2nd amendment threads we've had in the past where any reasonable amount of liscencing/restrictions make some feel the sky is falling on the 2nd amendment.

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.

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.

There are plenty of people saying that he wasn't innocent, but he was found not guilty. Unfortunately (or actually fortunately) peoples opinions don't convict people. The state couldn't prove he fired in anything other than self defense, and couldn't prove that he was following him with intent to harm.

In reply to nocones:

Hehe