[ArtOfLife]

Originally Posted by FNAL ↗

But it's not Zimmerman's fault he was attacked. That same scenario could have ended just fine and this thread wouldn't even exist if Martin didn't initiate an attack. Saying you should avoid contact because you have a weapon is silly.

Your car analogy doesn't quite fit well into this situation. You are aware of the risks and consequences of taking your eyes off the road when driving and you can guarantee you will hit or hurt something or someone. It's not as if every confrontation of a suspicious person is going to end up in a fight or shooting. Zimmerman was, I'm sure, aware of a potential escalation of some sort, and in an effort to protect himself from harm, shot his assailant. Why do you feel the need to scold the man for protecting his own life in an unfortunate mishap? Shouldn't the lesson in all of this be to not attack other people instead of hide from all suspicious contact because you have a concealed weapon?

We'll have to agree to disagree. If one assumes that Zimmerman was totally innocently walking behind Martin and didn't try to detain him, touch him, or anything else, and Martin decked him for no reason and proceeded to "ground and pound" him (doing a VERY poor job as Zimmerman at very worst had superficial injuries) then sure, Zimmerman wasn't wrong. I'm not going to keep going over it or presenting facts, it's pointless. We all see it differently, and the 6 who matter saw it another way.

I don't want to scold him. But having taken the same courses, and anyone else who has, knows he was dead wrong, and it lead to a death. That's just an end of it. The jury decided he was justified in the face of that, and that's fine. Yes, that should be a lesson since the jury decided the most unlikely scenario is the one that occurred that effectively makes it law and arguing it is pointless. But if anyone thinks Zimmerman wasn't wrong, and did the right thing in the face of facts, training, advice, etc. they are missing the most important point of all. It makes all CCW folks look bad. It sets the precedent that you can ignore all the lessons and rules you work with to obtain it, put yourself in a situation where you are forced to end a life, and there are no legal repercussions to it. That Zimmerman was totally right and made no wrong choices/didn't have any part in causing this, is about the worst thing one can take from it and a major leap into yet unknown depths of dumbassery/ignorance.

[FNAL]

Originally Posted by ArtOfLife ↗

It sets the precedent that you can ignore all the lessons and rules you work with to obtain it, put yourself in a situation where you are forced to end a life, and there are no legal repercussions to it.

I'd have to disagree here. Zimmerman didn't enter the situation knowing he was going to have to end a life, it was just that particular situation. How many neighborhood watch contacts do you know of that have ended in shootings or even a weapon drawn? It seems as if you are saying Zimmerman chose to enter this situation where the only outcome was shooting. I'm betting he entered the situation just to get some information on the guy, exchange a few words and go on his merry way. He was only forced to draw his weapon based on the actions of Martin.

[ArtOfLife]

Originally Posted by FNAL ↗

I'd have to disagree here. Zimmerman didn't enter the situation knowing he was going to have to end a life, it was just that particular situation. How many neighborhood watch contacts do you know of that have ended in shootings or even a weapon drawn? It seems as if you are saying Zimmerman chose to enter this situation where the only outcome was shooting. I'm betting he entered the situation just to get some information on the guy, exchange a few words and go on his merry way. He was only forced to draw his weapon based on the actions of Martin.

Bad wording on my part. Basically I just meant it means you can be utterly reckless as he was, and not be held responsible should your actions lead to something terrible. And to the how many NBW confrontations do I know of, not many. As the first rule there as well is, you call, don't act, follow, interject yourself, etc. Not saying they don't happen and end peacefully, but there's a reason when NBW is set up, the police instruct you on that matter and lay out the reasons for it. When we set ours up, it was the biggest focus they had for us. Since what he did goes against every procedure for NBW and CCW, he really will end up having a hard time in civil court if the Martin family takes him there. He will have to come up with a much better story and a lot more details that make a lot more sense.

Not that you care to, and it doesn't matter now, but you should look into the demonstrations of how he says he was being beaten. And Martin's position. Interestingly when the prosecution made the demonstration, and we tried it at home (with an unloaded/cleared gun of course and no one getting their head bashed ) It's physically impossible to get the weapon with someone on you as he said Martin was, pummeling you. (and just as impossible for the one on top to get at it). Which like the Prosecution said, means he either had it out already, or was able to get free enough of Martin to get at it, which is an interesting point with interesting ramifications if true.

Anyway, I think we agree on some points, not on others, but it is what it is and ended up how it ended up.

[FNAL]

I'll agree with you on not following NBW procedures, but that shouldn't be held against him for having to defend himself. As I was saying before, that confrontation could have ended with only a few words exchanged and this whole debacle wouldn't exist but it is what it is. I haven't followed the case in it's entirety but I think I will check out the demonstrations you mentioned. I am always a skeptic until proven otherwise but I'll check it out. Sir, it has been a gentleman's debate, but I must go outside into the sunlight now.

[ArtOfLife]

Originally Posted by FNAL ↗

I'll agree with you on not following NBW procedures, but that shouldn't be held against him for having to defend himself. As I was saying before, that confrontation could have ended with only a few words exchanged and this whole debacle wouldn't exist but it is what it is. I haven't followed the case in it's entirety but I think I will check out the demonstrations you mentioned. I am always a skeptic until proven otherwise but I'll check it out. Sir, it has been a gentleman's debate, but I must go outside into the sunlight now.

If it was a clear cut case of defense, I would have no problems at all with it. Now technically it is, because a jury found it so. But sort of like you say, a skeptic until proven otherwise, but once you believe something or see enough to make it questionable, even a jury verdict leaves you still thinking something was done wrong.

I'll say one more time, I don't believe Zimmerman went out that night looking to kill someone. I don't even believe he went out looking to find someone to follow, spy on, whatever. I think he genuinely saw someone he thought suspicious, and then did his job as NBW and called it in. I just think every step after was in poor judgement. I also have a hard time believing he did nothing to instigate a fight, but I can see how others see it that way as there are good points made on either side.

You should check them out. That was one of the points that made me question it all, when my wife, not even beating on me, simply straddled me how he said Martin did him, as the prosecutors demonstrated as well, and it was VERY difficult to get at my holster, let alone draw the weapon, or point it with any intent. Add to that a head getting smashed against cement or fists pounding you, it would be orders of magnitude harder still. That fact, combined with the immense unlikelihood of Martin ceasing the beating realizing a gun was being leveled at him and doing nothing to knock it away, make his story questionable to me. If Martin was on top as the gun was drawn, he would have EASILY been able to overpower a dazed Zimmerman, knock it away before it was aimed, and Zimmerman would at very least have had a very hard time getting a clean shot off. Especially when you add in that the shot was totally level, 90 degrees and straight through the heart, pressed against his chest.

Those facts just speak more to me that Zimmerman either had it drawn and Martin was the one in fear for HIS life, or that Zimmerman was able to get him off/interrupt the beating enough to go for the gun and level it uninterrupted. Which would have meant that he had alternative action besides shooting. The beating is without question, Zimmerman was however superficially, beaten. One does not have to get beaten within an inch of their life to justify ending another, just all the circumstances make it highly unlikely to me that Martin attacked him completely unprovoked, and/or that Zimmerman had NO alternative to firing a shot at him.

Gentleman's debate indeed! We see it different ways, but the law spoke and it is what it is :) This is my last huge post on it

[dEAD mICHAEL]

OMG can you two STOP!

[ArtOfLife]

Originally Posted by dEAD mICHAEL ↗

OMG can you two STOP!

I do believe we did, but if we hadn't desired to, no?

[invertigo]

Eyes starting to bleed, Mike?

[invertigo]

On the subject of self defense in general...
Rarely do you ever really need a gun to protect yourself. There is a whole host of non-lethal forms of self defense weapons/items. A good can of mace can spray over 4 feet

It can get frustrating to me to see how many people insist on using a gun in every little scenario they feel threatened, rather then developing ways to incapacitate an aggressor without killing anyone. They exist, and the possibilities are endless but most people are too lazy or complacent to find them.

[Zambini]

Originally Posted by invertigo ↗

On the subject of self defense in general...
Rarely do you ever really need a gun to protect yourself. There is a whole host of non-lethal forms of self defense weapons/items. A good can of mace can spray over 4 feet

It can get frustrating to me to see how many people insist on using a gun in every little scenario they feel threatened, rather then developing ways to incapacitate an aggressor without killing anyone. They exist, and the possibilities are endless but most people are too lazy or complacent to find them.

My wife tried pepper spray against a dog while running one time, it was too difficult to spray at a moving dog, luckily the owner showed up at that time.

Knowing that, I would rather have a taser than spray.

I don't think it's laziness, permit classes and guns are expensive and require a time commitment.

Not saying they are the only answer.